I Spy Brazil's Rise

From the overthrow of Chile’s democratically electedPresident Allende in 1973 to the current support which the United States gives to the Columbiangovernment in killing its own citizens in the failed War on Drugs there is a long history of American interference in what it regards as its back yard. Until recently, Latin American countries have had little power to fight back. True, Venzuela’s late President Hugo Chavez and his Chavista followers have often attacked the United States but their murmurings have never been seen as much of a threat to US hegemony over the continent. However, Brazil’s latest challenge to the authority of the United States should be taken seriously.

By taking action against allegations of US spying, Brazil has done what many in the West have failed to do. When the NSA spying story broke out over the summer, the West did little more than angrily Tweet about it before forgetting about the whole affair. There was very little public protesting and even less calls for actions by politicians. The reaction in Brazil has been very different. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has not only listened to public complaints about US spying but she has also spearheaded the campaign against it.

Brazil’s announcement that it plans to create a securee-mail service that would be make it much harder for international cyber-spies to intercept the electronic communications of Brazilian people and companies comes a mere matter of weeks after Rousseff passionately attacked the U.S and the NSA at the UN. In her impassioned speech Rousseff stated that ‘citizens’ personal data and information have been indiscriminately targeted and intercepted’ as well as that of businesses. Amongst the businesses allegedly targeted is the Brazilian energy giant Petrobras. If true, this is evidence that the US has, once again, extended past the pretence of its own domestic security into that of business sabotage in Latin America. With such clear threats to its own sovereign affairs and economic interests the Brazilian government is rightly incensed.

The fact that the Brazilian government feels strong enough to stand up to this American sabotage highlights its own increasing power in the world. However, the timing of these attacks might also have a little to do with decreasing its citizens own fears of globalisation. The protests which gripped Brazil’s streets over the summer have been wildly publicised. The main catalyst of these protests was Brazil’s hosting of football’s Confederations Cup and next year’s World Cup. Brazilians from all walks of life complained that the government was pouring billions of Reals (Brazil’s currency) into fancy new football stadiums and allowing a multitude of multinational companies into the country whilst completely ignoring social issues. Amongst the grievances of ordinary Brazilians are the lack of investment in health and education, the recent increases in public transport costs and perceived corruption in the upper-echelons of the government. The protests are yet to die down completely with the violence andstreet clashes which erupted at last Tuesday’s protest over teachers’ pay merely the latest example of the ongoing social strife in Brazil. Thus by attacking the United States and the interference of the NSA, Rousseff’s regime has created a scapegoat which may help to bring Brazilians together in nationalistic fervour and deflect attention from the criticisms of her government.

It is also possible to argue that rather than tackling the effects of globalisation, Rousseff’s attack against the United States and the NSA might be aimed rather, at bettering Brazil’s hand in the game of international capitalism. Indeed, Brazil is a member of the block of nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa) known as BRICS. These five nations see themselves as the economic leaders of the future and they have recently launched the BRICS Cable. The BRICS Cable is a series of undersea cables which link these five nations and other developing nations which is seen as a direct challenge by these group of nations to the hegemony of power which the United States currently yields over the internet as it will allow nations to share data more freely with the BRICS nations rather than the United States. Thus, the timing of the Rousseff’s attacks against the US government and NSA might well be designed to further undermine trust the American stewardship of the internet and gain supporters for the BRICS Cable.

A far less positive reason behind Rousseff’s attacks might well be Brazil’s desire to spy on its own citizens. Globally, citizens have tended to act with disgust when told by their governments that they intend to create a national e-mail network. This is due to the fact that citizens are aware that if their own government is in charge of their e-mail system then the government will also have easier access to their classified e-mail systems. It has to be asked of the Brazilian government, whether their scapegoating of the NSA and its spying on Brazilian people and businesses is a smoke shield designed to counter its own attempts to spy on its own citizens.  The timing of the NSA leaks appear to be a godsend to Rousseff and her government, coming at a time when they’re attempting to create a controversial national e-mail system, pushing the BRICS Cable and are dealing with public protests across the country. It has long been noted that the records of the Chinese and Russian governments when it comes to freedom of speech are deplorable; thus it does seem strange that Brazil should be so willing to enter into data sharing with these two nations whilst attacking the data-collection activities of the United States if freedom of speech is truly Rousseff’s main concern. By attacking the espionage of one nation, Rousseff might well be playing a very intelligent game and helping to improve the espionage attempts of her own nation.

There is no doubt that Brazil is a rising power in global affairs and that  it might soon overtake the United States in terms of the influence it exerts over the Global South. Barack Obama admitted as much back in April claiming not only that Brazil is a ‘leading voice in the region, but also aleading voice in the world’. In doing so, Obama may have announced to the world that he saw Brazil as a future economic and geo-political rival; in attacking the actions of the NSA, the Brazilian government has announced itself as a present rival to the United States. Whether or not the Brazilian attacks against the NSA are for the greater good remains to be seen. The current disregard for Freedom of Speech in Brazil’s BRICS allies coupled with the timing of Brazil’s internal e-mail system can be seen as signs that Brazil is about to embark on the same path of internal spying as the Chinese and the Russians.  On the other hand, Brazil does not necessarily have to follow China’s and Russia’s leads on Freedom of Speech and Rousseff’s anger at the NSA’s spying is, at least to an extent, motivated by national interest. Thus Rousseff’s tirade against snooping might well be genuine. What is unmistakable, however, is that the Brazilian crusade against the United States and the NSA will change the world. The physical world and the virtual one.

Las Malvinas or The Falklands: Here we go again

It’s been a while since I’ve updated my blog but recent events in Argentina have convinced me that it is time to write again. For months, tensions have been growing between Britain and Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. However, at the current G20 summit in Mexico these tensions seem to have reached a new peak.  Indeed, Tuesday’s confrontation between the British Prime Minister David Cameron and the Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is headline news around the world.  Each country has long claimed that the islands belong to it yet it is only over the past year or so that the issue has become important again. In this issue of my blog I shall attempt to explain their competing claims of ownership.

Whilst it is true that it was David Cameron who confronted Fernández in Mexico, there is no mistaking that this is an issue which was created by the Argentinians.  Indeed, for most of the five years that Fernández has held the Argentine Presidency the subject of sovereignty over the islands her compatriots call Las Malvinas has been a dominant one. An illustration of this is Argentina’s Olympic video in which an athlete trains alongside well-known Falklands’ landmarks, the tagline of which is ‘To compete on English soil, we train on Argentinian soil’, to see how much the Argentinians believe the Falklands is their rightful territory.

Fernández claims that as well as the people of her country, 40 nations around the world have signalled their intent to support Argentina at the UN over this issue. She claims that many more will support them in the future. The reason, her government argues, is Britain’s inability to shirk off its colonial past.  As her foreign minister, Héctor Timmerman, says:

‘After years of acting as a colonial power they have forgotten that they are responsible for the existence of colonialism, and that it is countries like Argentina that defeated most of the colonial projects in the world’.

Here, Timmerman highlights his belief that Britain is still an imperialistic power which is refusing to loosen its grasp on territories which it has no legitimate right to and where the people do not wish to be British.

However, Timmerman left out two very important details. Firstly, by becoming part of Argentina rather than Britain, the Falklands would not be liberated: they would merely be passed from one quasi-colonial power to another. Secondly, the issue of sovereignty should not be decided by the Buenos Aires government but rather by Falkland Islanders themselves. In places such as Argentina (which formerly fought for independence from the Spanish Empire) and former British colonies which also fought for their independence, the people of these lands had a desire to be rid of their colonial masters. This desire is not apparent in the case of the Falklands. Therefore, if the Falklands do want independence or do want to be annexed by Argentina, the issue of sovereignty should not be decided by the Buenos Aires government but rather by Falkland Islanders themselves.

Indeed, this is a point which the British government seems to have grasped much readier than their Argentinian counterparts. A Downing Street Official stated that the envelope, which Fernández gave to Cameron at the G20 summit and which contained a UN resolution from 1986, referred ‘to the UN charter [as all UN resolutions do], which enshrines the principle of self-determination’.

As it happens, a referendum on the future of the islands is due to be held next year.  It is widely expected that the people of the Falkland Islands will choose to remain British. It is perhaps for these reasons that Argentina is by-passing calls for self-determination by claiming that due to its geographical location and the ethnicity of the people displaced from the islands over a century ago, it should have control over the islands.

There might, however, be a darker reason behind Argentina’s claimed desire for the islands. Argentina’s economy is in bad shape. By fighting a diplomatic war of words with Britain, Fernández’s government has managed to divert the attention of many Argentinian citizens from the economy. As the Falkland Islands’ own Merco Press states:

‘By boldly asserting a territorial claim to the Islands, Cristina Fernández has succeeded in unifying an otherwise divided Argentine citizenry’.

However, sooner or later her government will have to face up to its own problems rather than hiding behind the smokescreen of the Falkland Islands.

A few blog posts ago I sang the praises of Argentine President Cristina Fernandez. I did, nonetheless, state that she needed to adjust her economic policies or she could lead Argentina to disaster. Fernandez seems to have chosen the latter path by masking its problems with an outward show of aggression which will do nothing to solve internal problems.

The people of the Falkland Islands have shown no desire to secede to Argentina and therefore Fernández should cease attempting to force their hand. In the midst of all this diplomatic turmoil, should the people of the Falklands happen to decide that they would be better off as part of Argentina than as a British territory then this decision should be welcomed by both the Argentinians and the British. However, if the referendum shows that the Falkland Islanders, as is likely, see themselves as British, Argentina would do well to halt its greedy pursuit of these islands before it finds itself turning into the ‘colonising power’ it accuses Britain of being.

Does the creation of CELAC herald a golden dawn for Latin America?

In my first blog I talked about the need for Latin American countries to work closer together in order to make their mark on the world. With the first meeting of CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños), this week it would appear that this is exactly what is happening. At this meeting the leaders of the American nations pledged to work together in many aspects and create more regional ties in an attempt to withstand the current global problems. Indeed, whilst the United States and European nations have suffered recently, Latin American nations have continued to post strong growth and Colombia’s President stated that countries like his would have to increase their trade with other countries in the region because "a hurricane was hitting the developed economies" and that they could not rely on them anymore. One of the most promising signs about these pledges to work together to continue their strong economic performance were acknowledgements by leaders such as President Sebastian Pinera of  Chile that the region’s countries would put their differences aside.

As significant as these promises to work together was the alienation of the United States and Canada. CELAC was designed to overtake the out-dated Organisation of American States which was dominated by the United States and so CELAC will be a much more equal union of nations. CELAC has truly shown its intent to ignore the US and escape from the shadows of the old Washington Consensus by backing a bill calling for the United States to end its trade embargo on Cuba; a move which would have been unimaginable a decade ago.  The fact that Latin America’s countries have unanimously opposed the United States shows its waning power in the region and this could allow Brazil to become the most important country in the region. Its ten years since the economist Jim O’Neill coined the term BRIC for the developing countries he thought could dominate the world in the future (Brazil, Russia, India and China) and Brazil has certainly seen its economic and political muscle on the world stage expand massively over the last ten years. If Brazil continues to grow as it is and takes the rest of Latin America with it then CELAC, if it proves to be successful, has the potential to be as powerful and important (if not more) than organisations such as the EU and NAFTA.

Despite the fact that the world’s media has not given the CELAC conference much coverage it could be as important in writing a new chapter of global history as the Western economic crisis and the economic failure of states such as Greece and Italy is proving to be.

This Blog is about Latin America, of course there would be drugs!

Considering that this is a blog about Latin America it will no doubt come as a surprise to you that this is the first time I am writing solely about drugs. When asked about Latin America, the first thing that comes to many people’s minds is drugs; whilst I aim to dispel the myth of Latin America being a continent which gives the rest of the world nothing but drugs, there is no doubt that drugs are still a huge problem and thus need to be discussed in this blog.

One of the countries which has been tarnished most by its image as a drug exporter is Colombia. Much of this is due to the bloody conflict that has been raging on between the left wing militia group FARC and the US-backed government. Whilst the conflict began as a battle between two opposing factions with different ideas for Colombia’s future, over the years it has degenerated into nothing more than power wars, both sides have been accused of attacking civilians and there is evidence of FARC exporting drugs and exploiting peasants in order to achieve their goals. However, over recent years the fighting has decreased as Colombia has gotten more stable and democratic. The recent death of FARC’s leader, Alfonso Cano, should also mean that the fighting decreases and will be a real blow to the Colombian drugs industry. Colombia has long strove to disassociate itself from the image of drugs capital of the world. Indeed, anyone who boards an airplane in Colombia must check in with the anti-narcotics police and all planes are tracked by radar; if drugs are found the government are entitled to shoot at the plane.  The people are broadly behind these measures too; a recent BBC survey found that only 3% of Colombians have any sympathy for FARC. It would seem that Shakira, and not cocaine, is now Colombia’s greatest export! This is not to say that Colombia’s battles with drugs are over. Just a few weeks ago former model Angie Saclamente was detained on drug smuggling charges. It transpires that she recruited poor young women throughout Colombia and Latin America to smuggle drugs to Europe via Mexico. This shows that there is significant money to be made from drugs and that the government faces a huge task to stamp them out.

Bolivia has taken a very different route to Colombia. In 2009, the world’s first Cocaine bar was opened on Bolivia’s route 36 and in 2008 coca purification went up 28%, whether legally or illegally is unknown. These are worrying signs that Bolivia may be overtaking Colombia (whose coca purification was down 10 in 2008) as cocaine capital! Bolivia’s president is well-known for resenting the United States and thus refuses allow the US drug agency DEA in the country. Indeed, Morales has long championed the rights of indigenous people to chew the coca leaf (in its non-purified state) for social purposes, however, it would appear that this has made its purification easier. Indeed, the US and Bolivian views on Coca and Cocaine differ so greatly that three years ago Bolivia expelled the US ambassador and drug enforcement agencies from the country. However, positive steps are being taken now as full diplomatic ties have now been restored. President Morales insists, however, that the DEA and other US drug agencies will not be welcome in Bolivia as the days of ‘subjugation’ are over. Despite the worrying trend of Bolivia’s increasing cocaine output this move should be welcomed as it is an example of a Latin American leader standing up against US bullying and this will prevent US enforcers from destroying Bolivian crops.

Whilst indigenous Bolivians have been accused of helping the trade in cocaine by refusing to give up coca, the story in Brazil is a very different one. Here drug smugglers have been encroaching on, and threatening, the land of indigenous peoples. The Panoan Indians who have had no contact with the outside world and were only discovered in 2008 when they were filmed from the air have had their lands attacked by smugglers wishing to traffic drugs from Peru to Brazil. The Brazilian government has set up guard posts to protect these people; however, heavy fighting between the smugglers and government forces could seriously impact upon them. A smuggler’s rucksack containing a tribesman’s broken arrow was found by the government forces. This is a very worrying sign as it shows that the smugglers are already attempting to intimidate and threaten the tribe and could even be attempted to eradicate them.

Elsewhere in Brazil, the police’s attempt to gain control of the cities favelas (slums) before the 2014 Fifa World Cup and 2016 Olympics has intensified. Many of Brazil’s, and Latin America’s, slums are controlled by drugs gangs with little or no federal intervention. However, this has started to change in Brazil as the police have been sent in to many of the favelas to clear out the drug dealers. Last night it was reported that civil authority has been returned to Rochina, one of Rio’s largest slums. Indeed, Nem, one of Brazil’s most notorious drug barons was caught and arrested trying to escape the area as well. This must be seen as a step forwards as it allows civil authorities to move in and provide services such as health care and electricity; residents in slums which have already been cleared of drug gangs have also reported a fall in crime rates and have generally seen their lives improve. Questions must be asked of the Brazilian government however. If they have the ability to eradicate these gangs from the country’s slums why are they only doing it now when the world is watching them rather than in the past for their own people?  

These snippets of news show that drugs still present a huge problem to Latin American societies, especially as the drug lords can exert huge power over and threaten entire populations. The US led eradication programmes have largely failed, Colombia’s decrease in drug production is largely due to internal governance rather than American interference. Indeed, the USA has led policies of destroying coca which has also led to the destruction of crops which rather than push peasants away from cultivating coca for drugs barons has pushed them towards that option. It is clear that these policies will not work. The legalisation and regulation of drugs by governments is an idea which is frowned upon, largely due to Western propaganda, however it might present the best option for Latin America and the world. This would ensure that drug barons could not wield influence over government or society, peasants could be better protected by the government, drug users could be monitored by the government and the government could plough the proceeds of this enterprise into anti-drugs propaganda.

Evita reborn?

Last Sunday Argentinians granted their President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner another term in office with an impressive 54% of the vote. Her nearest challenger, Hermes Binner, gained polled only 17%. The landslide victory is testament to, among other things, the strong economic growth which Argentina has achieved under Fernandez’s stewardship (as well as that of her late husband, Nestor Kirchner , before her).

Indeed, Argentina’s economic revival since 2003 is nothing short of miraculous. Back then the Argentine economy was in free-fall and the inflation rate was rocketing however, in his four years in office, Nestor Kirchner managed to tame inflation rates and get the economy working again. It was largely due to his popularity after saving the economy that his wife, Cristina Fernandez, was elected President in 2007. Fernandez started her first term as president very badly though; within months of being elected she had alienated many Argentines after rowing with farmers and media groups over the introduction of export quotas. Her approval ratings plummeted to around 20%. The strong economic growth which Argentina was experiencing was widely put down to her husband, who was now chancellor, and his work behind the scenes  and it was widely expected that he would return to the Presidency in 2011. However, he died of a heart attack last October. Fernandez has been in public mourning ever since and the way in which she has conducted herself has gained her much support throughout the country.

Sympathy alone did not win her the election though! The economy continued to perform strongly after her husband died and more and more people began to see her as a capable and fair president. Much of Argentina’s growth has been through the export of commodities such as soya beans and industrial goods like cars which have a high demand from China. Internally subsidies to increase consumption have worked wonders; unemployment is also down substantially. Fernandez has capitalized on this economic success and introduced many social policies which have improved the lives of many Argentinians as well as increased her popularity. Thanks to Fernandez’s policies 3 million of Argentina’s poorest children are enrolled on a programme whereby their families receive a grant of US$50 a month to clothe and feed them.  This has proved extremely popular as has Fernandez’s scheme of giving free laptops to children from poor communities. As well as improving people’s lives in the short term these policies will improve the lives of Argentinians in the future as many of these policies are centred on improving the education system.  And it is not just with the poor that Fernandez is proving popular. As well having presided over strong economic growth and social improvements Fernandez has also flexed Argentina’s muscles on the world stage, most notably over Las Malvinas (The Falklands). Without causing much of a diplomatic fallout Fernandez has used fiery rhetoric stating that Las Malvinas should belong to Argentina and not to the United Kingdom; this has appealed to many nationalist-minded Argentinians who remember the Falklands War and the days of listening to the western-controlled IMF’s every demand.

Fernandez’s time in office has largely been successful, however, the strong economic growth and high spending on social policies has caused inflation to soar. The rate of inflation is now estimated at between 10% and 20% and untamed it could undo all the good work of Cristina Fernandez and her late husband. The economy also needs to be rebalanced; Fernandez’s consumption subsidies have done much to address this problem, however, two-thirds of the economy still relies on the export of commodities and external shocks could affect Argentina badly! However, if Fernandez’s second term sees her successfully tackle inflation and rebalance the economy whilst maintain strong economic growth, Argentina could be on a path back to the glory days of Eva Perón.

It's not Hugo Chavez's health we should be worried about but his country's!

In recent months there have been numerous stories about the state of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s health and each time he has dismissed these stories as having been completely blown out of proportion. The same is true about the health of the Venezuelan nation and its economy. Four months ago Chavez flew to Cuba for cancer treatment and he is heading back there next week for what the government describes as a routine ‘check-up’. Whether or not Chavez’s health is as strong as he claims is open to debate, however, there is no question that Venezuela’s economy has been terminally ill for years.

Chavez’s cancer treatment has taken place in top of the range Venezuelan hospitals as well as in Venezuela’s communist ally Cuba. Needless to say, the option to fly over to Cuba for medical treatment is not available to most Venezuelans but neither is the option to facilitate Venezuela’s top hospitals; showing itself to be a shining beacon of Socialism, Venezuela has a two tier health system. Venezuela’s private hospitals have been compared to those in the United States and are generally seen as amongst the best in the world. The majority of Venezuelan’s, however, have to make do with the public health system which is far below the standards of the private system; these hospitals are often dirty, have machinery which doesn’t work, are over-crowded and are under-staffed; 2,000 doctors left the country in the period from 2006 to 2008. Whilst there has been a general decline in what was once seen as one of Latin America’s greatest health care systems since the 1980s, Chavez’s Socialist government has had enough time to deliver a better service for the people they claim to serve. Chavez’s government seems to have strayed far from their Communist ideals in allowing people to pay for healthcare and in treating the rich differently to the rest although at least they’ve stuck to Communism’s most important doctrine by allowing the proletariat to all suffer together.

It is not only in the health sector that the Chavez and his cronies have brought to its knees. Staying true to Communist principles Chavez’s thugs have, in an attempt to show how much better collectives are than private enterprises, successfully confiscated land from thousands of successful capitalists and landowners and re-distributed them as cooperatives or amongst the poor. The sheer illegality of the confiscations and the lives which have been destroyed aside, this may seem like a good idea which could benefit the lives of many of Venezuela’s people; however, this is not true.  As land has been redistributed, it has been taken away from those with knowledge of how to produce the goods which Venezuela exports and of how to produce food to those who have none and thus there has been a mass decline in production and a country which should be able to feed itself twice over is having to import two-thirds of its food! Due to this the economy of a country which has some of the richest supplies of natural resources in the world is in free fall and inflation is at 30%! The great Simon Bolivar once called the Llaneros (beef herders of Venezuela and Colombia) his toughest fighters, and it is certainly true that they have helped to make beef a Venezuelan staple and are thus well placed to comment on the state of Venezuela’s food economy.  Despite being poorly paid by the land owners they work for these ranchers are fearful of Chavez’s land grabs and believe that if the land their cattle graze on is taken away and divided up amongst peasants then both the quality and quantity of Venezuelan beef will fall and thus food shortages will worsen. Despite this I’m sure Venezuelans will take solace from the fact that they have produced food in a Socialist manner rather than by working for experienced, capitalist landowners as the economy crumbles and they starve.

Venezuela under Chavez has been transformed by Socialism; before Chavez’s assent to power it was a poor and dangerous country, these days it may be more so! Despite all of Chavez’s redistributions of land and power, 25% of the country’s population remain below the poverty line with many of those people living in Barrios (slums) which are controlled by gangs and the police fear to set foot in. Central government statistics seem to claim that poverty and crime are falling, however, the police openly disagree with these statistics. Last year Caracas was the murder capital of the world with over 17,000 homicides. Despite these shocking statistics, Venezuelans can at least cling on to free speech; Venezuelans are free to say whatever they want to whomever with the clear understanding that if they say the wrong thing or anger the wrong official their business will be confiscated from them and handed to the state, they themselves will be reduced to poverty and made equal to the rest of the population creating a perfectly equal society where everybody is stuck in poverty!

Whether Chavez genuinely believes that his policies will lead to better Venezuela or whether he is simply a thug who wants to maintain power at the expense of his people his policies are clearly failures.  Chavez can play the strong man as much as he likes and pretend, just like his health, that all is well, however, the truth is that Venezuela is ailing and is in need of a great doctor!

Don't beat your backers or soon enough they'll beat you much harder, Mr Morales!

Last week I spoke of the bright future which could herald for South America but recent developments in Bolivia have run contrary to this promise.
In 2005, Evo Morales was elected as the first indigenous president of Bolivia and this was widely seen as a great advance in the rights of the indigenous people and for equality. Whilst some of his policies have been a tad too socialist at times there is no doubt that Morales is one of the first presidents who has managed to put Bolivians first, stood up to big multinationals and kept the economy going strongly. A former cocoa farmer who rode to power on the back of powerful social movements which called for a decent standard of living and the protection of the environment, there is no doubt that Morales was a man of the people. This, however, may no longer be the case.
Due to it's geographical position, the fact that many of the Amazon's tributaries start there and its many glaciers and high altitude Bolivia has been affected more than most countries by the relentless rise of global temperatures due to climate change and thus Morales has always championed 'Pacha Mama' (Mother Nature) on the global scene. However, Morales now stands accused of turning his back on the environment, the rights of indigenous people and the constitution in favour of economic development. All indigenous nations are supposed to be consulted before a development which could affect them takes place, this was put in the constitution by none other than Morales himself, however, Morales began plans to build a highway through the Amazon without consulting any of the indigenous nations! Morales has argued that the road will benefit all the people of Bolivia as it will make travel and transport easier, however, protesters argue that protected indigenous lands will be cut through, the eco-system will suffer and that Morales and his government are only listening to one section of the population and are only to Ayamara Indians (the nation which Morales belongs to) and not other indigenous groups.
The worst part is that the protesters do not seem to be allowed to protest. Morales has authorised police brutality and beatings to prevent the protest marches from becoming too vocal. This is rank hypocrisy, Morales himself led many protest marches (two of which helped remove former presidents from office) however know that they are challenging him and that his re-election is in doubt he is trying everything to prevent them and has even accused the protest leaders of being U.S. spies. The man who came to power calling for more democracy and promising to listen to the the demands of the people has suddenly become the enemy of the people and the enemy of democracy; if Morales wants to remain in power he must stick to the beliefs which helped him come to power rather than oppress the very people who got him there!