22/10/2010
Back in 2007, Oxford economist Paul Collier wrote a book touted by former Presidents and the brightest financial minds as an innovative analysis of and policy prescription for the numerous challenges faced by the developing world.
Of the challenges Collier indentified in “the Bottom Billion”, one to which I would constantly return was the geopolitical misfortune of being landlocked; though hardly a reinvention of the wheel, it’s hard to dispute. Of the 47 landlocked countries in the world, the minority that defy the theory really only consists of European countries with high-quality transportation infrastructures and trade agreements that make up for their maritime deficiencies.
In the Latin American context, up until this past Tuesday anyway, the list was limited to Bolivia and Paraguay—two countries often grouped together as regional laggards. But on Tuesday, Bolivian President Evo Morales and his Peruvian counterpart Alan García signed a deal giving Bolivia a 99 year lease on a 3.6 square kilometer piece of Peruvian shoreline, 15 kilometers from the Peruvian port of Ilo.
Ever since their devastating loss in the War of Pacific (1879-1884), Bolivians have been landlocked and bitter about it—with their long, pencil-shaped neighbor and former enemy’s vast coastline constantly reminding them of what could’ve been. They weren’t a sub-Saharan African country suffering the consequences of arbitrary colonial division; this was a sovereign nation that fought a war and lost badly.
But with an agreement that now allows them to “build a dock, moor naval vessels and operate a free trade zone”, they’ll no longer need to ship their legal commodities through Chile. I say legal, because Evo Morales made another statement this week which surprisingly garnered less attention:
“Friends,” he told a meeting of coca farmers in the Chapare region, “you know that part of our coca is being diverted to the illegal problem.”
The timing is…strange... Morales was reelected in June as union leader of the six coca growing federations in Chapare, and has long emphasized the difference between the shrub and the alkaloid.
“Coca sí, Cocaína no” has been the slogan, but he admits the deal he secured with former President Mesa to allow for additional plantations of coca for legal consumption is only as useful as the cap it established.
Because there is only so much winking and nudging the rest of the world will accept.
Yes, they say, we know chewing the leaf and drinking the tea are part of the Andean cultural and spiritual heritage; yes, we know it cures el soroche (altitude sickness); it improves digestion, acts as an aphrodisiac…
But how much of the stuff do you need?
When even Evo is reluctantly telling the foundation of his support there’s excess supply, it can be assumed the 20,000 hectares the Bolivian government allocated for legal cultivation is being taken as more of a suggestion than a decree. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, for example, suggests it was more like 30,900 hectares—or 1% more than in 2008.
It hasn’t exactly surprised anyone that coca production has increased under the watch of a President who maintains his position as a coca growers union leader, but Morales’ statement shows he’s now trying to reconcile his historical and current allegiance with the obligations of a head of state.
In 2006, a recently elected Alan García compared coca to rosemary and suggested it could even be put in roast dinners.
I’m honestly not sure if he was being facetious.
Back in Bolivia, with a hectare here, and a hectare there, and a brand new port to bring it to the world—I don’t know—I just can see it taking its place anytime soon in between parsley and sage on the spice rack.
No comments:
Post a Comment