Talk:Cochabamba Water War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cochabamba Water War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bolivia Mid‑importance

	Bolivia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bolivia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all Bolivia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoliviaWikipedia:WikiProject BoliviaTemplate:WikiProject BoliviaBolivia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Water Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Water, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Water supply-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WaterWikipedia:WikiProject WaterTemplate:WikiProject WaterWater articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations?[edit]

Where are the citations?

Subsidary of Bechtel[edit]

I removed wholly-owned from the phrase " International Waters Limited (IWL) of London (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bechtel Corporation" because at the time 50% of the company was owned by Edison. Also, Aguas de Tunari was not solely operated by IWL but I did not edit that.

http://www.bechtel.com/newsarticles/162.asp http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/bolivia/txt/2000/0410water_privatization_contract.txt Jimmyj 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Privatize water[edit]

I was under the impression that the water company was given control not only of the municipal water system, but all water, including rain water (streams, rivers) so that people were forced to buy water from the company. That is what made the Declaration of rights so significant: 2) Water is a fundamental human right and a public trust to be guarded by all levels of government, therefore, it should not be commodified, privatized or traded for commercial purposes.. Is this true, was all water (even water in streams and rain) privitized in Cochabamba? -- Stbalbach 03:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore it was required that citizens of Cochabamba, terminate or handover all autonomous water access (read wells) they might have at their disposal. (PK)

This page should be linked from...[edit]

This page should be linked on the following pages in the specific section I linked here. I dont know how to...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechtel_Corporation#1980s_and_beyond

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivia#Social_Crisis_and_the_nationalization_of_hydrocarbon_resources_.282001-2005.29

Has been done.--Patrick (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Needs a Major Revision[edit]

As the first poster stated "where are the citations". All of this seems to be written from word of mouth (though I am not saying it is entirely inaccurate). Considering the recent changes in Bolivia, I think it is important to come back to this article and make it better. I will add some citations right now and fix up the text of the article when I have time. If anyone is interested in the events I would suggest you watch the "Bolivia-Leasing the Rain" video I added to the external links (you can watch it with Real Player). It was made in co-production between NOW and Frontline/World and accurately shows how the events occurred. Also, while I am doing this major revision I ask that people not just add information from external links which are not in anyway reputatble. I see it consistantly done in many Wikipedia articles, particulary those with radical left elements, where geocities, blogs, and random "leftist" sites are used and it really hurts the legitimacy of the article-Jersey Devil 22:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. This is absurdly POV. Some citations, including the actual contract, are badly needed. --Descendall 07:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually much of the article is copied verbatim from the New Yorker article. Thus there is a source, but inappropriately used, and often not cited appropriately. Fred Bauder 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

This article doesn't sound very NPOV to me. Though it outlines the events in question - and I'm not necessarily claiming any of this is inaccurate - it also seems to be a little biased towards a free market or neoliberal view of these events, particularly by it's continued reference (maybe even deference?) to Fredrik Segerfeldt's book. Since the book's author is associated with the Cato Institute, which is on the more extreme end of the neoliberal, libertarian scale when it comes to economic policy, shouldn't this be balanced by alternative views? I wonder if Joseph Stiglitz, for example, has written on this issue.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.221.61 (talk • contribs) .

I added a pov sign. --CyberAran 09:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above concerns were already addressed. -- Stbalbach 18:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the call to merge.[edit]

This article covers the same topic as Bolivian Water Wars of 2000, I made that page because there was no links here from either the Banzer, Morales, Reyes Villa, or Quispe pages. Also the name here is odd as under naming conventions since everyone was calling the event Water Wars that really should have been in the title. When I searched for that name there was nothing so I began the new page. It seems most of the information here is already at the other page, but this has more external links. Please review the contents of both pages.--Wowaconia 23:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My only comment is that both articles seem to be un-balanced. There are no other views presented other than those that are generally anti-globalization in character. I think CATO has published some material on this that takes a different view, and I'm sure Bechtel and others have their own version of events. Other than that Bolivian Water Wars of 2000 seems to be the better article - this one has languished for a long time without much support so I doubt there would be much love loss if it got redirected. -- Stbalbach 16:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article and Bolivian Water Wars of 2000 cover the same topics. It seems that this event is usually referred to as the Bolivian Water Wars. The other article seems to, on the whole, provide more information and references. I'd recommend incorporating any missing detail from this article into the other. Gobonobo 18:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge here. They are the same events, but they are more correctly referred to as Cochabamba protests, or, if you want, Cochabamba Water Wars. "Bolivian Water Wars" is a creation from English-speaking medias, on the model of Bolivian Gas War. But if the latter is the name popularly used in South America and Spanish-speaking world, it is not true of "Bolivian Water Wars" (I think Google doesn't even give more hits for "Bolivian Water Wars" if you don't forget to put the brackets). The reason for the current name is simply Spanish use, and it is more correct. Beside, "Water War" and "Gas War" tend to imply that they are similar events, which is simply wrong (both had long-standing causes, but one was started by a state-program of selling gas to California via Chile - and the protests were thus against Goni (de Losada), while the others protests were directed against Bechtel and were much more localized, and not nation-wide). Giving the same word is simply mediatic stuff, and not the best.

Concerning Stalblach's notice, wasn't Bechtel's reaction something around the lines of suing the Bolivian state in the ICSID? What was the outcome? Not that forcing the Bolivian state to pay a few billion dollars to Bechtel a very popular idea in South America, to the least, but it would be an interesting fact to know? Honestly enough, it is very difficult not to have an alter-globalization view on these events, if by that you mean an "anti-IMF" and "anti-World Bank" and "anti-Bechtel" POV. The management of the water was just so bad, as Suez in Argentina, that they've all retreated. They thought it was a good plan to invest there to make easy money, and were amazed that the local population could kick them out... I remember reading some stuff by the World Bank concerning Bolivia. The official said that Bolivian peasants in the Altiplano (which is quite desertic) didn't consume enough water, and that they should wash their car more often. I'm serious - I don't know if the guy thought Bolivia was a serious matter though, not to speak about people living in Bolivia. I would be pleased to find this old reference, for an "alternate POV." Sorry for this low irony, but these international agencies really did nothing at all to justify Bechtel's poor care of the water network, a deliberate strategy followed by these firms which have since changed ideas, and are negotiating a new kind of contracts (which they think will allow them to make more money without taking such risks, which they had not thought off - mainly, the fact that people protests, sometimes). Tazmaniacs 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ICSID: Bechtel requested 50 billion US dollars from the Bolivian state before the ICSID, but finally renounced its complaint, following a world campaign against it. It recognized that the money which it would have taken from Bolivia would have hurt its international image too much (so Bechtel's brand is worth more than 50 billion dollars??? advertisement is just so, so unreal). Bechtel vs. Bolivia Tazmaniacs 23:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Cochabamba Water Wars I agree with Tazmaniacs. Both the locality ("cochabamba") and the nature of the event ("Water Wars") need to be in the title. Fredwerner 14:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]