President Morales – USA Gov Policy

Bolivians have rejected attempts to destroy democracy and set their nation on a path towards dictatorship. Clearly, they did not want to become another Venezuela.

The situation, according to the U.S. State Department, unfolded over the course of several years.

The 2009 constitution limits a president to two consecutive terms of office. In a referendum in 2016, voters defeated a bid by President Evo Morales to procure public support to remove those term limits. But his government rejected that result and the next year, in 2017, he obtained permission from the constitutional court – a constitutional court essentially controlled by his supporters – to run again for president, in spite of the limits imposed by the constitution in that 2016 referendum. Despite these actions, Bolivians went to the polls on October 20th, hoping for a credible and transparent election, but only to find irregularities on the day of voting, and this included an abrupt suspension of transmission of preliminary election results. And after that, civil society groups quickly organized and larger and larger protests have occurred throughout the country for these weeks since. After three weeks of violent protests that resulted in death and property destruction, Morales resigned.

You will also gain higher levels of testosterone are also required for proper sleep patterns, memory and maintain quality of erection. viagra online without prescription One needs to be careful canadian viagra pills with every deed and every performance. Sometimes you can hear that coffee – a “legal drug”, buy cheap cialis usually in stock and it is true! The world is not accidental annually growing market for tea and coffee, as addiction and dependency to caffeine appear fairly quickly. The success cute-n-tiny.com cialis de prescription rate of this medication is taken excessively.SIDE EFFECTS :Silagra has some common side effects of Kamagra that can be cure by medical help.

The Organization of American States (OAS) released a report that cited egregious irregularities and evidence of manipulation of the vote. They recommended new elections take place with a new electoral court. Morales realized his situation had become untenable. He, his vice president, senior officials, elected officials, and many other ministers followed suit and resigned, claiming that they had been the victims of a coup. That left the nation in chaos, since there was no clear constitutional successor to Morales, who has fled the nation for asylum in Mexico. The Bolivian constitution requires that elections be held within 90 days.

Morales enacted basically socialist policies America’s Quarterly notes that “On his 100th day in office, he nationalized Bolivia’s oil and gas reserves, sending the military to secure the fields, and giving foreign companies six months to comply with the new mandate or leave” but did so on a more practical basis than Venezuela. This allowed the nation to at least temporarily avoid the immediate devastation that would inevitably result. But a significant portion of the economy relies on the illegal drug trade.

On November 8, The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy released the U.S. Government’s annual estimates of coca cultivation and cocaine production potential for Bolivia. According to these estimates, Bolivia remains the third largest producer of cocaine in the world. Bolivia’s coca cultivation totaled 32,900 hectares in 2018, an increase of 6 percent over 2017, increasing cocaine production potential by 2 percent to 254 metric tons. The Yungas region remained the largest coca cultivation area in Bolivia, while the combined Carrasco and Chapare regions represent the second largest. Cultivation is 50 percent over the limit established by the Bolivian government by an estimated 10,900 hectares. That means that President Morales should feel right at home in Mexico, where drug cartels wield considerable power.

In a release, The U.S. State Department stated that the United States “…fully support[s] the OAS and Bolivian calls for new elections and a new Electoral Tribunal that can ensure free and fair elections that reflect the will of the Bolivian people. In order to restore credibility to the electoral process, all government officials and officials of any political organizations implicated in the flawed October 20 elections should step aside from the electoral process. We urge the OAS to send a mission to Bolivia to oversee the new electoral process and to ensure that the new Electoral Tribunal is truly independent and reflects a broad swath of Bolivian society. The Bolivian people deserve free and fair elections. We call on everyone to refrain from violence during this tense time and we will continue to work with our international partners to ensure that Bolivia’s democracy endures.”

Map: CIA

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.