Santa Cruz moves towards independence

A major part of Bolivia, Santa Cruz has voted in favour of autonomy from the central, currently Leftist, government. The province is the richest in Bolivia and has the most top lose from government plans to re-distribute land and address indigenous inequality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7385662.stm
This looks pretty self-interested in my opinion, these people are afraid of losing their monopoly on wealth in the area. The situation will get worse, as more regions are due to vote.

905 wrote:

A major part of Bolivia, Santa Cruz has voted in favour of autonomy from the central, currently Leftist, government. The province is the richest in Bolivia and has the most top lose from government plans to re-distribute land and address indigenous inequality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7385662.stm
This looks pretty self-interested in my opinion, these people are afraid of losing their monopoly on wealth in the area. The situation will get worse, as more regions are due to vote.

That was a very good link to Burma, but I couldn't find the Bolivian story.

Crap sorry. How 'bout this: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7F8E4F62-439C-4955-BD05-114CD668FAB9.htm
I don't think the Beeb picked up this story. It was in the Irish Times yesterday.

It is interesting to see how interested the western democracies are in abkhazia and santa cruz. I suggest it is to prepare western citizens to support economic measures to bring about these secessions. It also puts a new slant on the western support for Kosovan independence.

Ah yes, what a can of worms Kososvo is turing out to be. I'll listen to the Serbs next time! Considering the US's stance on the Pink Tide it will be interesting to see how they (and we) react to these developments.

Have you ever read Nostromo? It has a similar plot.

It is just another example of secessionist movements as people want smaller states while others push for socialist superstates. I have like most only scant knowledge of Bolivia but maybe the well off part is sick of paying for the poorer regions. There is likely outside forces at hand to hold on to valuable resourses here as well. The leader who was nationalising resourses is to be cut out of the equation it seems.

youngdan wrote:

It is just another example of secessionist movements as people want smaller states while others push for socialist superstates. I have like most only scant knowledge of Bolivia but maybe the well off part is sick of paying for the poorer regions. There is likely outside forces at hand to hold on to valuable resourses here as well. The leader who was nationalising resourses is to be cut out of the equation it seems.

I can't think of any seccessionist movements that don't include some idea of allegience to a more distant and powerful organisation. It remains to be seen whether Santa Cruz will demand (or attract) any recognition.

The rich in Bolivia are generally the white population who basically robbed the locals. The indians, who make up 60% of the population, have to make do with poorer land and less access to resources; they might be forgiven for thinking they had a right to what was taken from them.

I am not familiar with Boliva but would you use the same reasoning for Belgium for example where one side is tired paying for the other or Italy where rich Italians are tired of paying for poor Italians.

I'm not familiar with the Belgian or Italian examples you use. Are there really seccessionist movements there? Proper ones mind, not some crackpot party with four members.

Either way, they would have less of an obligation than white Bolivians, who got their wealth through the sufferings of the Indians.

The Italian people call themselves the Lombards or Northern League
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord
They won 11% of the vote in 96. When the economy turns down secessionist movements will grow in all areas. I have seen a report that I must check on that the winning Italian party recently looks on Franco as their model and the mayor of Rome is called Il Duce.
As regards the Bolivians, the natives most likely got screwed as it happened everyplace else. I think it was Brazil recently that paid off all their IMF loans and sent them packing. The more countries that send the imf, world bank and all UN scavergers packing the better.

As far as I can remember, mussolini's grandaughter was a member.

youngdan wrote:

The Italian people call themselves the Lombards or Northern League
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lega_Nord
They won 11% of the vote in 96. When the economy turns down secessionist movements will grow in all areas. I have seen a report that I must check on that the winning Italian party recently looks on Franco as their model and the mayor of Rome is called Il Duce.
As regards the Bolivians, the natives most likely got screwed as it happened everyplace else. I think it was Brazil recently that paid off all their IMF loans and sent them packing. The more countries that send the imf, world bank and all UN scavergers packing the better.

What about NATO?

905 wrote:

Ah yes, what a can of worms Kososvo is turing out to be. I'll listen to the Serbs next time! Considering the US's stance on the Pink Tide it will be interesting to see how they (and we) react to these developments.

Have you ever read Nostromo? It has a similar plot.

Boliva has nothing to do with Kosovo. This has been coming since long before Kosovo declared Indpendence. I doubt most of the people who voted even know about Kosovo.

Can't see how they can really break away given their internal isolation and lack of outside support.

More like they will build enough leverage to force Morales to back off.

Last thing Bolivia needs is a Civil War!

Got to agree with 905, and I entirely blame the EU for being craven about it. While I actually support Kosovan self-determination, the form it took, particularly in detaching or jettisoning links with Serbia prior to future accession to the EU where it will have to share sovereignty (de facto and arguably de jure) with that same Serbia, and other neighbours beggars belief. Surely someone could have looked at the North and said, 'hold on, let's be inventive about this and have overlapping authority, etc, etc'. Re Santa Cruz, hard to take it seriously as Brandubh says, but this tension between autonomy and independence is going to run and run globally. And here I'd differ somewhat from you Rocky, insofar as Kosovo provides the precedent (although Kosovan independence is a thin and conditional thing). It doesn't matter if most people don't know about Kosovo, you can bet that those involved in nationalist politics know about it well. Not for nothing did Spain take a very negative approach to the Kosovan situation, considering their own struggles with autonomy.

riadach wrote:

As far as I can remember, mussolini's grandaughter was a member.

Wasn't she a member of the Fini's crowd, post MSI, and then didn't she split away to form her own splinter far-right crowd? Or did she then align with the others?

Rocky wrote:

Bolivia has nothing to do with Kosovo. This has been coming since long before Kosovo declared Indpendence. I doubt most of the people who voted even know about Kosovo.

When I mentioned Kosovo, I was think of the outside perspective. Potential supportive states will claim they have a precedent now. And I doubt the good folks in Santa Cruz were entirely ignorant of the creation of a new country, which has been on the cards for eight years now.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

riadach wrote:

As far as I can remember, mussolini's grandaughter was a member.

Wasn't she a member of the Fini's crowd, post MSI, and then didn't she split away to form her own splinter far-right crowd? Or did she then align with the others?

More than likely. There is a good chance I have it completely wrong. I should start analysing my memories like hadith, and consider the chain of transmission. I had presumed my 6th year history teacher was infallible until now.

But Croatia Bosnia and Slovenia did not declare independence from Serbia. They declared it from a federation of which they were equal parts. Unfortunately, becaused it involved no partition, it is a significantly different case. (Not that I disagree with Kosova Indepedence).

Rocky wrote:

WorldbyStorm wrote:

Got to agree with 905, and I entirely blame the EU for being craven about it. While I actually support Kosovan self-determination, the form it took, particularly in detaching or jettisoning links with Serbia prior to future accession to the EU where it will have to share sovereignty (de facto and arguably de jure) with that same Serbia, and other neighbours beggars belief. Surely someone could have looked at the North and said, 'hold on, let's be inventive about this and have overlapping authority, etc, etc'. Re Santa Cruz, hard to take it seriously as Brandubh says, but this tension between autonomy and independence is going to run and run globally. And here I'd differ somewhat from you Rocky, insofar as Kosovo provides the precedent (although Kosovan independence is a thin and conditional thing). It doesn't matter if most people don't know about Kosovo, you can bet that those involved in nationalist politics know about it well. Not for nothing did Spain take a very negative approach to the Kosovan situation, considering their own struggles with autonomy.

Kosovo tried to make an agreement with Serbia and there were talks for years. However Serbia would not accept Kosovo's Independence and due to that they inevitably failed. Kosovo has massive unemployment, among other problems and while it stayed in the state it was those problems would be not solved and the people would continue to suffer. If Serbia continued to refuse to accept Kosovo Independence, which they did then eventually Kosovo would have to take a stand and declare its Independence unilaterally, which it did. If an area cannot become Independence without the consent of the State that is occupying it, then the notion of national self-determination is dead and it's also undemocratic.

On the issue of precedent Kosovo isn't the first area to declare its Independence unilaterally, not even close, Ireland did it, although we rowed back on that. It's also not the first country to declare Independence unilaterally from Serbia and to be recognised by most of the West. Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia all did, so I'm lost on how this somehow new.

I don't think that's entirely correct. Kosovo always had a somewhat anomalous position even with the FRY. Nor were the structures of Kosovo national 'state' structures although they have clearly developed towards them. This was in part a sop to Serbia and perhaps a sense that an historical legacy had to be addressed, but not yet. So it wasn't a case of a pre-existing Kosovan polity occupied by the Serbs and suppressed by them, or at least not entirely. Secondly historically, rightly or wrongly Serbia could put forward the argument that Kosovo was a province of Serbia. This wasn't a simple occupation, but more analogous say to the British/Irish situation in that it had developed over centuries. The 'occupation' is a tricky one to parse out since there were Serbs within Kosovo for centuries. Thirdly, nor is it quite correct to say that the talks can be characterised as Kosovo trying to make an agreement with Serbia as if these were essentially uncontested state players. Serbia always saw Kosovo as the lesser partner (at best). One can, and perhaps should, disagree with that position, but it describes a political and psychological reality that made the process of disengagement from Serbia much much more difficult.

As regards self-determination. Well, that's a movable feast, isn't it? If Kosovo, why not the Basque country? Or Corsica, or indeed the North? I think self-determination while absolutely correct may well require much more innovative forms within which to frame it, in Kosovo and elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong. I support Kosovan independence, but not in this form.

As regards precedent I can only quote Misha Glenny, far from a Serb apologist, who writes in Prospect last month that:

Quote :

...far from London and Washington’s [insistence] that Kosovo was a “unique” case whose recognition would have no implications for secessionist issues elsewhere in the world. But when push came to shove, it turned out that the Russians were the ones with their finger on the global pulse. Almost everyone else in the world saw Kosovo as an uncomfortable precedent. The point is not whether recognition of Kosovo’s independence was right or wrong, but that EU supporters of independence failed to make the political case on the wider global stage.

or in the same edition Shaun Walker who writes;

Quote :

But in recognising Kosovo, the west has admitted that there are sometimes circumstances when a country’s territorial integrity can be violated without its consent. Quite how one determines whether or not a separatist region “deserves” international recognition is difficult to say.

That's a huge can of worms that has been opened and without any clear principles underpinning it whatsoever (bar, arguably, proximity to the "west").