January 24, 2018

New Cabinet 2018


Only two changes in Evo Morales' new cabinet. Alfredo Rada, who prviously was Minister of Government and Viceminister for Social Movements Coordination, was sworn now as Minister of the Presidency. In addition, Javier Zavaleta, former La Paz deputy for MSM, was sworn as Minister for Defense. The rest of ministers were ratified. 

There were many critical voices within MAS calling for the president to replace some ministers, such as the Health Minister and Minister for Culture, but it seems the president did think they were doing a good job.

Below, you will see a list of the new cabinet taken from the news agency Erbol.


January 17, 2018

Foreign Policy: The US's Approach to Latin America


Many authors have engaged the title of this post mainly to analyze why is the US' policy towards Latin America not working. While critical analysis is a desirable thing to do in order to, among other things, go forward or better (say a policy), in this topic many of the analyses seem verging on the obliviousness to real events. For that reason, an equal number of scholars have proposed new ways on which the formulation of such policy should be anchored on. This post is one more attempt at revising as well as analyzing US foreign policy towards Latin America and proposing a "new" approach, which, in my opinion, is necessary already.

Scholars of foreign policy or international relations like to start revisiting the Monroe Doctrine when thinking about US policy towards its more southern neighbors. For it was in 1823, as President James Monroe gave his annual state of the union speech that he formulated what later would become a fundamental piece of US foreign policy and relations. So fundamental, that even President Reagan referred to it during his presidency and the presidents thereafter did not singnificantly change.

The doctrine, written by Quincy Adams and influenced by Hamilton and others, stated that any attempt at re-colonize the newly independent countries in the Americas by European powers would be seen as a threat to the US. At the same time, the US would seek not to interfere with the remaining European colonies.

The doctrine was so fundamental because it did not only established an approach to address issues involving the Americas but also helped establish a sphere of influence beyond the borders of the United States. It recognized that the security of the US was secured when the borders of those other countries were also secure.

Since the end of the Cold War, the US government has been applying more or less the same approach in dealing with its southern neighbors. This approach involves the promotion of liberal democracy and the establishment of benefitious routes for trade. In the 1960s and 1970s and especially the 1980s, the issue of drug trafficking became one more pillar of that policy. While later on the issues of development and military cooperation also entered the formula. One issue left outside, but which has become fundamental has been the issue of migration south to north.

So every time a new president takes the oath to office in the US, latin americanists, policy analysts and the politically interested asked themselves how will the US policy towards Latin America look like during the next four years. An important question has been: does the US have a sufficiently coherent and adequately modern policy that guides its relationship with Latin America?

The short answer can be, yes, the US has had and still has one of the most coherent approaches towards the region. In fact, it is so coherent that it has not significantly changed since many decades, if not since Monroe. What has not happened is it has not been appropriately conditioned to the most recent developments in the whole region, not only within the US but also in Latin America.

How should this new approach look like?

First, the US should realize once and for all, the Latin American region has been living democracy since at least three decades. It is not the region anymore where the specter of communism was waiting to charge and take over; nor it is the region where a regime change meant a coup d'etat and military dictators were taking the reigns of government thinking they were the most fit to lead a nation.

Second, the US should think twice about continuing treating Latin America as its sphere of influence or its back yard. It should instead think of the region as its neighborhood where many countries with different cultures, ways of life and interests live.

Third, the US should think twice about concentrating heavily on the war on drugs when it deals with Latin America. I think I do not need to remind us that concentrating on one or few issues not only reduces alternatives but tends to simplify what otherwise would be a complex matter. Instead it should approach the region on the basis of a complex relationship with many sides, one of them being the war on drugs. Other important issues of this new era would be migration, financial integration, renewable energy, traditional energy, security, environment, etc.

Fourth, the US should realize that, while the focus on trade is the right thing to do, the emphasis on getting the best deal which might largely benefit one side is not beneficial. Instead, the US should realize that it is only to its benefit that the other side also benefits, and generousely. The larger benefit for the US would be strengthening a potential market of some 500 million people which might end up consuming many US products.

Fifth, the US should stop concentrating on the largest markets such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. Instead, it should also work on strenthening smaller countries such as Ecuador, Peru or Uruguay or Bolivia, for that matter. In fact, it should try to bring to its side as many countries as possible.

Finally, the US should stop treating the countries in Latin America as if they were kids, even if many times they might behave like one. Instead, it should start treating these countries as partners, looking at them eye-to-eye, giving them the respect they are looking for around the world.


January 16, 2018

Freedom House 2018 Report on Freedom in the World and Bolivia


Freedom in the World 2018

Freedom House Website

With an alarming tone titles Freedom House its latest report on freedom in the world, Democracy in Crisis. Indeed, the authors of the report paint a dramatic picture of the world where democracy is under attack or on the decline. They write that political rights and civil liberties, the core values of the freedom in the world scores have been deteriorating around the world. Further, they say 2017 has been the 12th consecutive year democracy has been on decline, and that during this period 113 countries have suffered net declines while only 62 have experienced a net improvement.

Among the Latin American countries with the largest declines in the last 10 years are: Venezuela with -21, Nicaragua with -20, Honduras with -15,  Dominican Republic with -13, and Mexico with -11. Especially dramaticly depicted is the development of the US, which resembles a free fall. The graph the report presents is dramatic, but of course the score is not so. The one thing I find most troubling in the following graph is the arrow pointing down, which suggests to me the fall will continue.

As far as Bolivia is concerned, the authors continue with a negative evaluation of the developments in the country. Bolivia is scored at 67 of 100 possible points, where as you know 100 is most free. It is down one point from 68 in 2017.

The main reason why Bolivia is listed as decline is "due to a constitutional court ruling that abolished term limits and paved the way for President Evo Morales to run for a fourth term in 2019."

The country's report is not out yet, but you can take a look at the prior report. I expect to read many of the same things in the new report, plus an analysis of the constitutional court ruling and its developments.

December 06, 2017

Bolivia Elects New Justices of Higher Courts

On December 3, 2017, amidst a controversial decision by the country’s constitutional court that in the end allows president Morales to run for office for an unprecedented fourth consecutive time, Bolivians headed to the ballot boxes to elect justices for the higher courts of the judicial branch. The election results seem to have been significantly affected by the court’s decision. The null and blank votes reached 50 percent while the valid votes reached only a third of the total. These results, according to general interpretation, reflect an overwhelming rejection of the court’s decision and of Morales’ intentions to run for office once again.

Bolivia’s 2009 Constitution prescribes four institutions comprising the country’s judicial system. The constitution court is in charge of constitutional questions; the supreme court is there to address important legal cases; the council of magistrates is supposed to address administrative and disciplinary issues; and finally, the agro-environmental court addresses agricultural-environmental issues. All three courts and the council are headed by a board of justices, with different compositions. All these justices have been up for election this time around.

The results of Sunday’s elections show an out of the ordinary outcome at the national level in favor of the null and blank votes, i.e. over fifty percent, while valid votes make up about a third.
For the Agro-environmental court the null and blank votes are 52 and 14 percent respectively. In similar terms, 52 and 16 percent of voters chose to vote null and blank, respectively, when it came to the Council of Magistrates. These two sets of numbers came out after 97 percent of precincts were counted. Alternatively, the results for the supreme and constitutional courts are reported by department. In that manner, the average of null and blank votes on the nine departments is 48 and 17 percent respectively at the national level. The average of precincts counted is almost 99 percent.
The results highlighted here are preliminary and come directly from the electoral agency’s website at www.oep.org.bo where you can access them differentiated by institution and geography. At the same time, it is worth highlighting that the level of participation was an elevated 70 to 80 percent, depending on the department.

The government and the various oppositional groups have already offered their own interpretations of the results. The government interprets the judicial elections and its results as having achieved the intended purpose. First, the elections happened in an orderly and (to the publication of this article) clean manner. Second, justices for the four institutions were elected. The vice president argued any result with any number of votes would be more democratic compared to the previous appointment system. Third, the judicial system in Bolivia is better because the justices are elected by the population and not by congress. Finally, Bolivia is at the forefront in the world because it elects its high justices.

Meanwhile, opposition groups interpret the results mainly as an overwhelming rejection, first, to the constitutional court’s decision which in the end will allow Morales to run again for office and to Morales’ intention to run again. In addition, many groups are upset that because of these decisions (by the constitutional court and Mr. Morales’), the results of the past referendum held on February 21, 2016, when the no vote won with 52% against a government proposal to reform the 2009 constitution to allow re-election, are not being taking into account. In fact, many groups say this result is being ignored.

As a result, many groups have turned out into the streets to express their rejection and their unhappiness with the government’s actions. Many protests in major cities have been repressed by police and there have been some arrests and injuries of protesters. In Santa Cruz, there is a call to stage a general strike, halting business and day to day life. In Tarija, a group of students has entered into a hunger strike aiming at forcing the government, as they say, respect the country’s decisions. The government is also organizing gatherings in La Paz, to demonstrate support for its actions.
I expect these demonstrations to continue for at least some several weeks. Demonstrators seems resolute to resist the government’s actions. The political opposition is preparing several legal actions which involve submitting legal recourses to the constitutional court as well as appealing to international courts such as the inter-american human rights court.

December 04, 2017

Elections of Higher Post in the Judicial Branch


On Sunday, December 3, 2017, Bolivians headed once again to the ballot boxes to elect the members of higher courts. There are four instances to elect members of: the Tribunal Agroambiental (Agro-environment Tribunal), Consejo de la Magistratura (Magistrates Council - regulates and controls the judicial branch), Tribunal Supremo de Justicia (Supreme Court), and the Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional (Constitutional Court).

This is the second time such elections happen since the 2009 Constitution. The first time, in 2011, the process was qualified as normal. That meant, people went to vote, issued their votes and results were counted and new justices were elected. Yesterday's process was, to a large extent, "normal", with the exception that the number of blank and null votes exceeds 50%.

The reason for that is the decision of the outgoing Constitutional Tribunal that allows Evo Morales to run for an unprecedented fourth presidential term. Mas supporters submitted a petition to basically declare many articles in the 2009 constitution unconstitutional because they violated the political rights (ergo human rights) of anyone who wanted to run for office. The legal bases were the articles in an international piece of legislation that seeks to guarantee these rights. For more on that please read prior posts.

The result of that decision to accept the argument presented by the MAS was that Mr. Morales can (and will) run again for office in 2019. As you know, in presidential systems there is a long-standing belief sufficiently grounded by the founding fathers of the USA that presidents tend to want to perpetuate themselves in office. In these systems, the fact that a president seeks to stay in office more than what is allowed is seen as suspect. There is a very present association with authoritarian regimes, if not dictatorships.

In any case, the elections happened and now the electoral court is busy counting the votes of the people. Preliminary counts, what Bolivians call rapid count, already tell us that the blank and null votes are leading the way. As this video from the latest report tell us. It is from the electoral court, at 81% of all the precincts counted at 9:44 pm.

Source: Results at 80,7% count. Preliminary report from the TSE. https://youtu.be/zjJ7L_Z7Jk8 (December 3, Red Uno, 21:44 Hrs.)

November 30, 2017

Evo Morales, Allowed to Run Again for the Presidency


Source: ABI

Evo Morales will be able to run again in 2019 for an unprecedented fourth presidential term. That is how the opposing political forces are interpreting the constitutional court's finding regarding a "Abstract recourse of unconstitutionality" submitted by MAS' congress men and women to the court in September 2017. The decision has triggered sharp reactions from the opposition and many spontaneous demonstrations condemning it in major cities such as La Paz, Cochabamba and Santa Cruz. The government has shown itself pleased with the decision and so have the political forces supporting Morales' re-election.

The decision involves the nullification of all the articles within the 2009 constitution, and the subsequent change of the electoral law, which set limits to the terms higher public officials have once elected to office. In the case of the president, the vice president, governors and assembly members, the term was five years with the possibility for re-election of two consecutive times. These limits are now nullified and the result is that a president or governor can run for office indefinitely. 

The reaction on the streets has been widespread. Hours after the announcement of the decision by the court's president, people gathered around the government buildings of major regional capital cities. In La Paz, protesters encountered police resistance which provoked clashes, but no serious violence. In contrast, in Santa Cruz and Cochabamba groups of mainly young protesters proceeded to enter government buildings to which police forces responded firmly and aggressively. In Santa Cruz there were even some reports of arrests and in Cochabamba the press reported the use of rubber bullets. However, the reaction has been largely moderate, with opposition leaders making alarming comments as to the beginning of the end for the Bolivian democratic process and the government ignoring the decision made by the population in the

On its part, the government reacted calmly. Evo Morales praised the decision and highlighted its contribution to political stability and the continuation of the process of change. He also reminded the people that not only he and the vice president would benefit from such decision but every Bolivian who wants to run of any public office. In that respect, beneficiaries are also governors, mayors, assembly members and so on. Similar was the reaction of many government officials and of many social movement leaders, who praised the decision as a significant contribution to democracy and not against it.

Another political fallout is the call by the opposition to nullify the vote in the so called "judicial elections" on Sunday, December 3. On this day, Bolivians will be electing judges to the most important courts in the country, including the supreme court and the constitutional court. The opposition has been promoting the nullified vote and now this strategy might have a real chance to succeed. Meanwhile, the government has been campaigning against such strategy. After all, if people vote null in significant numbers, this time around, it will be interpreted as a vote against the re-election of Evo Morales. That is what the government wants to avoid at all costs.

Moreover, in a somewhat unusual move, the US government has issued a statement urging Evo Morales to desist running in 2019 and to remember the results of the February 21, 2016 referendum when the no to allowing Morales to run again won by 51.3%. The short statement states: "The United States is deeply concerned by the November 28 ruling of the Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia to declare inapplicable provisions of the country’s constitution that prohibit elected officials, including the President, from serving more than two consecutive terms. The decision disregards the will of the Bolivian people as confirmed in recent referendum"

At the same time, Luis Almagro, OAS Secretary General, also criticized the court's finding calling it inaccurately interpreted. In similar terms, several political personalities, Carlos Mesa, Jorge Quiroga,Victor Hugo Cárdenas, current Governor of Santa Cruz, Rubén Costas and Unidad Nacional's leader, Samuel Doria Medina, jointly expressed their rejection of the decision and announced the construction of a "real alternative" political force for the coming general elections in 2019.

In the end, the implications of such decision are manifold. To start of, the 2009 constitution has been reformed. The phrase expressing the term limits "por una sola vez  de manera continua" (something like, for one time and in continued manner) will have to be removed, not only from the constitution but also from the electoral law. Now, some doubts arise in regards of the reform process. Will this reform be total or partial? Article 411 of the same constitution stipulates there are two types of reform. Total reform, which concerns the fundamental ideas within it, such as rights, responsibilities and guarantees, will have to be carried out by a constitutional assembly. A partial reform, which remains undefined, will have to be carried out through a reform law issued by the Bolivian Assembly (both lower and upper houses), which will have to be approved by a referendum.

A more immediate reaction might be on the results of Sunday's judicial elections, as mentioned above. On December 3, Bolivians will vote to elect new judges for the various courts, among them the Supreme and the Constitutional courts. This decision might provide support for the opposition's null vote strategy to undermine the government's work. That is certainly a possibility.

Another consequence will be the re-election of Evo Morales. Morales has repeatedly said he leaves this decision to the Bolivian peoples. In this case, the people has spoken through the initiative to submit this petition to the constitutional court. In fact, this decision was one of four paths MAS supporters decided to follow in a meeting back in December 2016. Now that the decision to allow Morales and other heads of sub national governments to run again has been made, Morales intends to follow through with his intention to run again. Of course, the opposition sees Morales' decision to run once again as his intention to stay in power indefinitely. Morales, of course, denies this claim. Fact is, he (and other politicians) can run again for a fourth term. Fact is also, that he will still have to be elected by the popular vote.

Well, now some skeptics will say now, Morales controls government, the assembly and the electoral court and therefore he is bound to win the next elections. Others will claim he will manipulate those elections. Some commentators have already advanced this claim. However, one thing that makes me stop before I join this line of opinion is the fact that previous elections have been observed by international organizations such as the EU and the Carter Center and the reports have largely been positive calling those electoral processes free.

One worrying consequence might be that a political crisis might be brewing in Bolivia. People who have supported the no vote in the 2016 referendum feel very angry. In fact, most people who voted for the no must be feeling angry as well. After all, the no won. These people believed the electorate or "the people" have spoken and that was it. They do not perceive the "people" as the sovereign for no reason. They think the "people" has the last word. The question is, what will these people are willing to do now that their work and wish have been in vain. The potential for an escalation of events is there. If you saw the images in Santa Cruz or Cochabamba, you must have heard some of those people calling for resistance, even violent resistance. That is worrying.

October 30, 2017

The Re-election Issue Comes Back to Hunt Bolivia


Re-election has been a recurring issue in Bolivian politics. It seems the MAS forces as well as the government are intent on allowing Evo Morales remain in the presidential office. The first time, back in April 2013, Morales was allowed by the Supreme Court to run again by ruling the first time Morales was elected in 2005 did not count towards the two terms allowed because it happened before the new Plurinational State was founded in 2009. The second time, official political forces asked the population in a referendum whether the amendment of article 168 in the constitution, which would allow a one time re-election of Evo Morales and his VP for a period 2015 - 2020, would be allowed.The result was a narrow negative to amending the constitution.

Now, the third time, the same political forces have gone back to the legal path. This time around, the government is raising an issue of constitutionality about some articles within the same constitution. The government has submitted a petition (in Bolivia known in legal terms as Recurso de Inconstitutionalidad, and in English maybe translated to recourse or procedure or appeal) to the Constitutional Tribunal or in other words Constitutional Court to take a look at some articles within the current Bolivian constitution to see if they are unconstitutional. 

The argument is somewhat convoluted. Basically it says the term limit on the presidency of no more than two times restricts the political rights of Bolivians when it comes to having the human right to run for office without being restricted. Legally, the people who presented this appeal are arguing that by restricting terms in a public office, the constitution is unconstitutional because it is violating the political, which is equaled to human rights, to run for any office or to be elected. The argument finds the solution in article 256 in the same constitution, which allows the application of international norms superseding the same constitution, such as the American Convention on Human Rights, which in its article 23 defines the right to be elected as a human right.

I ask myself, what is the logic behind this argument? The more I think about it, the more I question the logic. Granted I am not a lawyer, I dare to think aloud about this issue.

The argument does not seem to be logic to me. To start of, it seems to me, it is being argued the Bolivian constitution can be subordinated to an international norm such as the above mentioned convention on human rights. As far as I know, these type of conventions or international laws have to be ratified by the country's congresses. These ratification processes go through, among other things, a process of constitutionality, i.e. whether they are not contrary to the constitution. This means to me that such laws have to be in accordance with the constitution, which is the supreme law in the land, and nothing and nobody is above it.

However, there is another point in the logic of the argument that makes me more skeptic. In such an appeal or procedure of unconstitutionality, where the objective is to see if a legal text is contradictory to the constitution, the text being looked at has to be compared to the constitution. Now I ask myself, how in the world are the constitutional judges going to take text from the Bolivian constitution and compare it to the same constitution to rule whether this text is constitutional or not? It seems they would be measuring something that is defective with itself.

Third, and final point, it is being assumed the political right of a person (lets say, from Evo Morales) is being restricted by applying the notion of terms in office. The result, a person cannot run for office, therefore his or her political right, which is also a human right, according to the convention, is being restricted. That cannot be. Well, that might be true, however we are forgetting here to differentiate between two things: One, the fundamental right of a person to run for public office in a country. Two, the equally fundamental notion of delimiting the terms of a president in office.

Because the first issue is so basic and easily understandable as well as being widely accepted, I will elaborate on the second issue. The reasons why a constitution allows for term limits in high office is to protect the democratic system from becoming eventually a de-facto authoritarian or dictatorship system of government. This is, in nature, a defense mechanism the system build within itself to protect the democratic process. In many countries, this restrictions are reserved for the higher positions, while other officials such as mayors or the like could be re-elected many times. 

In the particular case of Evo Morales, which is at the center of our concern, he was indeed guaranteed, with the current constitution and with the one before, his right to run for elections. In fact, he has been running for office since the early 80s. He has been deputy and is not president of Bolivia. In this manner, it seems to me his political and human right to run for office has been protected and guaranteed by the Constitutions of Bolivia.
Where will this issue end? We are all expecting the issue will end at the Constitutional Tribunal. Because the argument seems to be weak. However, if the tribunal allows Morales to run again the matter will last until the next elections in 2019. Then, the people of Bolivia will have the opportunity to once and for all tell Mr. Morales he should make place for someone new.

October 29, 2017

Summary: The Bolivian economy 2016 to 2017

Noted in prior assessments, Bolivia has profited in the past from the boom in commodity prices, especially higher prices in natural gas, Bolivia's most important natural resource. The country was able to accumulate a substantial amount of financial resources, something that has been useful to weather more recent times when those prices have declined. Currently, Bolivia has been experiencing a more delicate economic situation, where past surpluses have turned into deficits and the government having to rely more on those reserves and on credit. While Bolivia has been growing at decent rates and is forecasted to continue growing, the economic future has turned a bit more gray.

The government follows two plans in order to implement its agenda. One plan, which is more like a framework, is the so called Patriotic Agenda 2025, issued five years ago. The plan calls for the eradication of poverty and improvements in access to health and education as well as government-led economic development. A second plan, the five year Economic and Social Development Plan, emphasizes public investment to spur growth. That investment is aimed at industrializing the country through the creation of national industries, such as cement, carton or paper factories. Other aims are the subsidization of necessity goods to keep prices accessible and social transfers. 

All those efforts have been burdening the economy in several ways. To start, we take a look at GDP growth. Continuing the trend my prior analysis identified (see here and here), growth in the Bolivian economy has been slowing down. Not only several international organization such as the IMF, the World Bank and the CEPAL, but also independent think tanks within Bolivia and, to a certain extent, the Bolivian government itself, have confirmed this trend. So is, that the Fundacion Milenio (independent Bolivian think tank) reports in its latest assessment of the Bolivian economy, that growth for 2016 has been 4.3 per cent, whereas the same in 2015 was 4.9 per cent and in 2014, 5.5 per cent. For 2017, the expectations between the Bolivian government and the rest take different directions. Similarly, the government expects a 4.7 per cent growth, while the IMF and the CEPAL estimate a rate of growth of 4 per cent and the World Bank estimates a 3.5 per cent growth. 

The main factors for this slower economic development continues to be the already reported breakdown of exports, of which, the predominant cause is the fall in the volume of natural gas exports to Brazil and Argentina. The volume of natural gas sales to both countries in 2015 was 49 million cubic feet, while in 2016 this fell to 43 million cubic feet. For an economy, such as the Bolivian economy, dependent on the sale of natural resources, the fall of prices in international markets of natural gas and oil has meant a serious economic challenge. 

The most immediate effect of this decline in exports has been, the decline in public investment. The government has been feeling the pressure of having less financial resources available. As such, it has had to make difficult decisions as to which projects to continue financing, which new projects to start financing and which ones to stop financing. In 2015, public investment grew at 8.5 per cent, while in 2016 growth was registered at 2.4 per cent. This slow in growth was much more felt at the departmental level of government.

Despite of the negative trend, some sectors of the economy have experienced some relative growth. For example, the financial services sector has been growing at a 7.9 per cent and the construction sector at a 7.8 per cent in 2016. Agriculture has grown in the same year at a 3.1 per cent, in spite of the harshest drought in 25 years. Finally, the mining sector -especially small and cooperative enterprises- has been growing at a 4.7 per cent. 

Another factor in the slowing down of the economy has been the hesitant domestic consumption, which up until recently was a stabilizing factor for the economy, but since 2015 it showed a decline from 5.2 per cent in 2015 to 3.4 per cent in 2016. This reduction happened in spite of the government efforts to precisely induce more consumption through increase in salaries, subsidize prices of some goods and strengthen the value of the Boliviano against the Dollar. 

All this has had the effect of bringing back the problem of the budget deficit, a problem that Bolivia has not had for a number of years. For 2016, the fiscal deficit was 6.6 per cent and for 2017, it has been estimated to be reaching 7.8 per cent. In the last years, this deficit has been financed in the order of 70 per cent by the central bank and the rest through external credits.

The combination of policies aiming at strengthening domestic demand, keeping the Boliviano strong and a high level of public investment, has tended to keep the economy growing. However, the danger of such policies has been to increase demand for import, which are anything but supporting of the production of local goods and services and therefore of consumption. Furthermore, the pressures building on the financial side of the economy, such as the fiscal deficit, the expansion of the monetary base through large government investments, the subsidies and the unstable international environment, are still a concern for the government.

June 09, 2017

Bolivia's UN Security Countil Presidency


On the first of June this year, Bolivia took the rotating presidency of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the duration of one month. During this time, Bolivia will seek to continue pressing the world on paying attention to issues such as peace, weapons proliferation, and the right to access water around the world.

Bolivia has been a UN member since 1945, and having been a member of the UNSC in two occasions already, from 1964 to 1965 and from 1978 to 1979, it currently finds itself in its third time in this exclusive club, from 2017 to 2018. In the course of these memberships, Bolivia has held the council's presidency five times prior to June 2017, that is in January and December 1964, in November 1965, in June 1978, and in November 1979.

This time around, the issues Bolivia seeks to bring to the councils agenda are: preventive diplomacy and transboundary water, explosive hazards, international peace and security, terror acts, peace building and sustainable peace, peace keeping missions, issues on Cote de Ivore and Palestine, and Haiti.

If you want to follow the work of Bolivia in the Security Council, you can visit the Security Council's website. 


May 11, 2017

Sustainable Development Goals: Bolivia's Development


After a while, I am posting something interesting. The World Bank (WB) just released its Sustainable Development Goals Report for 2017. For those of you who remember, these are the former Millennium Goals.

This measurement, which looks at some 17 categories, to rank countries on a four quarter scale of low income, lower middle income, upper middle income and high income pretends to measure the stage of development a country finds itself at a certain time, in this case, it would be 2017. The categories are listed below for your information. They have been extracted from the document, hopefully with the good will of the WB.

“World Bank. 2017. Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals 2017 : From World Development Indicators. World Bank Atlas;. Washington, DC: World Bank. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/26306 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
If you need more detailed information on each of the categories head to the link above and download the report. It will give you a load of information based on the WB's data, neatly arranged data following the categories, fully illustrated, in about 131 pages.

If you want specific information on a country, I suggest you go directly to the WB's data site. To get information on a specific country through the report is a bit difficult. You will have to read the whole report. If you have time, by all means, do it.

My own impression on Bolivia is the country has been accumulating a positive record on many of the SDGs goals. This is most notably in the areas of poverty, hunger, health, well-being, education, gender equality, clean water, and sanitation as well as clean energy. The critic on this positive development has been the marginality of the improvement versus the available resources ($$$).

In other areas, especially on institutions (justice, government, civil society), sustainability of cities and of economic development, as well as action on climate issues, the country's development has been more than questionable, measured with the SDGs tools.

Overall, an interesting read. Enjoy.