Politics and the Media

The biggest news here this past week has been the ejection of the American ambassadors from Bolivia and Venezuela, as well as the situation in Bolivia generally. In contrast, the New York Times (the only American media I get here regularly) dedicated little attention to the issue. On the one hand, the financial news in America is big and important, so I can understand decisions to displace other items for it. At the same time, the American media's coverage makes it really easy to miss some very important things that are happening down here. In large part, this rises from a simple lack of interest in a part of the world that still does not seriously threaten American interests. I also think it's difficult for the American media to make sense of these events in a way that doesn't completely clash with our self-image of America as defender or at leas supporter of democracy. The historical memory and cultural context through which South Americans view this event is completely different from the American perspective.

First, a bit of context: The current unrest in Bolivia centers around Moraeles' efforts to nationalize its natural gas industry. Most of the gas is in the richer, whiter, eastern part of the country, while the mostly indigenous west remains poor. This week, groups from these eastern provinces began to rebel violently against Morales' efforts. Morales accused America of supporting these groups and ejected the American ambassador.

It's easy to write off such accusations as crazy and to dismiss the ejection as a populist and largely symbolic move. But in South America, most adults have lived through at least one violent, repressive military dictatorship aided by America. My host mom, one of these people, considers it obvious that America is aiding the rebel groups in Bolivia, just as they've always aided the rich, white conservatives. Like several current South American leaders, Morales comes from a poor background and promotes leftist views. Despite the fact that most Bolivians are of indigenous descent, he is the first indigenous president of Bolivia. Many people I've talked to view the current political situation as an example of South America finally standing up to the meddling United States and to the oligarchy that invites these foreign powers. I should emphasize that I've been exposed to a very leftist current of Argentinian society, attending UBA and living with a liberal family. At the same time, support for Morales goes beyond merely leftist groups. Immediately after Morales ejected the US ambassador, the leaders of every major South American country met to declare their support for Morales. I think that decision is telling. Almost all of these governments at least lean to the left, but I think their support for Morales shows to a wider, very popular trend of rejection of American intrusion.

In my opinion, the relative dearth of New York Times coverage partially results from the clash between the South American conception of the situation and the North American one. To them, it is obvious, important, and unforgiveable that we supported their dictators. In America, that history rarely discussed. And if we ignore that context - the history of European and American interference in South American affairs with the help of the domestic ruling classes - it is difficult to understand the significance of everything that has followed.