LONDON — Hans Kristian Rausing appeared to be your archetypal multibillionaire. The Swedish heir to the Tetra Pak beverage carton empire had lavish homes, a glamorous wife, and four lovely children. He also put in the hours as a philanthropist, showing a particular interest in donating money to drug addiction charities.
But then came the allegations. In April, he was arrested, and then released on bail, on suspicion of possessing hard drugs. Now he's on the run from police who want to talk to him about a hit-and-run accident.
The latest incident started last weekend in Chiswick, a picturesque suburb in West London. An Audi Quattro, registered to Mr. Rausing, 44, is alleged to have hit another car before speeding off erratically.
The police traced the car to Mr. Rausing's £5-million mansion in wealthy Chelsea. After being let in by the maid, they searched the property but were unable to find Mr. Rausing. Some press reports say police were forced to knock down the bedroom door, only to discover that he had escaped out of the bedroom window just moments before.
The police have not confirmed this account, telling reporters that "the premises were searched. He was not at the address and inquiries continue."
This is not the first time the police have visited the Rausing residence this year. In April, his American wife, Eva Kemeny, the daughter of a Pepsi executive, was arrested outside the U.S. embassy in London for allegedly trying to smuggle crack cocaine in her handbag.
Police then conducted a search of the marital home, where they are said to have found more crack as well as heroin totaling around £1,500. Mr. Rausing was subsequently arrested on suspicion of possession. The couple were released on bail and are due to appear in court next month.
But the drug allegations hardly came as a terrible shock. Hans K, as he is known, has long had problems with addiction. After dropping out of the U.S. education system, he chose the venerable road to personal enlightenment, taking the hippie trail to India. Here he reportedly tore off the shackles of his wealth and slept rough; he also began experimenting with drugs.
A stint in rehab followed, and provided the setting for his first encounter with his future wife, a fellow heiress and troubled substance abuser. The couple were soon married and had four children (now aged between 7 and 12). As well as their five-storey London home, they own a 900-acre estate in Sussex, a beachside mansion in Barbados, and an apartment on the luxury cruise-liner The World.
Mr. Rausing and his two older sisters, Lisbet and Sigrid, are heirs to their father's fortune, which is estimated at £5.4-billion, making their family the 7th richest in Britain, according to the Sunday Times Rich List.
It was Mr. Rausing's grandfather, Ruben Rausing, who invented the Tetra Pak carton. Ruben passed the company on to his two sons, Hans Senior and Gad, when he retired. They transformed it into a multibillion-pound multinational. In the 1980s, they moved the company from Sweden to London to avoid Sweden's tax laws. In 1995, Hans Rausing Sr. sold his share of Tetra Pak to his brother, leaving his three children without a direct investment in the company.
Left out of the business and with enough money to maintain his family and many future generations, the younger Mr. Rausing has no professional life to speak of. An unnamed regular acquaintance of his spoke to The Times newspaper and described him as "a recluse of Howard Hughes proportions, gentle and painfully shy."
His sisters have followed in the family footsteps more closely. The eldest, Lisbet, has a PhD in anthropology and is director of Arcadia Trust, which funds charities that "preserve cultural and social knowledge." Sigrid runs a similar foundation and is the proprietor of the literary magazine Granta and Portobello Books.
Their brother has also involved himself in philanthropic pursuits. Prince Charles once described him as "one very special philanthropist." In what now appears as more of a cry for help, he and his wife have for years been closely involved with Action on Addiction and The Mentor Foundation, a charity that aims "to prevent drug misuse and promote the health and wellbeing of young people." The latter organization received an estimated £700,000 from the couple over the years.
Mr. Rausing's whereabouts remained unknown yesterday. "They haven't come back, and I don't know when they will be back," the couple's maid recently shouted through their intercom machine at a group of reporters gathered outside the house. The police have given him one month to contact them, after which they will start to track him down.
Special to The Globe and Mail
Globe and Mail, all rights reserved
miércoles 2 de julio de 2008
Profile: Boris Johnson - Published in the June issue of 23 International
Following recent elections in London, Britain’s capital city has a new mayor. The Conservative candidate Boris Johnson beat the incumbent mayor, Ken Livingstone, to take over the most important directly elected position in British politics.
Boris Johnson is one of the most recognisable figures in British politics. His mop of unruly platinum-blonde hair, his trusty bicycle with which he wobbles around the streets of London and his bumbling persona have long made him stand out amongst the generally staid political establishment.
Often labelled a buffoon, a racist and a hard-line right-winger by his detractors, Boris (as he is commonly known) was able to overcome this criticism and win the majority of votes at the London mayoral elections earlier last month. In doing so he became the first ever Conservative (Tory) mayor of the British capital. But who exactly is Boris Johnson? And what does his election tell us about the current political climate in London?
Boris Johnson’s background fits every foreigner’s vision of an upper class Englishman. The son of a politician, he was educated at Eton (school of choice for the Royal family and the wealthy) and Oxford. By all accounts his days at university were filled with networking and debauchery. He was a member of the infamous Bullingdon Club (much like a US-style fraternity) along with the Conservative leader, David Cameron, and Princess Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer. Members of the club were known for throwing raucous parties and often getting together to smash up local restaurants, before handing over money to cover the damages.
Soon after graduating he moved into the world of journalism, accepting a job at the Rupert Murdoch owned The Times, before being fired shortly after for making up a quote. He then got a job on another right-wing newspaper, The Daily Telegraph.
Boris flourished at the Daily Telegraph moving up the ranks quickly, becoming their correspondent in Brussels, then assistant editor and finally chief political columnist. Then in 1999 he was given the editorship of The Spectator, the widest selling Right-of-centre magazine in the UK.
But journalism was clearly not enough for the ambitious Boris, who as a boy would say he wanted to be “World King” when he grew up. In 2001 he was elected MP for Henley, one of the richest and most conservative towns in England.
Although given a post in the Conservative “Shadow” cabinet, he again got into trouble and was fired, this time for having an extra-marital affair with a work colleague. When his old friend, David Cameron, took over the leadership of the Conservative party in 2005, he brought in Boris as the party’s Shadow Higher Education Minister.
But it is his personality that has made Boris a household name across the UK. Unafraid of being seen as politically incorrect or causing offence, he often makes outlandish statements that few other public figures would get away with.
Rather than being seen as a chauvinist or xenophobe when making quasi-racist comments, his clownish persona means that not playing by the rules makes him charming and appealing to many voters.
One of his most famous quotes was made on the Conservative campaign trail in 2004, when he said: “If you vote Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase.”
Boris is perhaps best known for insulting, and having to apologize to, entire cities and even countries. He once enraged the people of Liverpool for saying its citizens wallowed in “mawkish sentimentality.” He later angered the country of Papua New Guinea for suggesting that it was known for “cannibalism and chief killing.”
His gaffes have succeeded in taking attention away from his political leanings which veer towards the far-right. He is a vociferous supporter of George Bush and the Iraq war, whilst opposing gay rights and the implementation of the Kyoto agreement on climate change.
Boris’ popularity can also be accredited to his regular appearances on popular TV shows. All this made Boris into a media celebrity, so that when David Cameron was looking for a candidate for the mayoral elections in London, he was an astute choice- at least people on doorsteps recognised him.
In the 1 May election Boris came up against the incumbent Labourite mayor Ken Livingstone, a Londoner and politician from the old leftist guard of the Labour-party. Livingstone pushed through many controversial policies in the capital during his two-term premiership. Including the $16-per-day Congestion Charge for cars entering inner London and plans for a $25 per-day charge for those driving highly pollutant cars. He was praised across the board for helping secure the 2012 London Olympic Games and providing leadership and calm following the terrorist attacks on the city in July 2005.
But as the Guardian newspaper described it, in recent months Livingstone “sailed into a perfect storm.” His image was tarnished by the emergence of corruption scandals in connection with some of his aides. He suffered a relentless, self-interested, hate-campaign by the Evening Standard (a newspaper that is widely read in the capital). But most crucially of all he was damaged by the unpopularity of the current Labour government. Local elections held on the same night, saw the Conservatives take over Labour seats throughout the country, suggesting that the results in London were representative of a nation-wide discontent with Gordon Brown’s administration.
However, this shift was particularly surprising in London as the city has for decades been a Labour stronghold and the progressive centre of the country. “What the mayoral elections in London tell us is that the Tory party is changing,” said Martha Moss, a reporter on a political website in the UK. “It’s no longer the nasty party, people used to be embarrassed to vote Tory and they’re not anymore.”
This shift is in large part accredited to David Cameron. He has breathed new life into the once ailing party and re-branded the Conservatives as a viable alternative, something which as recently as the 2004 elections was unimaginable.
They now have a genuine chance of winning the next general elections, but their success will depend, to a large extent, on the success of Boris in the capital. “The Conservatives kept him on a very tight leash throughout the election campaign to ensure there were no gaffes or slip-ups,” said Martha Moss. “He gave up alcohol throughout the duration of the campaign and had world-class advisors flown in to offer their expertise.” The party are likely to keep an equally close watch on him throughout his mandate.
But it is precisely his jovial nature that has made Boris such an asset to them and such a danger to Londoners. Many of his supporters admitted to voting for him because they found him amusing. “I voted for Boris because he is a funny guy,” Oly Hut, a sales executive for a leading business publication in London, told me. “Boris isn’t somebody I would particularly want to lead London, or the country, or anything really, but I don’t like Ken and Boris is funny on TV.”
But while the public laugh at his blunders and shake their heads at his faux-pas, Boris will be pushing forward a hard-line right-wing agenda and fooling everyone into thinking that he is too much of a joker to know what he is doing.
When I arrived in Buenos Aires a year ago to report on the country for the press back in the UK, my Argentine uncle took me aside and with a knowing look assured me that I would have plenty of material to write about, as the only certainty in Argentina was that the politics would never be dull. Next week I return to London and it now looks as though the same can be said for the political situation there.
Boris Johnson is one of the most recognisable figures in British politics. His mop of unruly platinum-blonde hair, his trusty bicycle with which he wobbles around the streets of London and his bumbling persona have long made him stand out amongst the generally staid political establishment.
Often labelled a buffoon, a racist and a hard-line right-winger by his detractors, Boris (as he is commonly known) was able to overcome this criticism and win the majority of votes at the London mayoral elections earlier last month. In doing so he became the first ever Conservative (Tory) mayor of the British capital. But who exactly is Boris Johnson? And what does his election tell us about the current political climate in London?
Boris Johnson’s background fits every foreigner’s vision of an upper class Englishman. The son of a politician, he was educated at Eton (school of choice for the Royal family and the wealthy) and Oxford. By all accounts his days at university were filled with networking and debauchery. He was a member of the infamous Bullingdon Club (much like a US-style fraternity) along with the Conservative leader, David Cameron, and Princess Diana’s brother, Charles Spencer. Members of the club were known for throwing raucous parties and often getting together to smash up local restaurants, before handing over money to cover the damages.
Soon after graduating he moved into the world of journalism, accepting a job at the Rupert Murdoch owned The Times, before being fired shortly after for making up a quote. He then got a job on another right-wing newspaper, The Daily Telegraph.
Boris flourished at the Daily Telegraph moving up the ranks quickly, becoming their correspondent in Brussels, then assistant editor and finally chief political columnist. Then in 1999 he was given the editorship of The Spectator, the widest selling Right-of-centre magazine in the UK.
But journalism was clearly not enough for the ambitious Boris, who as a boy would say he wanted to be “World King” when he grew up. In 2001 he was elected MP for Henley, one of the richest and most conservative towns in England.
Although given a post in the Conservative “Shadow” cabinet, he again got into trouble and was fired, this time for having an extra-marital affair with a work colleague. When his old friend, David Cameron, took over the leadership of the Conservative party in 2005, he brought in Boris as the party’s Shadow Higher Education Minister.
But it is his personality that has made Boris a household name across the UK. Unafraid of being seen as politically incorrect or causing offence, he often makes outlandish statements that few other public figures would get away with.
Rather than being seen as a chauvinist or xenophobe when making quasi-racist comments, his clownish persona means that not playing by the rules makes him charming and appealing to many voters.
One of his most famous quotes was made on the Conservative campaign trail in 2004, when he said: “If you vote Conservatives, your wife will get bigger breasts and your chances of driving a BMW M3 will increase.”
Boris is perhaps best known for insulting, and having to apologize to, entire cities and even countries. He once enraged the people of Liverpool for saying its citizens wallowed in “mawkish sentimentality.” He later angered the country of Papua New Guinea for suggesting that it was known for “cannibalism and chief killing.”
His gaffes have succeeded in taking attention away from his political leanings which veer towards the far-right. He is a vociferous supporter of George Bush and the Iraq war, whilst opposing gay rights and the implementation of the Kyoto agreement on climate change.
Boris’ popularity can also be accredited to his regular appearances on popular TV shows. All this made Boris into a media celebrity, so that when David Cameron was looking for a candidate for the mayoral elections in London, he was an astute choice- at least people on doorsteps recognised him.
In the 1 May election Boris came up against the incumbent Labourite mayor Ken Livingstone, a Londoner and politician from the old leftist guard of the Labour-party. Livingstone pushed through many controversial policies in the capital during his two-term premiership. Including the $16-per-day Congestion Charge for cars entering inner London and plans for a $25 per-day charge for those driving highly pollutant cars. He was praised across the board for helping secure the 2012 London Olympic Games and providing leadership and calm following the terrorist attacks on the city in July 2005.
But as the Guardian newspaper described it, in recent months Livingstone “sailed into a perfect storm.” His image was tarnished by the emergence of corruption scandals in connection with some of his aides. He suffered a relentless, self-interested, hate-campaign by the Evening Standard (a newspaper that is widely read in the capital). But most crucially of all he was damaged by the unpopularity of the current Labour government. Local elections held on the same night, saw the Conservatives take over Labour seats throughout the country, suggesting that the results in London were representative of a nation-wide discontent with Gordon Brown’s administration.
However, this shift was particularly surprising in London as the city has for decades been a Labour stronghold and the progressive centre of the country. “What the mayoral elections in London tell us is that the Tory party is changing,” said Martha Moss, a reporter on a political website in the UK. “It’s no longer the nasty party, people used to be embarrassed to vote Tory and they’re not anymore.”
This shift is in large part accredited to David Cameron. He has breathed new life into the once ailing party and re-branded the Conservatives as a viable alternative, something which as recently as the 2004 elections was unimaginable.
They now have a genuine chance of winning the next general elections, but their success will depend, to a large extent, on the success of Boris in the capital. “The Conservatives kept him on a very tight leash throughout the election campaign to ensure there were no gaffes or slip-ups,” said Martha Moss. “He gave up alcohol throughout the duration of the campaign and had world-class advisors flown in to offer their expertise.” The party are likely to keep an equally close watch on him throughout his mandate.
But it is precisely his jovial nature that has made Boris such an asset to them and such a danger to Londoners. Many of his supporters admitted to voting for him because they found him amusing. “I voted for Boris because he is a funny guy,” Oly Hut, a sales executive for a leading business publication in London, told me. “Boris isn’t somebody I would particularly want to lead London, or the country, or anything really, but I don’t like Ken and Boris is funny on TV.”
But while the public laugh at his blunders and shake their heads at his faux-pas, Boris will be pushing forward a hard-line right-wing agenda and fooling everyone into thinking that he is too much of a joker to know what he is doing.
When I arrived in Buenos Aires a year ago to report on the country for the press back in the UK, my Argentine uncle took me aside and with a knowing look assured me that I would have plenty of material to write about, as the only certainty in Argentina was that the politics would never be dull. Next week I return to London and it now looks as though the same can be said for the political situation there.
domingo 25 de mayo de 2008
Autonomy vote leaves Bolivia in crisis - Published May 2007
The wealthy eastern Bolivian province of Santa Cruz held an unofficial referendum earlier this month to vote for greater autonomy from central government. After a large majority approved the move, Bolivia’s President, Evo Morales, now faces his toughest challenge yet as the country falls deeper into crisis.
Santa Cruz isn’t alone in its separatist claims. A further three eastern provinces: Beni, Tarija and Pando, known collectively as the media luna (half moon) in a reference to their shape on the map of Bolivia, will hold similar referendums in the coming weeks. Two other provinces, Chuquisaca and Cochabamba, are likely to follow suit.
Faced with such virulent opposition and his plans to “refound” Bolivia along socialist lines stalled, President Morales has called on the Bolivian people to vote on whether or not he should stay in power.
Indigenous President
A former llama herder and trade union leader Evo Morales won a historic victory in the 2005 elections, becoming Bolivia’s first indigenous president in the 500 years since the Spanish conquest.
During his election campaign he pledged to see through a “democratic revolution” in Bolivia in an attempt to alleviate widespread poverty (Bolivia is the poorest country in South America) and improve the social welfare of the country’s indigenous majority (who make up 60% of the population.)
Throughout his mandate President Morales has determinedly pursued a controversial programme of social change, initiating the part-nationalisation of the country’s energy resources which saw Bolivia record a fiscal surplus for the first time in 30 years.
Controversial policies
Morales’ policies have created much opposition, not only among the multinationals made to pay increased dividends to the Bolivian government but also within certain regions in Bolivia.
The mainstay of this opposition is based in Santa Cruz. Rich in natural resources, including oil and gas, this is the wealthiest province in Bolivia and accounts for 30% of the country’s GDP. Unlike the rest of Bolivia its population is mainly made up of European descendants.
The opposition stronghold here is calling for fewer ties to central government and increased power to control the distribution of their profits and taxes.
Though they have been making demands for regional autonomy for many years, a number of factors have now brought this to a head.
New Constitution
The catalyst was the government’s approval of a draft constitution in December last year.
The proposed constitutional reform is a key component of President Morales’ vision for Bolivia.
The opposition fear that if implemented it would threaten their land-holdings and way of life as it aims to re-distribute land and wealth from the richer east to the poorer west of the country.
Ethnicity is another contentious issue that deeply divides the half-moon provinces from those in the western highlands.
The new constitution would give a bigger political voice to Bolivia’s indigenous population – a sector of society that has long suffered marginalisation. The central government believes this is something the landed elite of the east feel threatened by.
Evo Morales has described the calls for autonomy as “pure racism.”
“The issue of departmental autonomy is just a pretext,” he said in a recent interview, “what they (the opposition in the east) really want is autonomy from the indigenous people of Bolivia.”
Call for autonomy
At the referendum in Santa Cruz on 4 May, 86% voted “yes” to greater autonomy for the region, out of an estimated turnout of 64%. President Morales urged his supporters to boycott the vote, dismissing it as an “illegal petition” as it lacked the presence of international observers or the authorisation of the National Electoral Court.
The polling stations were staffed by members of the Unión Juvenil Crucenista (the military-arm of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee, an opposition party) who have been known to use violent tactics in the past and sport swastikas.
Despite widespread fears that voting would be accompanied by violence there were relatively few clashes; one man was confirmed dead and around 25 people were injured.
Following the results impromptu celebrations kicked off in the capital of Santa Cruz. Opposition leader Branko Marinkovic insisted that the vote was “truly democratic.”
“The right to vote has to be respected,” Branko Marinkovic said, “none of the votes were bought, the people of Santa Cruz voted ‘yes’ to autonomy and (the government) have to learn to accept that.”
The autonomy bill
The autonomy bill calls for the establishment of a regional “government” that would have the right to protect land, raise taxes, control revenues from its gas fields and run its own police force. It also repudiates the government’s plans to grant new powers to indigenous communities. It does however avoid calling for outright secession.
What does the vote result mean for the government?
Despite the illegality of the vote and President Morales casting it off as a “total failure” it does hold significant symbolic importance. The country now appears more divided than ever, the opposition have gained momentum and neighbouring oppositionist factions have been encouraged to pursue a similar path.
In real terms it puts pressure on the government to concede to the opposition and revise (if not shelve) the draft constitution and reach a compromise over regional autonomy.
What next?
All eyes are now fixed on Santa Cruz, to see what the triumphant opposition will do next. While the Morales administration has so far avoided involving the armed forces in the conflict, if Santa Cruz tries to take over oil and gas installations (in order to control revenues) the deployment of the army will become inevitable.
Yet political analysts don’t believe it will come to this and seem to agree that discussions will be held to try to reach a peaceful resolution.
"In Bolivia, we are very accustomed to precipices,” Rosana Barragan a historian based in La Paz told the BBC, “but they say we always step back from the brink."
Back to the ballot box
President Morales reacted to the vote on 4 May by calling for yet another referendum; this time to determine whether or not he should complete his four-year term.
"For the first time in Bolivian history, the people will not only have the right to choose but also to decide if the authorities are failing them," he said.
The 10 August is the date set for the recall vote in which the public will decide whether Morales, the vice-president and the country’s nine regional governors should stay in power.
To win the President will have to gain at least 53.74% of the vote – this being the percentage of support he achieved in the 2005 elections. If he fails to do so a general election will be called.
Morales has said that he will use a victory in this referendum as a springboard to push forward his reforms.
The final showdown
Many commentators have been using Evo Morales’ favourite sport, football, as a metaphor for the current crisis. Each successful referendum is a goal scored and control of Bolivia is the highly coveted prize for the eventual winner.
Some are now saying that in agreeing to the recall election the opposition have scored an own goal. Support for Morales remains high in much of the west of the country and in some cases the percentage needed for opposition governors to be recalled is substantially higher than that required by the President (as it directly correlates to their achievements in the 2005 elections.)
As the governor for the province of Cochabamba, Manfred Reyes Villa, who is facing re-election of the 10 August said, “If we are going with the football metaphor than it is as if we have an enormous goal-post for Evo to score into and his goal-post is the size of one on a table-football game.”
Copyright Ana Caistor-Arendar
Santa Cruz isn’t alone in its separatist claims. A further three eastern provinces: Beni, Tarija and Pando, known collectively as the media luna (half moon) in a reference to their shape on the map of Bolivia, will hold similar referendums in the coming weeks. Two other provinces, Chuquisaca and Cochabamba, are likely to follow suit.
Faced with such virulent opposition and his plans to “refound” Bolivia along socialist lines stalled, President Morales has called on the Bolivian people to vote on whether or not he should stay in power.
Indigenous President
A former llama herder and trade union leader Evo Morales won a historic victory in the 2005 elections, becoming Bolivia’s first indigenous president in the 500 years since the Spanish conquest.
During his election campaign he pledged to see through a “democratic revolution” in Bolivia in an attempt to alleviate widespread poverty (Bolivia is the poorest country in South America) and improve the social welfare of the country’s indigenous majority (who make up 60% of the population.)
Throughout his mandate President Morales has determinedly pursued a controversial programme of social change, initiating the part-nationalisation of the country’s energy resources which saw Bolivia record a fiscal surplus for the first time in 30 years.
Controversial policies
Morales’ policies have created much opposition, not only among the multinationals made to pay increased dividends to the Bolivian government but also within certain regions in Bolivia.
The mainstay of this opposition is based in Santa Cruz. Rich in natural resources, including oil and gas, this is the wealthiest province in Bolivia and accounts for 30% of the country’s GDP. Unlike the rest of Bolivia its population is mainly made up of European descendants.
The opposition stronghold here is calling for fewer ties to central government and increased power to control the distribution of their profits and taxes.
Though they have been making demands for regional autonomy for many years, a number of factors have now brought this to a head.
New Constitution
The catalyst was the government’s approval of a draft constitution in December last year.
The proposed constitutional reform is a key component of President Morales’ vision for Bolivia.
The opposition fear that if implemented it would threaten their land-holdings and way of life as it aims to re-distribute land and wealth from the richer east to the poorer west of the country.
Ethnicity is another contentious issue that deeply divides the half-moon provinces from those in the western highlands.
The new constitution would give a bigger political voice to Bolivia’s indigenous population – a sector of society that has long suffered marginalisation. The central government believes this is something the landed elite of the east feel threatened by.
Evo Morales has described the calls for autonomy as “pure racism.”
“The issue of departmental autonomy is just a pretext,” he said in a recent interview, “what they (the opposition in the east) really want is autonomy from the indigenous people of Bolivia.”
Call for autonomy
At the referendum in Santa Cruz on 4 May, 86% voted “yes” to greater autonomy for the region, out of an estimated turnout of 64%. President Morales urged his supporters to boycott the vote, dismissing it as an “illegal petition” as it lacked the presence of international observers or the authorisation of the National Electoral Court.
The polling stations were staffed by members of the Unión Juvenil Crucenista (the military-arm of the Santa Cruz Civic Committee, an opposition party) who have been known to use violent tactics in the past and sport swastikas.
Despite widespread fears that voting would be accompanied by violence there were relatively few clashes; one man was confirmed dead and around 25 people were injured.
Following the results impromptu celebrations kicked off in the capital of Santa Cruz. Opposition leader Branko Marinkovic insisted that the vote was “truly democratic.”
“The right to vote has to be respected,” Branko Marinkovic said, “none of the votes were bought, the people of Santa Cruz voted ‘yes’ to autonomy and (the government) have to learn to accept that.”
The autonomy bill
The autonomy bill calls for the establishment of a regional “government” that would have the right to protect land, raise taxes, control revenues from its gas fields and run its own police force. It also repudiates the government’s plans to grant new powers to indigenous communities. It does however avoid calling for outright secession.
What does the vote result mean for the government?
Despite the illegality of the vote and President Morales casting it off as a “total failure” it does hold significant symbolic importance. The country now appears more divided than ever, the opposition have gained momentum and neighbouring oppositionist factions have been encouraged to pursue a similar path.
In real terms it puts pressure on the government to concede to the opposition and revise (if not shelve) the draft constitution and reach a compromise over regional autonomy.
What next?
All eyes are now fixed on Santa Cruz, to see what the triumphant opposition will do next. While the Morales administration has so far avoided involving the armed forces in the conflict, if Santa Cruz tries to take over oil and gas installations (in order to control revenues) the deployment of the army will become inevitable.
Yet political analysts don’t believe it will come to this and seem to agree that discussions will be held to try to reach a peaceful resolution.
"In Bolivia, we are very accustomed to precipices,” Rosana Barragan a historian based in La Paz told the BBC, “but they say we always step back from the brink."
Back to the ballot box
President Morales reacted to the vote on 4 May by calling for yet another referendum; this time to determine whether or not he should complete his four-year term.
"For the first time in Bolivian history, the people will not only have the right to choose but also to decide if the authorities are failing them," he said.
The 10 August is the date set for the recall vote in which the public will decide whether Morales, the vice-president and the country’s nine regional governors should stay in power.
To win the President will have to gain at least 53.74% of the vote – this being the percentage of support he achieved in the 2005 elections. If he fails to do so a general election will be called.
Morales has said that he will use a victory in this referendum as a springboard to push forward his reforms.
The final showdown
Many commentators have been using Evo Morales’ favourite sport, football, as a metaphor for the current crisis. Each successful referendum is a goal scored and control of Bolivia is the highly coveted prize for the eventual winner.
Some are now saying that in agreeing to the recall election the opposition have scored an own goal. Support for Morales remains high in much of the west of the country and in some cases the percentage needed for opposition governors to be recalled is substantially higher than that required by the President (as it directly correlates to their achievements in the 2005 elections.)
As the governor for the province of Cochabamba, Manfred Reyes Villa, who is facing re-election of the 10 August said, “If we are going with the football metaphor than it is as if we have an enormous goal-post for Evo to score into and his goal-post is the size of one on a table-football game.”
Copyright Ana Caistor-Arendar
Uruguay – Country profile. Published in the New Internationalist, May 2008
It was the meddling British who used their cartographic skills to delineate the country that would become Uruguay in the early 19th century, as a buffer zone between the two regional giants Argentina and Brazil. The result was a country stuck in the shadows of its gargantuan neighbours whose influence has played a major role throughout this country’s history.
At the turn of the 20th century Uruguay was one of the region’s richest countries. Its wealth was a result of the fertile land, with high demand for its principal exports: beef and wool. The remnants of these glory days are etched into the streets of the capital Montevideo, where crumbling neo-classical town-houses line the streets, reminding the inhabitants of the opulence of days gone by.
With this wealth flourished a liberal political tradition and a stability that earned Uruguay the moniker of “The Switzerland of Latin America.” Unlike much of the rest of Latin America the Catholic Church and the landed elites were relatively weak forces as the state began to take shape in the late 19th century. It pushed ahead with progressive reforms: becoming the first country in the region to grant female suffrage in 1931, legalise divorce in 1913 and create a welfare state. It was the land of the plenty and it took to this role with brio, staking a claim on the international stage and twice winning the football World Cup (in a bona fide example of poetic justice it trounced Argentina and Brazil respectively in the finals.)
But in the 1950s demand for Uruguay’s exports dropped, a fall from such great heights was inevitable, unemployment grew and social unrest gained momentum. Historically strong trade unions clashed with the government and the revolutionary left-wing guerrilla group, Tupameros, emerged. In 1973 military rule was put in place. Twelve years of repressive social policies ensued, during which Uruguay accumulated the largest number of political prisoners per capita in the world. Torture often led to death, with and estimated 160 “disappeared” at the hands of the junta. The economy was steered towards foreign investments and the social reforms that had been put in place stagnated.
With the restoration of democracy in 1986 came an attempt to recover democratic freedoms and the battered economy. Power alternated between the country’s two traditional (and very similar) political parties: the Blanco and Colorado parties. Both were committed to following neoliberal measures by the book, pushing through reforms that created favourable terms for foreign investment and privatizing much of the public sector.
Uruguay’s dependence on its neighbours for economic stability continued and the financial crisis that struck Argentina in 2002 spilled over into the country, leading to a recession. Between 1999- 2002 total GDP dropped by 20% whilst unemployment rose by the same figure. The peso plunged, poverty proliferated and many younger Uruguayans emigrated to other parts of the world to find work.
Condition-attached loans from the IMF followed, sparking the beginning of a recovery, but plunging the country further into debt. Public opinion towards the government had deteriorated, as had trust in the neoliberal model. The existing political duopoly was challenged by the Broad Front, a coalition encompassing members of the centre and far left headed by the Tabaré Vásquez, who triumphed in the 2004 elections.
Vásquez has overseen a recovery in Uruguay and aligned himself to the so-called “pink- tide” of left-wing countries dominating Latin American politics. Attempts to deal with the country’s bloody recent history are also being addressed. Although an amnesty law prohibiting the prosecution of members of the armed forces for human rights abuses remains in place, a reinterpretation of the law has led to the detention and trial of high raking officials, including former Presidents Juan María Bordaberry and Gregorio Álvarez. New life is being blown into the ailing welfare state, and Uruguay is again taking the lead in pushing forward progressive reforms. The country’s sandy beaches and hilly plains are bustling with visitors from increasingly far off destinations who have come to experience its famed “buena onda” (good vibe) and many of those who left are returning to find that something similar to “the golden years” are back.
Politics Round-up****
After a difficult start Tabaré Vásquez has managed to maintain unity within the ruling coalition and is enjoying popularity. The Broad Front paid off the remainder of the debt to the IMF in 2006 and re-introduced direct income tax, which has been absent for 40 years. Tabaré Vásquez is attempting to tread a thin line between keeping the super power in the North happy and maintaining his alliances with his leftist colleagues in Latin America. A MERCOSUR member, in 2007 Uruguay joined the “Bank of the South,” a new region bank intended to replace the IMF, whilst also holding talks with the US over trade and investment agreements. Vásquez continued to face criticism in the region for agreeing to the construction of two Finnish pulp mills on the shores of the Río Uruguay which Argentina claims will pollute the river and its surrounding area. Despite widespread public opposition in Argentina (and some in Uruguay) Vásquez is pressing ahead with the project.
Copyright Ana Caistor-Arendar & the New Internationalist
At the turn of the 20th century Uruguay was one of the region’s richest countries. Its wealth was a result of the fertile land, with high demand for its principal exports: beef and wool. The remnants of these glory days are etched into the streets of the capital Montevideo, where crumbling neo-classical town-houses line the streets, reminding the inhabitants of the opulence of days gone by.
With this wealth flourished a liberal political tradition and a stability that earned Uruguay the moniker of “The Switzerland of Latin America.” Unlike much of the rest of Latin America the Catholic Church and the landed elites were relatively weak forces as the state began to take shape in the late 19th century. It pushed ahead with progressive reforms: becoming the first country in the region to grant female suffrage in 1931, legalise divorce in 1913 and create a welfare state. It was the land of the plenty and it took to this role with brio, staking a claim on the international stage and twice winning the football World Cup (in a bona fide example of poetic justice it trounced Argentina and Brazil respectively in the finals.)
But in the 1950s demand for Uruguay’s exports dropped, a fall from such great heights was inevitable, unemployment grew and social unrest gained momentum. Historically strong trade unions clashed with the government and the revolutionary left-wing guerrilla group, Tupameros, emerged. In 1973 military rule was put in place. Twelve years of repressive social policies ensued, during which Uruguay accumulated the largest number of political prisoners per capita in the world. Torture often led to death, with and estimated 160 “disappeared” at the hands of the junta. The economy was steered towards foreign investments and the social reforms that had been put in place stagnated.
With the restoration of democracy in 1986 came an attempt to recover democratic freedoms and the battered economy. Power alternated between the country’s two traditional (and very similar) political parties: the Blanco and Colorado parties. Both were committed to following neoliberal measures by the book, pushing through reforms that created favourable terms for foreign investment and privatizing much of the public sector.
Uruguay’s dependence on its neighbours for economic stability continued and the financial crisis that struck Argentina in 2002 spilled over into the country, leading to a recession. Between 1999- 2002 total GDP dropped by 20% whilst unemployment rose by the same figure. The peso plunged, poverty proliferated and many younger Uruguayans emigrated to other parts of the world to find work.
Condition-attached loans from the IMF followed, sparking the beginning of a recovery, but plunging the country further into debt. Public opinion towards the government had deteriorated, as had trust in the neoliberal model. The existing political duopoly was challenged by the Broad Front, a coalition encompassing members of the centre and far left headed by the Tabaré Vásquez, who triumphed in the 2004 elections.
Vásquez has overseen a recovery in Uruguay and aligned himself to the so-called “pink- tide” of left-wing countries dominating Latin American politics. Attempts to deal with the country’s bloody recent history are also being addressed. Although an amnesty law prohibiting the prosecution of members of the armed forces for human rights abuses remains in place, a reinterpretation of the law has led to the detention and trial of high raking officials, including former Presidents Juan María Bordaberry and Gregorio Álvarez. New life is being blown into the ailing welfare state, and Uruguay is again taking the lead in pushing forward progressive reforms. The country’s sandy beaches and hilly plains are bustling with visitors from increasingly far off destinations who have come to experience its famed “buena onda” (good vibe) and many of those who left are returning to find that something similar to “the golden years” are back.
Politics Round-up****
After a difficult start Tabaré Vásquez has managed to maintain unity within the ruling coalition and is enjoying popularity. The Broad Front paid off the remainder of the debt to the IMF in 2006 and re-introduced direct income tax, which has been absent for 40 years. Tabaré Vásquez is attempting to tread a thin line between keeping the super power in the North happy and maintaining his alliances with his leftist colleagues in Latin America. A MERCOSUR member, in 2007 Uruguay joined the “Bank of the South,” a new region bank intended to replace the IMF, whilst also holding talks with the US over trade and investment agreements. Vásquez continued to face criticism in the region for agreeing to the construction of two Finnish pulp mills on the shores of the Río Uruguay which Argentina claims will pollute the river and its surrounding area. Despite widespread public opposition in Argentina (and some in Uruguay) Vásquez is pressing ahead with the project.
Copyright Ana Caistor-Arendar & the New Internationalist
jueves 17 de abril de 2008
Olympic Torch Relay goes ahead without major disruptions - Globe and Mail 12/04/08
Thousands of people gathered yesterday to cheer on the Olympic torch as it passed through Buenos Aires on the only Latin American leg of its round-the-world tour.
The torch made its way through the Argentine capital without any major incidents being reported. Stringent security measures were put in place to avoid the chaotic scenes witnessed in London, Paris and San Francisco earlier in the week.
Groups of pro-Tibet and pro-China demonstrators held protests in various parts of the city throughout the day. At one point the two rival groups faced-off but police stepped in and were able to diffuse the situation.
Before the official relay took place human rights activists staged a "counter-relay" which began at the city's most well-known monument, the Obelisk, a historic centre for protest in the city.
The group of around 50 activists unfurled a giant "Free Tibet" banner, while a woman-dressed as a Greek goddess and Argentine marathon champion, Juan Pablo Juarez, held aloft the alternative torches.
"The Olympic torch should be a symbol of liberty. The 2008 Olympics in Beijing make a farce of this idea," said Juarez. "As a sportsman I see it as my role to take part in this alternative relay and shine a light on the human rights violations that are taking place in China. Being in Argentina makes it even more important that we make our presence known, as not many people here know about the situation in Tibet, that is why there are few protestors out in the streets today."
As the "Relay for the Torch of Human Rights" prepared to set off on its trajectory, groups of China supporters waving red Chinese flags gathered on the other side of the Obelisk. Argentina is home to around 90,000 Chinese immigrants, one of the largest Chinese communities in Latin America.
"We are here today to receive the torch and show our support for the Beijing Olympics," said Alejandro Lin, a member of the Chinese-Argentine Youth Movement. "I don't mind that the pro-Tibet protestors are also here, this is a free country they can do what they want."
While the alternative torch made its way to the presidential palace, the official event began at the city's exclusive canal district, Puerto Madero. A tango show kicked off the opening ceremony before champion Argentine windsurfer, Carlos Espinola, took his place as the first torch bearer.
The organizers had invited soccer legend Diego Maradona to take part in the event, but despite initially agreeing he failed to attend.
The torch's 13 kilometer (8 mile) trajectory through the streets of central Buenos Aires was watched by crowds of onlookers who cheered it along as it passed. "I took the day off work so I could be here," said Jessica Carlozzi, 26, who was running alongside the relay, "I love sport and I'm really proud that they've chosen to come to my city, this has never happened before in Argentina."
Tennis-ace Gabriella Sabatini was the eightieth and final torch bearer. She closed the three-hour event, carrying the torch into the city's horse-racing club.
At the closing ceremony Argentine authorities and the members of the International Olympic Committee looked overjoyed. No doubt relieved that the event was carried off smoothly after the disputes during the previous legs of the torches tour have raised doubts over the relay's future.
"The relay went so well because we are used to holding these kinds of events in the city," said Adrian Rietr a taxi driver in Buenos Aires. "We have a similar number of police out on the streets when there is a football match between rival teams here so we knew what to expect."
Whether it was the security preparations, the relatively small number of protestors, or the public sense of pride at hosting the event, it would seem that yesterday in Buenos Aires the IOC finally got the relay they were hoping for.
Ana Caistor-Arendar in Buenos Aires
Globe and Mail, all rights reserved
Buenos Aires prepares for Olympic Torch Relay - Telegraph 11/04/08
Friday, Buenos Aires.
Thousands of police officers in Buenos Aires have been deployed to protect the Olympic torch during the seventh lap of its round-the-world relay in the Argentine capital today.
Authorities are trying to avoid the disruptions that took place earlier this week in San Francisco, London and Paris, following protests by anti-China activists.
The football legend Diego Maradona is rumoured to have arrived in the country yesterday and is set to be the first torch bearer in today's relay. While tennis-ace Gabriella Sabatini will close the ceremony.
The torch arrived yesterday aboard a chartered Air China plane. A huge welcome committee gathered at the international airport, including local politicians, members of the press and scantily-clad glamour models holding aloft posters for the 2008 Olympic Games. Surrounded by a wall of security the torch was instantly driven to a secret location before the bemused crowds were able to catch sight of it.
An estimated 2,500 police officers have been drafted to assist at the relay today, along with 500 special security officers, 3,000 traffic police, 600 volunteers, and the twenty blue track-suited guards especially assigned by China for the task.
Argentine officials are adamant that they are ready to see the relay through as planned. "We compare a situation like this to organizing a football match between Boca Juniors and River (the capital's two rival teams)," said Leonardo Uranga, an official at the Ministry of Sport who are organising the event. "We are talking about similar numbers of police for both events. We can handle something like this."
The 14km trajectory will begin along the city's river front and make its way North, passing the capital's most iconic monument, the Obelisk, a historic centre for protest in the city.
Yesterday at the Obelisk Jorge Carcavallo, a prominent member of the Free Tibet Association in Argentina, stood alongside a giant banner reading "Free Tibet." He revealed that he is expecting a "few hundred" protesters at the relay tomorrow and is planning several "surprise actions" throughout the day. He admitted that demonstrators have been coordinating with the leaders of the San Francisco protests, but assured that all manifestations would be carried out "peacefully."
Uranga also expects the numbers of protesters to be relatively low, "we are expecting a couple of hundred protesters at the relay tomorrow, but we are not going to take any chances."
If everything goes as planned today, being overly cautious may just result in the relay that the International Olympic Committee have been hoping for.
Daily Telegraph Newsgroup, all rights reserved
Olympic Torch arrives in Buenos Aires - BBC World Service
The city of Buenos Aires is the latest host of the Olympic Torch which arrived at the Argentine capital on Thursday. Following the tumultuous events witnessed over the past week in San Francisco, London and Paris, security officials in the capital are moblising thousands of police officers to ensure the that this time the relay goes as planned.
The Olympic torch arrived in the capital Buenos Aires on Thursday ahead of the relay on Friday. The streets have been cleared, the cameras are ready and football star Diego Maradona is rumoured to have arrived in the country to take his place as the first torch bearer.
Following the torch’s tumultuous recent trip the issue of security has taken centre stage.
An estimated 2,500 police officers have been drafted to assist, along with 500 special security officers, 3,000 traffic police, 600 volunteers, and the twenty blue track-suited guards especially assigned by China for the task.
I spoke to Santiago de Jesus a government advisor who is in charge of co-ordinating the security for today’s events.
“The security system in place for the torch relay is similar to that deployed for a presidential summit. We think that we’re ready for the event but we are also hoping to be able to have a big party, that is what we’ve been working towards.”
The torch relay ceremony, to be held at the upscale Puerto Madero canal district, will include a tango show before the torch sets off on its 14 km journey across the city.
On the way it is due to pass by the capital’s most iconic monument, the Obelisk, a historic place for popular protests.
On Thursday a large “Free Tibet banner” was hung alongside the monument. Jorge Carcavallo is a Free Tibet Association member, “We are awaiting a few hundred protestors/participants… I’ve said personally to the governors of Buenos Aires in meetings that if it were for me they could send home the security because Free Tibet in Argentina will not do any violent activities.”
The Dalai Lama has visited Argentina several times in recent years, and there is a small but determined Free Tibet Association here.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
