By SIMON ROMERO
Published: June 17, 2007
BOLIVIA’S president, Evo Morales, donned a green jersey the other day, watched a llama sacrifice for good luck and flew to a snowy spot nearly four miles above sea level, where he scored the winning goal in a brief match pitting him and his aides against a group of mountain climbers.
It was a textbook lesson in Andean political theater, and the perils a globalized sport can meet when it comes up against a small country’s nationalist passions.
On the surface, Bolivia’s president was simply staging an amusing stunt to fight a ban on international soccer games at altitudes above 2,500 meters, or 8,200 feet.
It’s well known that Mr. Morales will play soccer against virtually anyone, from the foreign press corps to local squads in the hinterlands, to let off steam, and recently broke his nose doing so. But in fact, the ban, enacted last month by soccer bureaucrats in Switzerland, played right to Mr. Morales’ trademark populism, and gave him an opportunity to act as a unifier of his otherwise fractious country.
“Bolivia’s dedication to soccer cuts across the deep dividing lines in the country, which are economic, racial, regional and ideological,” said Jim Shultz, a political analyst in Cochabamba, in central Bolivia. “Fighting the ban is great domestic politics.”
Mr. Morales was relying on an old Latin American tradition of mixing political intrigue with the “beautiful game.” The classic example involved a poisonous set of land and trade disputes between El Salvador and Honduras that boiled over into war in 1969 only after tensions rose over World Cup qualifying matches that year.
This time, the argument is ostensibly about altitude. The Federation of International Football Associations contends that soccer at great heights is medically challenging (nose accidents aside), because the air is thinner.
That position is contested by some experts. Robert C. Roach, assistant director at the University of Colorado’s Center for Altitude Medicine and Physiology, said it was hard to see any evidence of an advantage for Bolivia, since the country is not a powerhouse in world soccer. And if Bolivians gain something from playing regularly in the thin air of the mountains, they may suffer from being less accustomed to playing in the heat at sea level, he suggested.
“Heat is far more challenging for athletes than altitude,” he said.
In Cochabamba, where a hometown team with the fanciful name of Club Jorge Wilstermann is affected by the ban, the president’s struggle against FIFA drew support even from Gov. Manfred Reyes Villa, one of Mr. Morales’s fiercest critics.
Restricting competitions to stadiums closer to sea level is a special affront to a landlocked, mountainous country that has never been able to accept the loss of its coastline to Chile in a 19th-century war. Each March, Bolivia officially bemoans the loss in a Day of the Sea; marching in a place of honor are units from the Bolivian Navy, which is restricted these days to patrolling rivers and lakes.
The ban has helped bolster Mr. Morales, a former organizer of the coca growers’ union, a one-time llama herder and a self-proclaimed advocate for the indigenous people who live high in the mountains and champion the use of coca tea to counteract light-headedness there.
Those affiliations had made him a divisive figure, raising talk of secession and demands for greater political autonomy in the eastern lowlands. Now, the fight for high-altitude soccer is seen as a national cause.
The issue has even rallied other political leaders in the Andes, since the ban also affects Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. Alan García, Peru’s president, called the ban “Europeanist and insolent,” but that does not reflect the full range and complexity of national passions involved. Much of the support for the ban, in fact, comes from neighboring Brazil, the region’s economic and soccer supremo.
After visiting Bolivia to play in Potosí last February in freezing rain at about 13,120 feet, Flamengo, one of Brazil’s most eminent teams, reportedly pushed FIFA into its decision by lodging a formal complaint. “The only thing I don’t understand is why it took so long to make the decision,” Edson Arantes do Nascimento, the Brazilian soccer legend better known as Pelé, told reporters.
Bolivians chafe at such comments from a big neighbor, and that only gives the fight against the ban even more of a nationalist tinge that plays to Mr. Morales’ advantage. He had already shocked Brasília by asserting greater control over the energy industry, a move that disrupted large investments in Bolivia by Petrobrás, Brazil’s state-controlled energy company.
Within Bolivia, the most pointed criticism of Mr. Morales, who is of Aymara heritage and is often portrayed as the country’s first indigenous president, tends to come from Santa Cruz, a relatively prosperous business-oriented city in the east where secessionist feeling has been running high and explicitly racist anti-Morales graffiti covers the walls.
But even there — a low-lying city where FIFA would allow games to be held — some see in Mr. Morales’s battle a position they can admire.
Eduardo Gamarra, a Bolivian political scientist at Florida International University, said Cruceños could sympathize with the highlanders since many of the top players at clubs in high-altitude cities affected by the ban come from the eastern lowlands. “FIFA has done Evo a big favor,” Mr. Gamarra said.
One commentator in El Deber, the main daily newspaper in Santa Cruz, called the ban “segregationist, shameful and ridiculous.” Another accused Joseph Blatter, the Swiss president of FIFA, of being “calculating and evasive.”
To Bolivians, it is a fair charge. A quote from Mr. Blatter, who was once considered a defender of Bolivia’s exceptionalism, is still engraved on a wall outside Hernando Siles Stadium in La Paz. It reads: “I was born among the mountains. My village is opposite the highest mountains in Europe. Heights don’t scare me.”
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
We Gave Them Our Hearts, They Gave Him A Blank Check
By David Sirota
It is a dark day in our nation's history. That sounds melodramatic - but it is true. Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth - all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation at the request of the most unpopular president in a generation at a time polls show a larger percentage of the public thinks America is going in the wrong direction than ever recorded in polling history.
The numbers are not pretty. First, 216 House Democrats cast the key vote to send a blank check Iraq War funding bill over to the Senate. As I reported at the beginning of the day and as the Associated Press now confirms, the vote on the rule was the vote that made it happen. As the AP said: "In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could advance it." Nauseating.
In the Senate, we saw lots of promises and tough talk from senators telling us they were going to do everything they could to stop the blank check. Some of them bragged that they were going to vote against the bill - as if that was the ultimate sign of heroics. Then, not a single senator found the backbone to stand up to filibuster the bill a la Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. To quote the Big Lebowski, "These men are cowards," because apparently, Senate club etiquette comes even before the lives of our troops.
The blank check sailed through the upper chamber on a vote of 80-14 with 38 Democrats (the majority of the party) voting yes. In all, at a time when 82 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want Congress to either approve funds for the war with strict conditions or cut off all funding immediately, 90 percent of House and Senate Democrats combined voted to give George W. Bush a blank check.
The worst part of it all was the overt efforts to deceive the public - as if we're all just a bunch of morons. House Democrats have the nerve to continue to insist the blank check they helped ram through the House was all the Republicans doing, and that a sham vote on a GOP amendment today - which most Democrats opposed for show - was the real vote for the war. But, again, as the AP reported, it was their parliamentary motion - passed so quickly and under the devious pretenses of mundane procedural necessity - that showed their calculated complicity. Now, tonight, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is actually sending out fundraising emails, claiming: the House just passed legislation that will go to the White House that includes critical issues Democrats have been fighting for including canceling the President's blank check in Iraq." Beyond nauseating.
I'm not a purist nor am I a "pox on both their houses" kind of guy. I have worked to elect Democratic politicians and I supported Democratic leaders when they pushed an Iraq funding bill that included binding language to end the war. But what happened today was perhaps the most stunning travesty I've seen in a decade working in Democratic politics. A Democratic Party that six months ago was elected on a promise to end the war first tried to hide their complicity in continuing the war in the House, and then gave a few token speeches as the blank check sailed through the Senate club. And it all happened, as the New York Times reported today, because these Democrats believed criticism from President Bush - the man who polls show is the most unpopular president in three decades - "seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left."
Democratic politicians, Capitol Hill staff, political consultants and all their lobbyist friends sitting comfortably tonight in their Northwest Washington homes believe the public thinks Democrats are "weak" because they don't more strongly support leaving American troops to be killed or maimed in the middle of a bloody civil war in a country half way around the globe that had no WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11. What they seem unable - or unwilling - to realize is that the public has believed Democrats are weak not because some in the party have opposed the war, but because many in the party refuse to wield the power the public entrusts them with on all sorts of issues. At least on Iraq - the biggest issue of the day - the public's perception has proven right. As I wrote to one congressional lawmaker in an e-mail correspondence we had today: "The spoils go to those who use the power they are entrusted with, while infamy goes to those who squander it."
In the movie "Say Anything," John Cusack famously laments after being dumped that "I gave her my heart, she gave me a pen." The American people gave Democrats their heart in November 2006. In return, Democrats gave George Bush a blank check in May 2007. We gave them our heart, they gave him a blank check. That will make May 24, 2007 a dark day generations to come will look back on - a day when Democrats in Washington not only continued a war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government's role is to ignore the will of the American people.
It is a dark day in our nation's history. That sounds melodramatic - but it is true. Today America watched a Democratic Party kick them square in the teeth - all in order to continue the most unpopular war in a generation at the request of the most unpopular president in a generation at a time polls show a larger percentage of the public thinks America is going in the wrong direction than ever recorded in polling history.
The numbers are not pretty. First, 216 House Democrats cast the key vote to send a blank check Iraq War funding bill over to the Senate. As I reported at the beginning of the day and as the Associated Press now confirms, the vote on the rule was the vote that made it happen. As the AP said: "In a highly unusual maneuver, House Democratic leaders crafted a procedure that allowed their rank and file to oppose money for the war, then step aside so Republicans could advance it." Nauseating.
In the Senate, we saw lots of promises and tough talk from senators telling us they were going to do everything they could to stop the blank check. Some of them bragged that they were going to vote against the bill - as if that was the ultimate sign of heroics. Then, not a single senator found the backbone to stand up to filibuster the bill a la Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. To quote the Big Lebowski, "These men are cowards," because apparently, Senate club etiquette comes even before the lives of our troops.
The blank check sailed through the upper chamber on a vote of 80-14 with 38 Democrats (the majority of the party) voting yes. In all, at a time when 82 percent of Americans tell pollsters they want Congress to either approve funds for the war with strict conditions or cut off all funding immediately, 90 percent of House and Senate Democrats combined voted to give George W. Bush a blank check.
The worst part of it all was the overt efforts to deceive the public - as if we're all just a bunch of morons. House Democrats have the nerve to continue to insist the blank check they helped ram through the House was all the Republicans doing, and that a sham vote on a GOP amendment today - which most Democrats opposed for show - was the real vote for the war. But, again, as the AP reported, it was their parliamentary motion - passed so quickly and under the devious pretenses of mundane procedural necessity - that showed their calculated complicity. Now, tonight, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is actually sending out fundraising emails, claiming: the House just passed legislation that will go to the White House that includes critical issues Democrats have been fighting for including canceling the President's blank check in Iraq." Beyond nauseating.
I'm not a purist nor am I a "pox on both their houses" kind of guy. I have worked to elect Democratic politicians and I supported Democratic leaders when they pushed an Iraq funding bill that included binding language to end the war. But what happened today was perhaps the most stunning travesty I've seen in a decade working in Democratic politics. A Democratic Party that six months ago was elected on a promise to end the war first tried to hide their complicity in continuing the war in the House, and then gave a few token speeches as the blank check sailed through the Senate club. And it all happened, as the New York Times reported today, because these Democrats believed criticism from President Bush - the man who polls show is the most unpopular president in three decades - "seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left."
Democratic politicians, Capitol Hill staff, political consultants and all their lobbyist friends sitting comfortably tonight in their Northwest Washington homes believe the public thinks Democrats are "weak" because they don't more strongly support leaving American troops to be killed or maimed in the middle of a bloody civil war in a country half way around the globe that had no WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11. What they seem unable - or unwilling - to realize is that the public has believed Democrats are weak not because some in the party have opposed the war, but because many in the party refuse to wield the power the public entrusts them with on all sorts of issues. At least on Iraq - the biggest issue of the day - the public's perception has proven right. As I wrote to one congressional lawmaker in an e-mail correspondence we had today: "The spoils go to those who use the power they are entrusted with, while infamy goes to those who squander it."
In the movie "Say Anything," John Cusack famously laments after being dumped that "I gave her my heart, she gave me a pen." The American people gave Democrats their heart in November 2006. In return, Democrats gave George Bush a blank check in May 2007. We gave them our heart, they gave him a blank check. That will make May 24, 2007 a dark day generations to come will look back on - a day when Democrats in Washington not only continued a war they promised to end, but happily went on record declaring that they believe in their hearts that government's role is to ignore the will of the American people.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
I'm Back...
So you can stop reading this lame-o account of my day-to-day activities galavanting around the Western Hemisphere.
I'll let you know when I have been inspired to reinvigorate the page.
I'll let you know when I have been inspired to reinvigorate the page.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Visiting and Remembrence in Rabinal
Leaving Flores at 6am, and three buses later, I walked up the front steps of the organization Qachuu Aloom (Mother Earth) where Aaron and Sarah have spent the last 4 years working on permaculture projects with the community. Tragically, I only had two days to spend there, but Aaron, Virgilio, Julian, and Maria Magdalena gave me the whirlwind tour of the organization, their demonstration site, their homes, the cemetary, and the museum.
Rabinal is perhaps known best for 3 different things. The first is the food. They say here you can eat the cheapest in all of Guatemala. And it´s true, even the beer is cheaper. Second, the Rabinal Achi is a 4-hour epic dance that has occured here for generations. It tells the story of an Achi prince captured by the Quiche who falls in love with their princess. It happens once a year, and since UNESCO named the dance a world cultural heritage site, many more tourists have arrived each year, though the rest of the year Rabinal remains pretty much off the tourist circuit. The third, and less mentioned, is that this area was amongst the most affected by the violence of the armed conflict. The government, under the guidance of General Efraín Rios Montt, carried out massaces in every village near Rabinal between 1981 and 1983, some completely eliminated and others losing hundreds of their mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. The community Museum pays tribute to those lost in this difficult and complex struggle, and remembers those who committed these horrific acts against the people of the campo.
As I wove through the contryside on my way out of town after two days of visiting, I could only help but wonder... if these hills had eyes. Luckily, there are strong people here working to hold accountable those responsible, despite regular death threats and the few results they are able to obtain from the new governments/international community.
Rabinal is perhaps known best for 3 different things. The first is the food. They say here you can eat the cheapest in all of Guatemala. And it´s true, even the beer is cheaper. Second, the Rabinal Achi is a 4-hour epic dance that has occured here for generations. It tells the story of an Achi prince captured by the Quiche who falls in love with their princess. It happens once a year, and since UNESCO named the dance a world cultural heritage site, many more tourists have arrived each year, though the rest of the year Rabinal remains pretty much off the tourist circuit. The third, and less mentioned, is that this area was amongst the most affected by the violence of the armed conflict. The government, under the guidance of General Efraín Rios Montt, carried out massaces in every village near Rabinal between 1981 and 1983, some completely eliminated and others losing hundreds of their mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters. The community Museum pays tribute to those lost in this difficult and complex struggle, and remembers those who committed these horrific acts against the people of the campo.
As I wove through the contryside on my way out of town after two days of visiting, I could only help but wonder... if these hills had eyes. Luckily, there are strong people here working to hold accountable those responsible, despite regular death threats and the few results they are able to obtain from the new governments/international community.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The City of Sounds
I finally left Livingston after three days of intoxicating sun, beer, and the cheapest, freshest, seafood I have ever heard of. Seriously, Im talking fish the size of footballs for five bucks, mounds of buttery garlic shrimp barely contained by the plate, and crabs, well I guess the crabs were fairly run of the mill.
After a boat tour of the Rio Dulce, some hot springs, another stop at Ak´Tenamit, and a long 5 hour bus ride standing crammed in the aisle, I arrived in Flores, the entrance to the enchanted Maya ruins of Tikal. I passed the night in town, and got to the park by 5am in order to climb the highest temple in the known Mayan world and watch a gorgeous sunrise over the dense tropical jungle. Today, unlike the sunrise from the peak of Tajumulco, was a crystal clear sky that the vastness of could not be captured in a photo...though I tried. Really, that place is big.
Regina and I spent the rest of the day trolling around the island town of Flores, taking a canoe out on the river, and making another hike up to an un-excavated temple with a beautiful view of the lake. Tomorrow, to the fertile grounds of Rabinal where I hope to visit a few friends, and learn about one of the last Achi Maya pueblos.
After a boat tour of the Rio Dulce, some hot springs, another stop at Ak´Tenamit, and a long 5 hour bus ride standing crammed in the aisle, I arrived in Flores, the entrance to the enchanted Maya ruins of Tikal. I passed the night in town, and got to the park by 5am in order to climb the highest temple in the known Mayan world and watch a gorgeous sunrise over the dense tropical jungle. Today, unlike the sunrise from the peak of Tajumulco, was a crystal clear sky that the vastness of could not be captured in a photo...though I tried. Really, that place is big.
Regina and I spent the rest of the day trolling around the island town of Flores, taking a canoe out on the river, and making another hike up to an un-excavated temple with a beautiful view of the lake. Tomorrow, to the fertile grounds of Rabinal where I hope to visit a few friends, and learn about one of the last Achi Maya pueblos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)