BOLIVIANS REACT SHARPLY TO SECRETARY'S IRAN REMARKS

C O N F I D E N T I A L LA PAZ 001601 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/14 TAGS: PREL PGOV IR BL SUBJECT: BOLIVIANS REACT SHARPLY TO SECRETARY'S IRAN REMARKS CLASSIFIED BY: William Mozdzierz, Acting DCM, State, Embassy La Paz; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (C) Summary: The Bolivian government responded forcefully to the Secretary's December 11 caution about closer ties with Iran, seizing upon her remarks to attack the United States for "imperialist" and "colonial" interference in Bolivia's sovereign affairs. The Bolivian MFA initially sought to downplay the issue, maintaining that U.S-Bolivian framework agreement negotiations would continue. President Evo Morales subsequently went on the offensive, however, accusing the U.S. of exporting terrorism and repeating his familiar claim that Bolivia is much better off without "imperialism and capitalism." His remarks were echoed by Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera, who warned there will be distance with the U.S. if such "intrusions" continue. Despite FM David Choquehuanca's keen interest in concluding a bilateral accord this month, the GOB's posturing could result in delaying the agreement until the new year. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) Amid considerable Bolivian media attention to the Secretary's December 11 remarks on intensified Latin American ties with Iran, the Bolivian MFA attempted to put the issue to rest, only to have President Morales ramp up the anti-imperialist rhetoric the following day. MFA Vice Minister Hugo Fernandez criticized the Secretary's words of caution, offering wryly that, "if Iran causes the U.S. indigestion, it doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of us have to see the doctor." Still, Fernandez downplayed the Secretary's message as "primarily aimed at a domestic audience," and assured reporters that the dialogue with the U.S. would continue unaffected. ¶3. (SBU) President Morales, however, took a typically darker view, asserting at a press conference the following day that the United States has no moral authority to talk about terrorism, and that it is the U.S. that "exports and practices terrorism" (through our military engagements abroad, our bases agreement with Colombia, etc.). On the eve of his departure for the anti-imperialist, socialist ALBA summit in Havana (where ALBA leaders issued a similar denunciation),Morales declared that Bolivia is a sovereign country that will not accept such "warnings or threats," and that it is far better off without imperialism and capitalism. "We want diplomatic relations with everyone, including the U.S., but without conditions," Morales warned. ¶4. (SBU) Vice President Garcia Linera expanded on Morales's theme, asserting that "only when the United States stops telling us what to do and not to do, and when it abandons its patronizing, colonial attitude," will Bolivia sign an agreement. Garcia Linera condemned U.S. "intrusions" into Bolivian affairs and insisted that "there is no sincere dialogue" with the USG. He allowed that Bolivia has an interest in improving relations with the U.S., noting admiration for the American people, our technology, our expertise and our commercial strength, but insisted that "these things cannot be exchanged for allowing them to come and tell us what to do." ¶5. (C) Two days before Morales's comments, FM Choquehuanca assured the Charge that the Bolivian government remained committed to concluding a bilateral framework agreement this month, indicating that he hoped to discuss final language with Morales and Bolivian UN Charge Pablo Salon on the margins of the Copenhagen climate summit. Indeed, Choquehuanca appeared as eager as ever to conclude an agreement, before anticipated cabinet changes next month (including, possibly, in his own position). ¶6. (C) Comment: The Bolivian government's convoluted message (differing responses, attacks accompanied by expressions of interest in improved relations) reflects its ongoing internal divisions and even some uncertainly about its approach to the U.S. This latest anti-U.S. tirade from Morales appears to have -- at least temporarily -- strengthened the hand of hardliners and bilateral agreement opponents such as Garcia Linera. Barring some political magic from Choquehuanca, this controversy (combined with the holiday calendar) means that finalizing an agreement may have to wait until the new year. Creamer