With Evo Morales re-elected in Bolivia because of his socialist policies, I am republishing this 2009 article based on FOIA docs that is a reminder that our own New Labour government did all it could for BP and British Gas to throw Morales off course- they failed -
A sinister minister; Howells's push to clear the way for British profiteers inBolivia
Morning Star
February 6, 2009
When shops find out that something they
sold contained unexpected dangers, they issue a product recall.
From time to time,
small notices in a newspaper carry announcements such as "customers who
purchased Binky the Rabbit children's T-shirts from our store should
discontinue use and return them to us for a complete refund. Some units
unexpectedly contain barbed wire and poisonous ants."
Our government should
now be issuing a product recall through its embassies. "Customers who were
persuaded by Britain and its G7 partners to use neoliberal policies should
discontinue their use. These may cause unexpected economic instability, wipe
away value and require emergency nationalisations."
Britain's foreign
policy, like its economic policy, was based on worshipping banks which
unfortunately turned out to be tin gods. Well, less than tin gods, because at
least if they were you could melt down the metal and sell it on. By contrast,
the banks were based on completely imaginary values, although they made very
real transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich.
This looks most stark
in Britain's relations with Latin America.
Bolivia, for example, made efforts to drag its citizens from poverty by
nationalising their natural resources rather than being dictated to by the
market.
This enraged British
politicians, because our companies were trying hard to exploit Bolivia - Britain's United Utilities tried to
run off with Bolivian water at Cochabamba, while BP and British Gas tried to make off with the country's
hydrocarbons. This inspired urban uprisings that put Bolivia'ssocialist
government in power, much to the regret of our Labour government.
Papers that I obtained
from the Foreign Office under the Freedom of Information Act cover then foreign
office minister Kim Howells's 2007 visit toBolivia.
As I showed last year, the papers reveal that Howells used his time not to
explore Bolivia's anti-poverty programmes or to
understand how a socialist government could be so consistently popular.
Instead, Howells nagged the Evo Morales government about nationalisation.
As the papers record,
"Dr Howells used his meeting with Foreign Minister Choquehuanca to express
our concern about investment security in Bolivia, after the recent wave of
nationalisations of European-owned companies in telecommunications and
hydrocarbons.
"Bolivia had to compete with the rest of the
world for investment. Investors needed to know that Bolivian investment rules
would be consistent over the next 10 years. Private investment was, as in the
UK, a key resource if the government wished to achieve priorities such as
poverty reduction."
Well, as Britain has
now been forced into its own emergency nationalisations, carried out in a
British panic rather than with Bolivian planning, it seems obvious that Howells
owes David Choquehuanca an apology.
However, the Foreign
Office papers also show why being new Labour means never saying sorry - the
documents show that Howells did not make a fraternal visit to the people of Bolivia.
Instead, he came as an emissary of BP and British Gas.
One "steering
brief" for Howells says: "Following the 1 May nationalisation of the
hydrocarbons industries, which affected Shell, Ashmore and BP, the meeting with
Choquehuanca is also an opportune time to discuss investment security."
Another preparatory
paper notes that Howells would meet Choquehuanca and President Morales.
With Choquehuanca, Howells
could "have a chance to make clear how the recent government measures and
rhetoric, and the uncertainty over judicial security, act as a disincentive for
potential foreign investors."
With Morales, "Dr
Howells might, if there is time, also care to mention the nationalisation
process, and how it is sending negative signals to international
investors."
If Howells had any
honesty, he would now have to visit Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson to warn
them against their nationalisations.
Not content with representing
British businessmen against Bolivia's government, the British embassy also
organised a rally of discontented Bolivian businessmen as well.
Howells's visit
included a talk with various Bolivian rightwingers who offered "a
pessimistic message from economic and political analysts." Nobody was
invited from the working-class suburbs of El Alto to deliver a positive message
about Morales reform.
The Foreign Office
documents record: "Dr Howells' visit usefully coincided with the visit of
the EU Commission Director General for External Relations, Eneko Landaburu, who
gave an equally robust private and public message on investment security to the
Bolivian authorities after meeting EU and hydrocarbons company
representatives."
Howells also used the
local newspapers to moan at Morales.
"Dr Howells used
his La Razon interview to make similar points (headline: 'This is a country
with great investment insecurity'): Bolivia needed to open up to the world;
investor confidence was one essential condition of Bolivia making progress in its key
goals."
I am pleased to say
that Bolivia's foreign minister sent Howells away
with a flea in his ear, as "Choquehuanca admitted that Bolivia was taking a risk. But it was a
government priority - on a popular mandate - for Bolivia to take back control of its natural
resources 'after 500 years of pillage by foreigners.'
"The new
constitution, once passed, guaranteed long-term investment, within the context
of a strong state."
British ambassador to Bolivia Nigel Baker summed up Howells's visit
with a sentence that is in equal parts comic and threatening.
He wrote: "Visits
like that of Dr Howells are essential in getting our messages across, but also
in flagging up the dangers faced by an inward-lookingBolivia.
Drugs, energy security, investment security are all at risk if Bolivia goes the wrong way. (Information
redacted)."
The idea that
credit-crunch Britain knows the "right way" to send Bolivia seems silly. But the way that a
secret, "redacted" sentence follows the possibility of Bolivia going the "wrong way" is,
given the history of Latin America, downright sinister.
No comments:
Post a Comment