When the military forces the elected president to “step down” (New York Times, 11/10/19), there’s a four-letter word for that.
Army generals appearing on television to demand the resignation and arrest of an elected civilian head of state seems like a textbook example of a coup. And yet that is certainly not how corporate media are presenting the weekend’s events in Bolivia.
No establishment outlet framed the action as a coup; instead, President Evo Morales “resigned” (ABC News, 11/10/19), amid widespread “protests” (CBS News, 11/10/19) from an “infuriated population” (New York Times, 11/10/19) angry at the “election fraud” (Fox News, 11/10/19) of the “full-blown dictatorship” (Miami Herald, 11/9/19). When the word “coup” is used at all, it comes only as an accusation from Morales or another official from his government, which corporate media have been demonizing since his election in 2006 (FAIR.org, 5/6/09, 8/1/12, 4/11/19).
The New York Times (11/10/19) did not hide its approval at events, presenting Morales as a power-hungry despot who had finally “lost his grip on power,” claiming he was “besieged by protests” and “abandoned by allies” like the security services. His authoritarian tendencies, the news article claimed, “worried critics and many supporters for years,” and allowed one source to claim that his overthrow marked “the end of tyranny” for Bolivia. With an apparent nod to balance, it did note that Morales “admitted no wrongdoing” and claimed he was a “victim of a coup.” By that point, however, the well had been thoroughly poisoned.
CNN (11/10/19) dismissed the results of the recent election, where Bolivia gave Morales another term in office, as beset with “accusations of election fraud,” presenting them as a farce where “Morales declared himself the winner.” Time’s report (11/10/19) presented the catalyst for his “resignation” as “protests” and “fraud allegations,” rather than being forced at gunpoint by the military. Meanwhile, CBS News (11/10/19) did not even include the word “allegations,” its headline reading, “Bolivian President Evo Morales Resigns After Election Fraud and Protests.”
Delegitimizing foreign elections where the “wrong” person wins, of course, is a favorite pastime of corporate media (FAIR.org, 5/23/18). There is a great deal of uncritical acceptance of the Organization of American States’ (OAS) opinions on elections, including in coverage of Bolivia’s October vote (e.g., BBC, 11/10/19; Vox, 11/10/19; Voice of America, 11/10/19), despite the lack of evidence to back up its assertions. No mainstream outlet warned its readers that the OAS is a Cold War organization, explicitly set up to halt the spread of leftist governments. In 1962, for example, it passed an official resolution claiming that the Cuban government was “incompatible with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system.” Furthermore, the organization is bankrolled by the US government; indeed, in justifying its continued funding, US AID argued that the OAS is a crucial tool in “promot[ing] US interests in the Western hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-US countries” like Bolivia.
Corporate media ignored CEPR’s finding (11/19) that “neither the OAS mission nor any other party has demonstrated that there were widespread or systematic irregularities in the elections.”
In contrast, there was no coverage at all in US corporate media of the detailed new report from the independent Washington-based think tank CEPR, which claimed that the election results were “consistent” with the win totals announced. There was also scant mention of the kidnapping and torture of elected officials, the ransacking of Morales’ house, the burning of public buildings and of the indigenous Wiphala flag, all of which were widely shared on social media and would have suggested a very different interpretation of events.
Words have power. And framing an event is a powerful method of conveying legitimacy and suggesting action. “Coups,” almost by definition, cannot be supported, while “protests” generally should be. Chilean President Sebastian Piñera, a conservative US-backed billionaire, has literally declared war on over a million people demonstrating against his rule. Corporate media, however, have framed that uprising not as a protest, but rather a “riot” (e.g., NBC News, 10/20/19; Reuters, 11/9/19; Toronto Sun, 11/9/19). In fact, Reuters (11/8/19) described the events as Piñera responding to “vandals” and “looters.” Who would possibly oppose that?
Morales was the first indigenous president in his majority indigenous nation—one that has been ruled by a white European elite since the days of the conquistadors. While in office, his Movement Towards Socialism party has managed to reduce poverty by 42% and extreme poverty by 60%, cut unemployment in half and conduct a number of impressive public works programs. Morales saw himself as part of a decolonizing wave across Latin America, rejecting neoliberalism and nationalizing the country’s key resources, spending the proceeds on health, education and affordable food for the population.
His policies drew the great ire of the US government, Western corporations and the corporate press, who function as the ideological shock troops against leftist governments in Latin America. In the case of Venezuela, Western journalists unironically call themselves “the resistance” to the government, and describe it as their No. 1 goal to “get rid of Maduro,” all the while presenting themselves as neutral and unbiased actors.
The media message from the Bolivia case is clear: A coup is not a coup if we like the outcome.
This is unquestionably a coup, and must be vigorously opposed, but let’s not make Morales out to be a martyr.
He has committed acts against the Bolivian people, including the indigenous, for which he must answer, but of course those are not why he is being ousted, as they align with actions taken by regimes in the US’ good graces.
That irony, though, all too often present in such circumstances, does not absolve us from steadfast antagonism toward imperialism.
The coup is, among other things, a big win for white supremacy.
Every US-backed coup comes with a segment of “leftists” who join in the attacks on its target. Bloodthirsty maniacs like Trump, Bush, Blair, Abrams, Bolton etc… walk free, but westerners have the cheek to pontificate about holding Morales accountable for anything. Pitiful
Hello Comrade Whataboutism. How’s that white privilege working out for you?
Emersberger has made it abundantly clear that he lacks any ability for honest analysis. As long as he can point to the bad guys in the US supporting something, that automatically means everyone should be against it, even when the vast majority of the people in that country demand a change in government (See also Venezuela, Syria, Nicaragua, Cuba all of which Emersberger also supports, despite the enormous suffering they have caused to their own people). Isn’t it funny that the same guys who claim to be standing up for democracy are defenders of the most undemocratic and authoritarian governments in the region?
The OAS is usually supporting US policy that is often at odds with the interests of other American nations. There are deep traditions and data to support this. However, I also sense your feeling that making a racial issue is not validated by what we see in Bolivia.
Strangely, this is literally the first time I’ve seen anyone wrote about it and not say it was a coup. It’s almost like you went hunting for certain quotes to back your case, while ignoring the 99% of other quotes on the topic that do call it a coup.
You’re literally insane or you are in bizarro world this evening. Do a Google search yourself and if you use “bolivia coup” most results will point you to 1964 with the balance being left-leaning alternative media sites such as FAIR.org and Commondreams.org. Of course a few quotes with the word “coup” will show up in the NYT, WaPo and establishment media, but generally only to demonstrate that those including Morales and the President of Mexico are off their rockers. Indeed, FAIR got it right here, and you’re the one lazily attempting to refute them with “facts” that you’re too lazy to even try cherry picking for inclusion in your comment.
LOL you’re totally off here. In fact if you google it now, you’ll get plenty of results pointing to a “coup” — in 1964.
Nonsense. Google it right now. You’ll get tons of results talking about a coup – the one that happened in 1964.
IDK what to tell you, I literally couldn’t find a single mainstream outlet framing it as a coup when searching for it on Monday. They all have eerily similiar titles about him “stepping down” amid “protests” or “requests” fro the military.
And even now, if you search on Google News page for Bolivia, the word coup barely appears- https://news.google.com/search?q=bolivia&hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ceid=GB%3Aen
Hi, do you know about this?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bbackdoors.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/us-hands-against-bolivia-part-i/amp/
You are pretty accurate in your diagnose about Bolivia’s coup.
Cheers from the Patagonia, Argentina.
Argentina is part of this twisted game. In factvthere are many argentinians supporting Morales in Bolivia right now and many are being arrested for inducing masses to violence, while desguised as journalists or police men. Shame on you!
Indeed. When I heard about it on NPR, it was in the context of him “stepping down,” which I had thought was an interesting development thanks to a lack of greater context. Now, I think it’s more of a troubling development.
Which alternative universe are you writing from? I live in the UK and none of the national newspapers nor the BBC is reporting this as a coup.
The Foreign Assistance Act makes it so the US can’t (or makes it very difficult) give any military/financial aid to a country that undergoes a coup. The country has to reestablish a democratic rule before that happens.
The media likely know this and are doing their part to help the US Gov resist the “coup” declaration, so that it can give arms/$$/death squad training to whatever new dictatorship takes power. This is exactly what happened under Obama with Egypt and Honduras.
It’s a legal thing (in addition of course to general MSM toadying and carrying water for imperialism).
This is little more than textbook U.S. influence going back to the days of Richard Bissell..
Amazingly well documented.
Thank you very much from one of the concerned-citizens of the globe, Alan.
Let me add my little straw: https://nacla.org/news/usaids-silent-invasion-bolivia
Great article. So accurate about the power of words. Being South American, the connotation of coup cannot be other than a negative one.
Great article
The Bolivian Constitution only allows candidates to be elected for two consecutive five-year terms. President Evo Morales has already served two terms under the current constitution and one term under the previous one.
To get around this, Morales called a referendum in 2016 to modify the constitution and eliminate term limits. The referendum failed and voters rejected removing term limits. Morales was once wildly popular in Bolivia for his work on fighting poverty, but his esteem has slipped in recent years due to a slowing economy, poor response to forest fires, government corruption, and his seeming insistence on staying in power forever.
Morales ignoring the results of the referendum went to the Supreme Court (whose judges were all his own appointees), and the Supreme Court ruled that Morales could run for a fourth term as it was a violation of “human rights.”
Over the summer of 2019, forest fires broke out in Bolivia and Morales’s response has been widely seen as botched. The public is upset of his questionable ability to run for election in addition to his forest fire issues. Coming into election day, it appeared from polls that Morales would be forced into a runoff. To win outright without a runoff, a candidate needs either a simple majority of votes, or at least 40% plus 10% more than the runner up.
Election Day arrives. People vote. Votes come in steadily until around ~85% of precincts are reporting in. The count is 45% for Morales, 38% for Carlos Mesa (his key challenger).
Then, the vote count freezes. For almost a day the count hangs around at ~85% reporting.
When it comes back up, Morales now has 46% to Mesa’s 36%. Now Morales wins outright without a runoff.
The results are fishy at best, and a lot of Bolivians assume there was election fraud.
Coup or no coup, however you want to spin it, there is enough evidence that Morales was trying to consolidate power, absolutely used his power to manipulate the law and likely the election results.
No matter how YOU spin it, a military overthrowing a head of state (elected, dictator, monarch, whatever) is a COUP. Doesn’t matter if the head of state tortured and murdered anyone who disagreed with him; or if he magically gave free food and energy to everyone. Overthrowing that person is called a COUP.
The Bolivian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to rule on what is or is not constitutional. If Bolivian voters were that outraged by the ruling that annulled a very slim 2016 referendum victory (of 2 points) then 1) Morales would have lost by a landslide. He didn’t. His popular support dwarfs what any US president has ever received in an election:47% on 88% turnout. There is no evidence he won thru fraud and his victory was in line with polls. The analysis of the 60% DC-funded OAS has been exposed as bogus by CEPR (see report MacLeod cited in the article). This not the first time these OAS bureaucrats have impugned a clean election to facilitate a coup.
2) There are also many democratic mechanisms in Bolivia for voters to use if they don’t like how the Supreme court rules.. Its Supreme Court is elected to six year terms – for starts – not appointed!
This should be one of the easiest coups ever to unreservedly denounce.
Joe claims to support democracy, but has no problem with leaders staying in power indefinitely, as Morales was intent on doing. The majority of Bolivians voted in 2016 that Morales should not be able to run again. For anyone who actually cares about democracy, that alone should be enough to oppose Morales seeking another term. But Joe doesn’t care about those votes. Its almost as if he doesn’t understand what democracy is. He also makes ridiculous arguments to support people like Maduro in Venezuela and Assad in Syria, both of whom have concentrated power and devastated their countries. As long as you oppose Washington, Joe will make any number of idiotic arguments in defense of your abuses.
Wrong Joe, after CEPR released their nonsense piece, the OAS released a report of extensive irregularities in the election, which CEPR did not address.
http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/press/Electoral-Integrity-Analysis-Bolivia2019.pdf
Once again, Joe defends an obviously fraudulent election by one of his anti-Washington autocrat friends, all the while claiming to support democracy. He’s done the same in Venezuela over and over again. He even uses the results from that fraudulent election as an argument in support of Morales’ popular support! Hahaha, what a moron.
Hi “Diego”. You’re wrong. both Kevin Cashman and Weisbrot of CEPR responded to the OAS prelim report. It doesn’t back up its claims.
https://twitter.com/kevinmcashman/status/1193704154520178689
Morales’ victory was also in line what polls predicted. You have to be worse than a moron to defend this coup the way you do.
Hahaha, right, because a twitter thread (from a guy with a BA in biological chemistry!!) that addresses none of the major points from the OAS’s report is totally sufficient. You totally convinced me Joe! What none of you morons can seem to understand is that when the measures to protect against fraud are violated, then there will not be any solid evidence of fraud. That’s what those measures are there for. To detect fraud. The same things happened in Venezuela when audits were skipped and security measures were bypassed, and SURPRISE!!! no one can seem to show proof of fraud. You have to be a moron to keep falling for it.
Joe, the twitter thread you posted was thoroughly debunked here:
https://twitter.com/CarwilBJ/status/1194737956059140096
The evidence of fraud is overwhelming.
The white paper linked to in the article by CEPR disproves everything you just said. Did you even bother to read it before you posted your propaganda?
As for Amazon fires and sloppy response from president Morales – you do realize where the one and only “Rios de Pie’s” Jannice D. V. , who pursued this idea that pres Morales was responsible for wildfires, was schooled and to what purpose. And who’s a lot of Bolivians – like 100% of them or more? And isn’t it nice of you to uphold the Bolivian constitution.
Thanks for posting these facts that FAIR did not mention above. I’ve been a FAIR supporter for years, but I was disappointed at the errors of omission in this piece.
“Richard,” that’s entirely false. The linked report immediately says that “This analysis finds NO EVIDENCE THAT IRREGULARITIES OR FRAUD affected the official result that gave President Evo Morales a first-round victory. The paper presents a step-by-step breakdown of what happened with Bolivia’s vote counts … seeking to dispel confusion over the process. The report includes the results of 500 simulations that show that Morales’s FIRST-ROUND VICTORY was NOT JUST POSSIBLE, but PROBABLE…”
Yes, anytime the OAS has an opinion I reflexively suspect the opposite from past experience. It feels a lot like hearing Trump saying something: I expect the truth to be the opposite.
Here in the UK, The Guardian, which presents itself as not part of the corporate media, refuses to report this as a coup. The website today has “Bolivia: Jeanine Añez claims presidency after ousting of Evo Morales” and the story does not use the term except when reporting the words of others. The reporter managed to find an academic who claims that Morales had to be gotten out of office by non-democratic means because his presidency is non-democratic.
Add NPR to the list per its Morning Edition report on 11/12: Morales resigns after weeks of protests (paraphrasing).
This is NOT a coup.
And it most certainly is NOT an America-sponsored coup. The United States of America would never ever stage a coup of any government.
No, this is a REGIME CHANGE.
There is a big difference.
Just like torture is not really torture if we called it Enhanced Interrogation.
Or wars of aggression are not really aggression if we call them Pre-emptive War or Wars of Choice.
Or government abduction is not really abduction if we call it Extraordinary Rendition.
A coup is not a coup if we call it regime change.
Got it?
Thanks.
Note: This public service has been brought to you by the US Department of Homeland Security and Orwellian NewSpeak.
I did my master’s thesis on US intervention in contemporary Haiti. Prior to that research I probably would have fobbed this sort of article off as an unreasonable leftist rhetoric but it corroborates strongly with my own conclusions and findings… Media, NGOs, INGOs will normatively follow the narrative that works to their benefit. Let’s continue to question and criticise…!
I like cheese
Who would ever right this
I am the man in the sky who eats little boys for breakfast.
This is the most interesting thing I have ever heard of. It contains so much that I never knew and it really expanded my mind to a new level.
Try this now:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/bbackdoors.wordpress.com/2019/10/08/us-hands-against-bolivia-part-i/amp/
Tbis is absolutely not true. This media should be banned for diseminating fake news. Bolivia became a narco state ruled by drug lords under Morales’ administration. There was no coup, it was a liberation from a criminal government.
Thank you for telling the truth, amidst an ocean of misinformation and lies.
Our Country (Argentina) is highly concerned for the outcome of this unexpected coup d’etat, which brings yet more unstability to the southern area, as if it were not enough to have fascist Bolsonaro in Brazil, Dictatorship-like repression in Chile, and a possible triumph of the rightwing in Uruguay.
Sorry but as someone from Latin American i can say, it’s bul….
Poverty was not cut down, he shipped all the poor bolivians to other countries, Argentina, Brazil and chile…
That’s why he had “low unemployment rate!!” because the poor bolivians had to flee…
Dear Fair: thanks from Buenos Aires.
Even here, the main journals lie about Evo and the coup d’etat which they call new government. And fake news are main titles…sad. We need you. Kind regards.
By the way, your CEPR buddies’ claims that the reason for the distortions at the end were that rural areas reported later has also been refuted. In fact, the areas that reported later were majority urban, meaning Morales margin likely would have decreased, not increased. Whoops, fooled again by CEPR propaganda.
https://www.paginasiete.bo/nacional/2019/11/10/casi-tercios-de-votos-que-faltaban-por-contar-tras-el-corte-del-trep-eran-urbanos-236944.html
And your buddy’s weak twitter thread has also been debunked:
https://twitter.com/CarwilBJ/status/1194737956059140096
Sorry to have to repeat this, but I’m very irked at how this VERY IMPORTANT fact is being ignored and/or not pointed to by Sir Alan MacLeod and others:
“The Foreign Assistance Act makes it so the US can’t (or makes it very difficult) give any military/financial aid to a country that undergoes a coup. The country has to reestablish a democratic rule before that happens.”
This should be referenced in any and every article about whether it’s a “coup” or not. This is the reason the US declined to declare coups in: Egypt; Honduras; Ukraine…declined so that they could continue to give financial aid to the new dictators.
How bout you mention this VERY IMPORTANT law? The literal wording here, calling something, declaring something as a “coup” is VERY VERY IMPORTANT by US law.
Why am I the only person seemingly aware of this? And it’s not even my job to report VERY IMPORTANT facts. No–that job is Alan MacLeod’s!!
SUPPOSEDLY
An interesting alternative view: I would like to know if there are any figures. I don’t like to decry the media as bad or unfair. That’s what extremists on the right do, like P Trump. I am more convinced by the numbers. Is there any data to show a better sense of reality on the ground in Bolivia?
The assassination of President Kennedy is never described as a coup either and nor is the removal of Nixon.
In fact, Nixon may have been very lucky not to go out the same way as Kennedy did. There is some evidence, albeit not conclusive, that the CIA tried to assassinate him in early 1972 but that the hit-man backed out when he heard who the target would be.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/08/no_author/the-cia-tried-to-murder-nixon/
Jeanine Añez Chávez Is the (self-appointed) successor to Morales. Wikipediai says, “Through social media, Áñez has made remarks towards indigenous people that have been described as racist. On Twitter, she called an indigenous ritual of the Aymara people “satanic” and said that “Nobody can replace God!”, and has implied that indigenous people were not genuine for wearing shoes.[20] Following these tweets Áñez has been described as a white supremacist. [21]
The importance of FAIR’s ongoing analysis of corporate media servility to US foreign policy cannot be overstated. The consistency of this work is amazing, particularly when far too many “progressive” of “left” outlets these days sound like they are channeling Elliot Abrams.
Excelente análisis Felicidades, saludos cordiales
Don’t forget about the large lithium deposit found (2nd largest in the world) that was perhaps going to be mined by the Chinese (who have the largest deposit). Lithium is important in batteries and the technology of the future.
“No mainstream outlet warned its readers that the OAS is a Cold War organization, explicitly set up to halt the spread of leftist governments.”
How is this possible considering we have half the U.S. population pushing for the same leftist programs by way of the Democrats? Bernie Sanders who is one of the front runners is openly socialist. Heck, the partisan impeachment going on right now with Trump looks like a coup.
Alan ought to read this:
https://www.ft.com/content/dd0d4b36-0606-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd
Morales had to go.