BOLIVIA: DEA GIVEN 90 DAYS

C O N F I D E N T I A L LA PAZ 002368 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/05/2018 TAGS: PGOV PREL SNAR ASEC BL SUBJECT: BOLIVIA: DEA GIVEN 90 DAYS REF: LA PAZ 2355 Classified By: EcoPol Chief Mike Hammer for reasons 1.4 b,d ¶1. (C) Summary: The Embassy sees a potential opportunity to encourage the Bolivian government to begin the DEA's 90-day departure period with the start of the new U.S. administration (thus buying more time). Any time gained could benefit us, since EVO faces another election in December 2009, and it would be easier for DEA to resume operations if they had not been forced to leave completely. President EVO Morales's supporters are reacting positively to the announced expulsion, however, and it is unlikely that EVO will back away from his original November 1 announcement suspending DEA's activities. End summary. - - - - - - - - - - - MFA Gives DEA 90 Days - - - - - - - - - - - ¶2. (SBU) Foreign Minister Choquehuanca announced publicly on November 3 that DEA would have 90 days to leave the country: "We have an agreement with the United States, not specifically with the DEA but rather in the fight against narcotrafficking...in case either country decides to cancel the agreement it would have three months to leave the country." Government Minister Rada had earlier made further unsubstantiated allegations against the DEA, claiming that the DEA financed two attacks on gas-lines and also supported opposition groups who took government institutions and airports during August and September, although he warned the press that "the conspiracy did not leave proof." In a November 3 speech, President MORALES reaffirmed the expulsion of the DEA, saying "Imagine all of you that the U.S. DEA used to give orders to the Armed Forces, ran the National Police, and had political control, for those reasons the DEA remains expelled and we will maintain this position. If they want the DEA to return they need to get EVO MORALES out of the Presidency." (Note: If the new constitution passes, as is almost certain, EVO will be up for reelection December 2009. End note.) - - - - - - - - - Embassy Response - - - - - - - - - ¶3. (C) The Embassy delivered a diplomatic note November 4 reminding the Bolivian government of the Letter of Agreement on Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement between the United States of America and the Government of Bolivia during 2006-2007 and the subsequent face-sheet agreement signed in December 2007 extending the terms of the Letter of Agreement for 2007-2008. The diplomatic note draws attention to paragraph 9(c) of the agreement which requires either party to provide 90 days prior written notice of its intention to terminate the terms of the agreement. We informed the Bolivian government that DEA intends to take the necessary steps to finalize its work and presence in Bolivia, but expects to utilize the 90 day time period provided for in the Letter of Agreement. The diplomatic note also states that the Embassy would welcome the opportunity to discuss the procedures for ending the DEA's work and presence in Bolivia and looks forward to a response regarding when such talks may begin. ¶4. (C) We see a possibility to discuss with the Foreign Ministry a delay of the government's "official written notice" until the start of the new U.S. administration (giving DEA 90 days after January 20th instead of 90 days from November 1.) There is a slight chance that the Bolivian government will agree to this suggestion, since some members of the government seem to be under the impression that the Obama administration will mean improved relations with Bolivia: in a recent speech President MORALES expressed his hope that soon the United States would be "blue"--also his Movement Toward Socialism party color--and would support "change" (Evo's signature propaganda campaign is the Venezuelan-funded "Bolivia Changes" program.) Delaying DEA's departure would allow a more-orderly withdrawal and also potentially allow for a smoother re-start, should EVO lose the expected December 2009 national election. To meet the deadline of having DEA completely out of the country within 90 days of the November 1 diplomatic note, however, DEA would need to begin closing down its operations and packing out its employees almost immediately. - - - - - - - - - - Evo's Cheerleaders - - - - - - - - - - ¶5. (C) Although it could be in the USG's interest to extend the clock, we may not be able to get any extra time, since Evo's supporters are already cheering the "immediate departure" of the DEA. Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) Senator and cocalero leader Leonilda Zurita announced her joy at Evo's decision: "(DEA) always used to divide us, but now we control narcotrafficking through our unions and our union police." Isaac Avalos, leader of the MAS-aligned small-farmer group CSUTCB, declared that the departure of the DEA would have no effect on the fight against narcotrafficking: "This government is sufficiently capable to fight against narcotrafficking and has demonstrated that." Avalos added "now we're tired of them following us as if we are bad guys..." - - - - - - - - Police Worries - - - - - - - - ¶6. (SBU) Meanwhile, press are quoting unnamed police insiders worried about the departure of the DEA: "They don't order us around, but yes they do support us with exchanges of specialized information and equipment. The idea that they are giving us orders is false." Another police source was quoted emphasizing the importance of replacing DEA support, because, according to the article, 120 police units could not function without DEA support. Daily Newspaper "Los Tiempos" explained, "Drug interdiction exports have suggested that not taking DEA into account in this kind of work is like putting aside the Brazilians in a world soccer match." Former anti-drug police chief Luis Caballero announced that "those who most benefit from the DEA's departure are the criminal organizations. It's going to be very convenient for them." - - - - Comment - - - - ¶7. (C) EVO benefits domestically from having USG scapegoats available, and he may need domestic distractions for his January 25 constitutional referendum and the upcoming December 2009 national election. We view it as unlikely, however, that he will back down from his very public expulsion of the DEA, since he said in public that "if they want the DEA to return they need to get EVO MORALES out of the Presidency." Although we see an opportunity to encourage the Bolivian government to delay DEA's expulsion, possibly waiting until the new U.S. administration can be approached on the subject, it is likely that DEA will have to leave within the 90 days allowed under the Letter of Agreement with the Bolivian government. Without DEA to use as a domestic distraction, we would then anticipate that EVO will return to USAID as his favorite "conspirator", potentially leading to further shake-ups in the future. End comment. URS