The materials were anti-riot equipment, not weapons
En el cruce entre la memoria política y la disputa judicial, el expresidente argentino Mauricio Macri enfrenta acusaciones del gobierno boliviano que lo señalan como responsable del envío de munición letal durante la convulsión social de noviembre de 2019, cuando Evo Morales abandonó el poder. Macri niega los cargos desde Madrid, califica las pruebas de falsificadas y enmarca el conflicto como una persecución política orquestada por sus adversarios ante las elecciones de medio término. Lo que está en juego no es solo la verdad sobre un cargamento, sino el relato mismo de lo que ocurrió en Bolivia —y quién tiene el poder de escribirlo.
- Bolivia presentó una carta firmada por un general de su fuerza aérea como prueba de que Argentina envió munición letal para sofocar las protestas que siguieron a la salida de Morales en 2019.
- Macri rechazó los cargos con firmeza: insistió en que los materiales eran equipos antidisturbios, no armas, y denunció que la firma del documento fue falsificada por sus opositores.
- El presidente argentino Fernández ya había pedido disculpas a Bolivia, profundizando la fractura entre el gobierno actual y el expresidente, que acusa a su sucesor de adoptar una narrativa ideológica sobre el 'golpe' a Morales.
- Macri amplió su defensa al señalar una campaña más amplia de persecución judicial en su contra, incluyendo inspecciones a sus empresas y una orden de quiebra dictada días antes de la entrevista.
- Con las elecciones legislativas de noviembre en el horizonte, la acusación boliviana se convierte en munición política, y Macri advierte que la presión sobre él refleja la debilidad del gobierno de Fernández.
El jueves, el gobierno boliviano lanzó una acusación de peso contra Mauricio Macri: que su administración había enviado munición letal a Bolivia en noviembre de 2019 para ayudar a sofocar la agitación social que siguió a la partida de Evo Morales. Como respaldo, presentaron una carta del entonces comandante de la fuerza aérea boliviana, el general Gonzalo Terceros, dirigida al embajador argentino en La Paz, en la que agradecía el apoyo militar y detallaba un cargamento de materiales antidisturbios: cuarenta mil balas de goma, gases lacrimógenos y granadas.
Desde Madrid, Macri respondió el sábado con un rechazo categórico. Los materiales, dijo, eran equipos antidisturbios, no armas letales. Encuadró la disputa en términos ideológicos: el gobierno de Fernández había aceptado la versión de que la salida de Morales fue un golpe de Estado, mientras que su propia administración y la Unión Europea no lo habían hecho. Sobre el despliegue de gendarmes argentinos en La Paz —ocurrido el 13 de noviembre de 2019, un día después de que Jeanine Áñez asumiera la presidencia— Macri reconoció los hechos pero aclaró que ya había perdido las elecciones y que la operación fue coordinada con la administración entrante, algo que, afirmó, podía probarse con mensajes de texto y conversaciones de WhatsApp.
Macri fue más lejos al cuestionar la autenticidad de la carta: su abogado habría obtenido una declaración del brigadier cuya firma aparece en el documento, negando haberlo firmado. Su embajador en Bolivia, añadió, confirmó que nunca recibió tal carta. Para Macri, se trataba de una fabricación.
El expresidente aprovechó para denunciar lo que describió como una campaña sistemática de persecución judicial desde que dejó el poder: causas sin fundamento, inspecciones estatales a sus empresas y, días antes de la entrevista, una orden de quiebra contra una compañía familiar pese a una oferta de pago íntegro de la deuda. Atribuyó esta presión a la debilidad política del gobierno de Fernández ante las elecciones legislativas de noviembre. Mientras tanto, la disculpa que Fernández ya había ofrecido a Bolivia dejaba en claro que este conflicto, lejos de apagarse, seguiría ardiendo.
Bolivia's government leveled a serious accusation on Thursday: that Argentina's former president Mauricio Macri had shipped lethal ammunition into the country in November 2019 to help suppress the social upheaval that erupted after Evo Morales left power. The claim came with documentary evidence—a letter from Bolivia's air force commander at the time, General Gonzalo Terceros, addressed to Argentina's ambassador in La Paz, thanking him for military support and detailing a shipment of riot-control materials: forty thousand rubber bullets, tear gas canisters, and gas grenades.
Macri, speaking from Madrid on Saturday, flatly denied the accusation. He called it absurd. The materials in question, he insisted, were anti-riot equipment, not weapons. He framed the dispute in geopolitical terms: the current Argentine government under Alberto Fernández had accepted Bolivia's narrative that Morales' departure was a coup d'état, while Macri's own administration and the European Union had not. The difference, he suggested, came down to ideology—Fernández belonged to the Grupo de Puebla, a regional political alliance with a particular worldview.
The timeline matters. Argentine gendarmes—border police—arrived in La Paz on November 13, 2019, just one day after Jeanine Áñez assumed Bolivia's presidency following Morales' exit on November 10. They came to guard Argentina's embassy, where several members of Morales' government had taken refuge. Macri acknowledged the deployment but said it happened after he had already lost his reelection bid, meaning it was coordinated with the incoming administration. He claimed text messages and WhatsApp exchanges proved this handoff.
But Macri went further, attacking the credibility of the evidence itself. He said his lawyer had obtained a statement from the supposed brigadier who signed the letter—that the signature had been forged, that the letter never existed. His ambassador in Bolivia, he added, confirmed it was never received. The whole thing, he suggested, was a fabrication.
The former president then pivoted to what he framed as a broader campaign of persecution. Since leaving office, he said, he had faced multiple judicial cases without merit, state agency inspections of his business activities, and what he called manipulation of the courts. Days before the interview, he noted, a judge had ordered the bankruptcy of a family company despite an offer to pay one hundred percent of the debt. He attributed this pressure to the current government's weakness ahead of November's midterm elections, when Argentines would choose new members of Congress.
Argentina's current president, Fernández, had already apologized to Bolivia's Luis Arce over the incident. But Macri's denial and counterattack suggested the dispute would not fade quietly. The accusation touched on a volatile moment in South American politics—the contested circumstances of Morales' fall, the role of neighboring governments, and the question of what exactly crossed the border in those tense November days. For Macri, the stakes extended beyond Bolivia: the allegations fed into a narrative of his administration as a destabilizing force, one his political opponents were now weaponizing against him.
Citações Notáveis
The materials in question were anti-riot equipment, not weapons, and the letter's signature was forged by political opponents— Mauricio Macri, former Argentine president
This is part of a campaign of persecution by the current government, which is weak and worried about negative election results in November— Mauricio Macri
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Bolivia's air force commander write a thank-you letter for riot-control supplies if this was routine military cooperation?
That's the crux of it. The letter was formal, official, specific about quantities and types of material. It wasn't a casual note—it was documentation of a transaction. That's what made it damaging.
Macri says the signature was forged. Is that plausible?
In the context of a political crisis, anything is plausible. But the letter came from Bolivia's foreign ministry, not some anonymous source. They had the original. The question is whether Macri's denial holds up under scrutiny, or whether it's a standard political defense.
He keeps saying the materials were anti-riot, not lethal. What's the difference?
Rubber bullets and tear gas are designed to disperse crowds without killing. Real ammunition kills. But in a chaotic situation, even non-lethal tools can cause serious harm. The distinction matters legally and morally, but it doesn't erase what happened on the ground.
Why bring up his family company's bankruptcy in the same interview?
Because for Macri, it's all connected. He's arguing that the current government is using every tool—courts, agencies, accusations—to damage him politically. The Bolivia allegation is just one piece of a larger persecution narrative.
Did Fernández's apology settle anything?
No. An apology from the current president doesn't erase the accusation or Macri's denial. It actually deepens the divide—it suggests the government accepts Bolivia's version, which Macri rejects entirely.
What happens next?
That depends on whether there's more evidence, whether courts get involved, and whether the midterm elections change the political calculus. For now, it's a standoff between competing versions of what happened in November 2019.