It sounds like an anecdote but we know well it is not. The United States considers Bánzer has marked an unprecedented achievement: eradicating excess coca in the Chapare. This has never occurred before with previous administrations. Therefore, North America’s respect for Banzér has to do mainly with this achievement and the American Ambassador said the back-up of the US Embassy to the President is absolute.

As regards the Bolivian society, deep disappointment prevails. Polls report less than a 15% approval rating. The government is viewed as inefficient and incapable of solving Bolivia’s major problem: the serious economic crisis.

Former President Sánchez de Losada and his advocates are calling for the president’s resignation. What do they say about succession?

González Sánchez de Losada said that Vice President Jorge Quiroga is the one who should take the presidency. In general, it is not that they are calling for President Bánzer’s resignation to set up a provisional government that calls for elections. What they propose is replacing him with Vice President Quiroga. Other choices are not under consideration. We have scheduled elections within the presidential term for June 2002, that is, in over a year. If election were called before schedule, then the major candidates would be Sánchez de Losada and Jaime Paz Zamora.

What is the stance of the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), the Mercosur and the rest of Bolivia’s political community?

Here in Bolivia it is said that there’s no need to think of Bánzer and democracy as synonyms, that democratic solutions could be applied to an eventual resignation. But the major sectors of political decision, the ruling forces, the media and intellectuals have not approved of the calling for the presidential resignation. In general, I would say that the international support of President Bánzer is absolute, from the Andean Community, the Mercosur, the United States and the European Union because they assume Bánzer represents democratic stability and that any change could be non-democratic. Against this background, I believe Bánzer has absolute support. But I guess if a drastic situation occurred in Bolivia, the international community would accept a democratic solution.

I don’t think we are on the verge of such a drastic situation. Things will be clearer in the weeks ahead to see whether the announced blocking has the same impact it had last September. Then Bolivia experienced three weeks of full blocking and cracking of the major cities with serious economic consequences (related to supply) and the President was on the verge of resigning. He didn’t. So I would say we are in an uncertain preamble: the President is not under so much pressure to resign yet, but in a few days the situation could get worse depending on the strength of social pressure.

The opposition speaks of economic changes in Bolivia. What is your opinion?

In my view, it seems rhetorical. I do not think Bolivia is fit to change its model, the fundamental variables relating to market economy or the attempt to joining the globalized economy. The process of capitalization –what we call here the privatization of state-run companies- is irreversible. People speak of a greater emphasis on investment to fight off poverty but that does not relate to the essence of the economic model. The essence of the economic model has variables Bolivia could hardly change. Yesterday the President mentioned the oil company IPFB could reemerge with the gas reserves to be found in the future but now the already explored 46 trillion cubic feet are part of the equity of the privatized companies. There is not a full-fledged privatization process in Bolivia as happens in Argentina, but a 50% stake of privatized companies is in foreign hands and the other 50% belongs to Bolivians.

Speaking about foreign policy, what is Bolivia’s stance toward the FTAA challenges after the Quebec Summit? Does Bolivia feel closer to its Mercosur neighbors or it bets on strengthening its ties with the Andean Community of Nations (CAN)?

I’d say the ideal stance for Bolivia is the integration of the CAN and the Mercosur, though I doubt this is possible in the short term. Bolivia conducts considerable trade with the CAN. In particular, the soy and oil are benefiting from agreements with the Andean Community. Major businesspeople in Bolivia do not welcome a direct entry to the Mercosur as the bloc deprives Bolivia from choosing between one option and the other. As long as this is so, Bolivia will remain as a hinge between both systems figuring an approach conducive to greater integration.

Regarding the FTAA scenario for 2005, Chile’s unilateral position as to the United States changes the picture. In my view, now the Mercosur is looking at things in a different way. The Argentine-Brazilian relationship has clouded the scenario due to the crisis in Argentina.

How was the impact of the Argentine crisis in Bolivia?

For a small country like ours, the Brazilian or Argentine crises have had a strong impact. However, in general, this impact strikes later and adds to the already existing economic crisis. Bolivia is being hit by an economic recession that can be illustrated like this: this year so far we have experienced an unprecedented deflationary process. With a low inflation –from 5 to 7%- Bolivia could be reasonably handled but with an almost –2% deflation things point to absolute liquidity. A stagnant economy.