Windsor Hernani Limarino |Economist and diplomat
The absence of heads of state at the Bolivian Bicentennial, limited to the president of Honduras, is not a simple protocol anecdote. It is the reflection of a structural crisis of the self -denominated “Diplomacy of Peoples”, the result of almost two decades of incompetence, improvisation, ideologization and voluntary isolation.
Presidents or neighboring countries were not attended, not even ideological allies. Bolivia was alone on his own birthday. That is the most clear postcard of exhaustion of diplomacy turned into symbolic rhetoric and not in a tool for achieving national interests or at least of the country’s image promotion.
It is not just a resounding diplomatic failure, it is the visible show that the “diplomacy of peoples” is going through a terminal stage of functional decomposition. To put it in a simple way: it is a useless diplomacy, because it cannot even fulfill such elementary tasks as guaranteeing the presence of heads of state in an event of high symbolic relevance. The contrast is eloquent: in the Bicentennial of Colombia, in 2019, more than 15 leaders were received; in Peru, in 2021, nine; In Bolivia’s, just one.
The diplomacy of the peoples has no idea that in key historical moments, the states project their soft power (soft power) through symbolic celebrations of high profile as the anniversaries of independence. However, Bolivian bicentennial was notoriously ignored. This omission cannot be explained simply by others, but responds to an accumulated loss of diplomatic capital and regional influence.
The “diplomacy of peoples”, promoted as an alternative to traditional approaches, has resulted in a geopolitical self -absorption, where ideology has prevailed on national interest, and the political gesture has replaced concrete action.
The result is visible, we are isolated, and we can no longer deny it. This isolation is not the product of a capitalist conspiracy, as some authorities usually justify, but of an accumulated loss of credibility.
We cross a period of instability and factual verification is in the indicators. Bolivia today has a country risk rating “CCC-“, that is, a level close to default. The external debt exceeds 13.3 billion dollars, and the net international reserves are around 1.8 billion, many of them in gold without immediate liquidity. This macroeconomic deterioration not only affects internal stability, but drastically reduces the margin of diplomatic action. What president would prioritize on his agenda attend the commemoration of an unstable and without north?
This isolation is self -induced since in recent years, Bolivia has opted for diplomacy based on ideological alliances with countries such as Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua or Iran, sacrificing the relationship with its neighbors, which from every point of view had to be privileged. But not only that, there have been inconducent impasses, originated in ideological differences or personal disagreements, such as the notorious distancing between Luis Arce and the presidents Javier Milei and Dina Boluarte.
Recall: President Arce publicly congratulated the Kirchner candidate Sergio Massa for “going as first to the second round”, an inappropriate interference in Argentine internal policy that a statesman would never do; or the initial refusal to recognize the constitutional succession of Dina Boluarte after the dismissal of Pedro Castillo, although it occurred according to the Peruvian Constitution. It is not understood that foreign relations are between states, not between governments and even less among people.
Where are those ideological allies now? Sending messages like Nicolás Maduro’s, wishing us to get up “of the ashes.” In case it was not understood: the ashes are the pulveulent residue left after a complete combustion. Ash symbolizes death, death, death, destruction. Those are the words with which they identify us, even the ideological allies.
No doubt, of the ashes we must get up to rebuild the Republic of Bolivia, because that is what leaves moreism, ashes, just ashes!.
The damage caused to Bolivian foreign policy, as in other areas, is deep. The Bicentennial must become a turning point to build a foreign state policy, designed with technical work, executed with professionalism, and results oriented. Hopefully so and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not a portion more than one cake has been distributed between hungry diners – militant, family and friends – who are looking for a government slice; who are also convinced that change passes only by people; and not for a real transformation of attitudes, approaches and principles.
