BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS, MORALES TRADE CRITICISMS

UNCLAS LA PAZ 001537

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR WHA/AND LPETRONI
STATE PASS TO USTR FOR BHARMAN
COMMERCE FOR JANGLIN
TREASURY FOR SGOOCH

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD EINV ECON PREL PGOV BL
SUBJECT: BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS, MORALES TRADE CRITICISMS



1. (SBU) Summary: In a joint declaration May 31, seven
departmental business associations harshly criticized the
Morales administration and charged the president with leading
Bolivia in the wrong direction. Morales responded in an open
letter published in leading newspapers June 3, accusing the
business community of adopting the discourse of Podemos,
Bolivia's principal opposition party, and of defending an
"archaic, anti-national" economic model. These may be the
first formal public statements in an increasingly emotional
debate over Bolivia's economic future. End summary.


2. (U) In a joint declaration May 31, seven departmental
business associations harshly criticized the Morales
administration and expressed a "high degree of concern" for
Bolivia's future, plainly stating their belief that the
president was leading the country in the wrong direction.
Business leaders recognized the population's desire for
change but accused the government of introducing an era of
political uncertainty and "ideological confrontation" that
would slow efforts to "resolve basic problems like
employment." The declaration called attention to the
administration's lack of "a coherent economic plan consistent
with national and world reality" and noted that observers
both within and outside Bolivia believed the country had
embarked on "an ideological adventure" contrary to basic
principles of economic development.


3. (U) Signatories to the declaration not only charged GOB
officials with isolating Bolivia and threatening poor
families' access to foreign markets - paradoxically hurting
the very people officials had promised to help - but also
argued that the Morales administration had "damaged the
independence of the judiciary, the Constitutional Tribunal,
and state entities" and weakened democracy by attacking key
institutions. Business leaders indicted the government for
concentrating power in a single body, adopting a
"quasi-monarchical" posture, and violating constitutional
guarantees.


4. (U) The administration's actions, business leaders argued,
had threatened investment and "sown unease among neighboring
and partner countries," undermining foreigners' trust in
Bolivia and harming the country's image abroad. Signatories
highlighted the negative effects of the hydrocarbons
nationalization and declared that attacks on the mining and
manufacturing industries would deter investment and limit
economic growth. In a parting shot, business leaders
declared that Bolivia was moving toward "a despicable
dependence on Cuba and Venezuela... such that (Bolivia's)
troops had to sing other countries' hymns." They told
Morales that Bolivia did not need "foreign tutors whose
interests exceeded the limits of international cooperation."


5. (U) Morales responded in an open letter published in
leading newspapers June 3, accusing the business community of
adopting the discourse of Podemos, Bolivia's principal
opposition party, and of defending an "archaic,
anti-national" economic model rejected by the Bolivian
people. Morales reminded business leaders that he won 54
percent of the vote in December's presidential election and
noted that more than 80 percent of the population supported
his administration. The president charged the business
community with "trying to confuse the public" by saying the
government had no economic plan, when in fact GOB officials
were working on the "reconstruction of a strong and dynamic
public sector, the construction of basic infrastructure
oriented toward economic, social, and regional development,
the industrialization of natural resources, and the
empowerment of indigenous economies."


6. (U) Morales further attacked business leaders for
defending "institutions captured by multinational interests
and military officials who turned over strategic weapons to a
foreign power." The president labeled those who supported
the latter "sell-outs" and suggested that business leaders
protected foreign companies that came to "invest" in Bolivia
but violated the laws of the state. In response to
accusations that Bolivia had become dependent on Cuba and
Venezuela, Morales asked when business leaders had "raised
their voices against imperial ambassadors who acted like
viceroys, undermining sovereignty and trampling on the
dignity of Bolivians." He also asked when the business
community had objected to "the entry of military officials to
massacre and humiliate indigenous and farmers in the name of
fighting narco-trafficking, terrorism, and zero coca."


7. (U) Morales closed by declaring that "the international
community - for the first time in history - looked at Bolivia
as a country that deserved respect, that had stopped being a
land for no one and had become a land for all." He noted
that the past was too fresh for people to "so easily forget
the difference between those who defend the nation and those
who have sold it with impunity."


8. (SBU) Comment: These may be the first formal public
statements in an increasingly emotional debate over Bolivia's
economic future. In an unprecedented display of unity and
coherence, business leaders explicitly criticized Morales and
his administration and outlined their opposition to the
government's policies. Morales' rebuttal, with its veiled
references to the United States, may have been less coherent,
but it may open the door to a wide-ranging discussion of the
economic policies Bolivia should pursue - assuming attacks on
persons and foreign powers do not derail debate before it
starts. End comment.
GREENLEE