The TIPNIS Conflict in Bolivia

Contexto Internacional vol. 39(2) May/Aug 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-8529.2017390200009 Research Articles The TIPNIS Conflict in Bolivia Ana Carolina Delgado* Abstract: Soon after the formation of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in 2009, the Isiboro Sécure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS) became the epicentre of a conflict over the construction of a road, initiated by Evo Morales’s administration, that would run through the park. Initially undertaken by the Brazilian company OAS, and funded by the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), the project was justified on the grounds that it would link the departments of Beni and Cochabamba, and bring development to an isolated locality. However, indigenous peoples from the lowlands opposed the scheme, and, together with their counterparts in the Andean region, organised a march that was violently dispersed by the Bolivian armed forces. In this article, I analyse the political processes in this Andean country, notably the reconfiguration of power from 2011 onwards, in parallel with economic measures adopted by the government. I conclude with observations about the relation between the national and regional spheres, arguing that indigenous repression forms part of a new developmentalist agenda. Keywords: TIPNIS; Decolonisation; Political Forces; Indigenous Movements; Extractivism; Bolivia. Introduction Soon after the founding of the Plurinational State of Bolivia in 2009, a conflict developed around the construction of a road meant to connect San Ignacio de Moxos in the department of Beni to Villa Tunari in the department of Cochabamba, running through the Isidoro Sécure National Park and Indigenous Territory (TIPNIS). The project, driven by the government of Evo Morales, was initially justified on the grounds that it would link two regional centres and bring development to an area that was difficult to access, especially during the rainy season. It was opposed by lowland indigenous peoples, organised under the banner of the regional Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of the East, Chaco, and Bolivian Amazon (CIDOB). With the support of Aymara and Quechua peoples linked to the National Council of Allyus and Markas of Qulasuyu (CONAMAQ), CIDOB staged an ‘Eighth Indigenous March in Defence of TIPNIS’. The protest, a walk from Trinidad, the capital of Beni, to La Paz, was cut short in Chaparina when members of the armed forces of Bolivia violently dispersed the marchers. *Federal University of Latin American Integration (Unila), Foz do Iguaçu–PR, Brazil; . The TIPNIS Conflict in Bolivia vol. 39(2) May/Aug 2017 373 The project was also opposed by citizens not affiliated to any political party, former senior government leaders, as well as opposition politicians from the region known as Media Luna.1 Primarily comprising large land owners in the Bolivian East who had historically adopted a combative and racist stance against indigenous peoples, this group found itself gradually drifting away from power after the rise of the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), including its branch in Santa Cruz de la Sierra. Denunciations of government plans to exploit hydrocarbons in the park, demands to expand coca farming, and even the implementation of a project under the auspices of the Initiative for the Integration of the Regional Infrastructure in South America (IIRSA) that would serve Brazilian hegemonic aspirations in the region were cited as the underlying motives for the construction of the road (see Paz 2012; Fischermann 2012; Prada 2012; Tapia 2012). Therefore, the case of TIPNIS seemed to embody growing dissatisfaction with the administration of the Plurinational State. Moreover, it pointed to a broader process, linking extractivism to development strategies and Brazilian leadership. In fact, the ‘Chaparina Massacre’, as it came to be known, attested to the existence of neoextractivism in the region. This issue has gained the attention of theorists from different fields, including Veltmeyer and Petras (2014), Lang and Mokrani (2011), Aráoz (2012), Acosta (2011), and Gago and Mezzadra (2015). Gudynas (2009) defines it as the intensification of extractive activities, encompassing different sectors, like hydrocarbons, minerals, and monocultures, with large-scale production for export. In this view, the strengthening of these activities is tied to the emergence of progressivist governments in the region, and their adoption of a developmentalist model. Critical of neoliberalism, these left and centre-left governments regard extractivism as indispensable for the generation of wealth and its redistribution through developmental social programmes. Gudynas regards Bolivia as an example of a radical type of progressivist government, whose implementation of extractivist projects is driven by a centralised state. Svampa (2013) characterises this as the ‘Commodities Consensus’, as opposed to the Washington Consensus. Driven by the high value of natural resources in the international market, this approach also brings with it an emphasis on the construction of regional infrastructure and a series of environmental and social implications, among other negative consequences. Following those interpretations, Chaparina could be read as synonymous with the emergence, or even the recrudescence, of social conflicts involving the state repression of minorities affected by neoextractivism, and the construction of mega-projects within the scope of IIRSA. But Chaparina also reflects the restructuring of the government’s support base, consolidated under the Pact of Unity, and the reconfiguration of political forces in the country. The Pact has cracked, disintegrated, and been rearticulated, bringing the internal divisions to the attention of the various organisations involved. From the moment the Eastern elite was destructured, the overt and covert interests of all the organisations that originally made up the Pact became ever more apparent, and even incompatible in some cases. Growing disagreements among those groupings led to the emergence of the socalled ‘parallel’ organisations whose leaders sought to preserve the government alliance, promoting a rearticulation of government forces and the marginalisation of indigenous opposition groups. 374 vol. 39(2) May/Aug 2017 Delgado In this article, I argue that the clashes around TIPNIS were actually ‘the tip of the iceberg’ of an underlying web of asymmetrical relationships and power struggles involving old and new players in Bolivian politics. It reveals the tensions inherent in the process of decolonisation, which could have been avoided by an analysis centred on the regional level. Next, I offer a history of mobilisation around land and territory in Bolivia, highlighting the disputes and alliances between indigenous and peasant organisations, particularly on the lowlands and specifically in TIPNIS. I continue with an analysis of the articulation and reconfiguration of political force (...truncated)