The doubts about the way in which the Bolivian army is conducting itself in its intervention in Haiti have begun to open a larger debate ‘” albeit still in its very early stages ‘” over whether Bolivia should be participating in this UN mission, and whether the Bolivian presence in the Black republic of the Caribbean is consistent with the anti-imperialist discourse of its government. The departure of the soldiers to Haiti and the Congo was a concession by the government to the military High Command, which sees these foreign missions as a not insignificant source of income.

Just a few days ago, the morning newspaper La Razón revealed that Bolivia is getting a discount of about 27% for its blue helmet soldiers, whose monthly wages amount to more than 1,000 dollars per month (with this they collect over 300,000 dollars every six months). Then the weekly Pulso chimed in, denouncing the purchase of military and transportation equipment ‘through an emergency presidential decree’ to send to the Caribbean island together with ‘Civil Defense IVECO trucks which, these days are needed to bring assistance to flood victims’ [in Bolivia].

Bolivia has about 300 troops in Haiti and some 200 in the Congo, under an agreement signed with the United Nations before Evo Morales became president.

This agreement was the argument used by Morales to send soldiers abroad and ‘” as the former Hydrocarbons minister Andres Soliz Rada has revealed ‘” to close any discussion in the Cabinet. Then the mission was approved, somewhat administratively, in the Parliament, where only a few voices, such as that of the MAS senator Antonio Paredo, opposed participating in the ‘invasion’.

The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti is under Brazilian command and involves, among others, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay.

They have replaced the troops deployed by the United States and France after the overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004, which for many ‘” such as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez ‘” was a French-U.S. ‘coup d’etat’. Haitian President Rene Preval has recently asked that the mission continue, but on February 7 about 100,000 Haitians called for the withdrawal of the foreign troops and the return of Aristide.

Some people are questioning the actions of these ‘peacekeeping forces’ in the poor neighbourhoods such as the huge slum ironically named Cite Soleil (Sun City) and the ‘collective punishments’ against the civilian population.’How could we oppose similar agression against Bolivia, especially at a time when we are preparing to carry out profound structural changes in Bolivia, if we endorse the military intervention in Haiti?’asked Soliz Rada.

In a context of integration based on ‘solidarity’, like ALBA, it might be appropriate to ask ourselves whether the future of Haiti, which is in a profound state of social disintegration, lies in the UN’s military approach or through continental cooperation, independent of the great powers and imbued by a Latin American vision oriented around the interests of the majority impoverished Haitian masses.

---