when did the first maze runner movie come out

The Maze Runner was released on September 19, 2014 in the United States by 20th Century Fox. Critics considered it to be better than most young adult book-to-film adaptations. The film topped the box-office during its opening weekend with a $32.5 million debut, making it the seventh-highest grossing debut in September. The film earned over $348 million worldwide at the box-office, against its budget of $34 million.

The Maze Runner (film)

The Maze Runner is a 2014 American dystopian science fiction action thriller film directed by Wes Ball, in his directorial debut, based on James Dashner's 2009 novel of the same name. The film is the first installment in The Maze Runner film series and was produced by Ellen Goldsmith-Vein, Wyck Godfrey, Marty Bowen, and Lee Stollman with a screenplay by Noah Oppenheim, Grant Pierce Myers, and T.S. Nowlin. The film stars Dylan O'Brien, Kaya Scodelario, Aml Ameen, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Will Poulter, and Patricia Clarkson. The story follows sixteen-year-old Thomas, portrayed by O'Brien, who awakens in a rusty elevator with no memory of who he is, only to learn he's been delivered to the middle of an intricate maze, along with a large number of other boys, who have been trying to find their way out of the ever-changing labyrinth — all while establishing a functioning society in what they call the Glade.

Development of The Maze Runner began in January 2011 when Fox purchased the film rights to Dashner's novel with film studios Temple Hill Entertainment and TSG Entertainment.[3] Principal photography began in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on May 13, 2013 and officially concluded on July 12, 2013.

A sequel, Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials, was released on September 18, 2015 in the United States.  A third and final film, Maze Runner: The Death Cure, was released on January 26, 2018.

A teenager wakes up inside an underground elevator with no memory of his identity. A group of male youths greet him in a large grassy area called the "Glade" enclosed by tall stone walls. The boys ("Gladers") have formed a rudimentary society, with each assuming specialized tasks. Their leader, Alby, says that every boy eventually recalls his name but not his past. The boy learns that a vast Maze surrounding them may be the only way out. During the day, designated Runners search the Maze for an escape route, returning before nightfall when the entrance closes. No one has ever survived a night in the Maze.

While in a competition with another boy named Gally, the boy suddenly remembers his name: Thomas. The next day, he is attacked by Ben, a Runner who has been stung and left delirious by a Griever – deadly techno-organic creatures that roam the Maze at night. Ben is forced into the Maze and left to die, as there is no cure for his condition. Alby and Minho, the lead Runner, later retrace Ben's steps inside the Maze. Minho reappears at dusk dragging Alby, who is stung, but they are unable to reach the closing entrance in time. Thomas runs into the Maze to help, leaving all three trapped. Thomas lures a Griever into a closing passageway, causing it to be crushed. The trio manages to survive the night, returning the next morning.

The first-ever girl arrives in the elevator, with a note saying that she is the last one to enter the Glade. She recognizes Thomas, though he cannot remember her. Thomas, Minho, Frypan, Winston, and Zart enter the Maze, locate the Griever corpse, and remove a beeping mechanical device from inside it. Gally claims Thomas has jeopardized the fragile peace between the youths and the Grievers and wants him punished, but Newt, the group's second-in-command, instead designates Thomas as a Runner. Minho shows Thomas a hand-constructed model of the Maze based on previous exploration. The Maze's numbered sections open and close in a regular sequence. Thomas realizes that the device corresponds to a section within the Maze.

The girl, Teresa, has two syringes filled with an unknown substance. One is used on Alby, and he recovers from the Griever sting. Minho and Thomas venture back into the Maze with the device and discover a possible exit. A laser then scans the two, and the exit closes. Thomas and Minho start to run away as traps activated by lasers nearly kill them. That night, the Maze entrance does not close while others open, letting Grievers pour in. A massacre ensues as the Gladers struggle to fight back or hide. Alby, Zart, Clint, and several others are killed.

Afterwards, Gally punches Thomas and blames him for everything that happened. Thomas, who has been having disconnected memory flashes since arriving, stabs himself with a severed Griever stinger in an attempt to revive his memory. The others inject him with the last anti-venom. Unconscious, he recalls that he and Teresa worked for the organization that created the Maze, W.C.K.D.; the boys unknowingly have been test subjects for an experiment. Thomas awakens and shares this information with Newt, Minho, Chuck, and Teresa. Thomas then reveals himself and Teresa, confessing that they worked with W.C.K.D. and studied the boys for years.

Meanwhile, Gally has taken command and intends to sacrifice Thomas and Teresa to the Grievers to restore peace. However, several Gladers form a group and free them. They then approach the Maze in an attempt to find an escape, while Gally and a few others refuse to leave. Fighting Grievers as they go, Jeff and several other Gladers are killed. The Gladers eventually enter a laboratory strewn with corpses. In a video recording, a woman named Ava Paige explains that the planet has been devastated by a massive solar flare, followed by a pandemic of a deadly virus called the Flare. The teens learn that they were part of an experiment studying for a cure. Paige is seen shooting herself on the screen as the lab is attacked by armed men.

Gally suddenly appears with a gun. Having been stung by a Griever, he insists they must stay in the Maze and aims at Thomas, but is pierced through the chest by Minho's spear, but not before Chuck is fatally shot. Masked armed men then rush in and take the rest of the group to a helicopter. It flies over a vast desert wasteland and approaches a ruined city. The scene ends with the supposedly-dead scientists meeting in a room. Paige notes that the experiment is successful; the survivors are now entering Phase Two.

In an interview with Collider, director Wes Ball stated he had made a 3D computer-animated science fiction post-apocalyptic short film, titled Ruin, which he intended to use in order to gain access to Hollywood. He presented the short in 3D to 20th Century Fox. The studio initially considered a film adaptation of the short film, as it had the same tone of The Maze Runner novel they already planned to bring to the screen. Ball was then offered the chance to direct the novel adaptation.[4]

Creature designer Ken Barthelmey designed the monsters called Grievers for the film.[5]

For the role of Teresa, Kaya Scodelario was Ball's first choice as she was "fantastic" and because he loved her in the TV show Skins. Dylan O'Brien, the lead role, was initially rejected by Ball. Ball recounts, "Dylan was actually... I saw him early on, very early on and I overlooked him. It was a big learning experience there, because I overlooked him because of his hair. He had Teen Wolf hair and I couldn't see past that and so we were looking for our Thomas and it's a tough role to make, because he comes in as a boy and he leaves as a man, so it can't be like this badass action star that comes into this movie. It's about vulnerability up front and then he comes out of it and comes into his own and then the next movies are about the leader that emerges from the group. So finally Fox says 'We just did this movie, The Internship. There's this kid that's in this thing. He's like 20 years old. We think he's kind of got something.' So I watched his tape and was like 'Wait a minute, I've seen this kid before.' I looked him up online and there was one picture of him with a totally shaved head and it's this sweet vulnerable looking kid and I was like 'Whoa, interesting.' I said, 'Wait a minute, he's just so familiar' and I looked back at my old audition tapes, which we had thousands of, and there's Dylan. That guy I said 'No, definitely not him.' So we brought him back in and we started to talk with him and I'm like 'he's the coolest dude ever.'" Blake Cooper entered the film via Twitter. Ball revealed a lot on Twitter, and many kids wanted to be Chuck. Cooper constantly bugged Ball, until Ball told him to give his tape to his casting director, and Ball was impressed by Cooper's tape and cast him.[4]

Principal photography started in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on May 13, 2013,[6] and officially ended on July 12, 2013.[7]

The film was completed in June 2014.

Composed by John Paesano, the soundtrack consists of 21 tracks and was released on September 16, 2014.[8]

The film was originally set to be released on February 14, 2014.[9] On October 5, 2013, the film was pushed back.[10] IMAX theaters released the film on September 19, 2014.[11]

Eleven character cards for the film were released in July 2013. Starting in January 2014, director Wes Ball released one image from the film once a week, leading up to the film's first trailer release on March 17, 2014.[12] A viral marketing campaign launched by 20th Century Fox began on April 16, 2014. The campaign is a website featuring the main characters while focusing on W.C.K.D, an organization in Dashner's novel series of the same name. The website has the domain wckdisgood.com.[13]

On June 26, 2014, Dylan O'Brien tweeted that the original The Maze Runner book would be re-released with a new book cover based on the film's poster.[14] On July 29, 2014, the second trailer for the film was released exclusively on Yahoo! Movies.[15]

The popularity of the film has resulted in many fan projects, the most prominent being Maze Runner Chat, a podcast featuring news discussions and occasional cast interviews. The podcast is produced by MazeRunnerFans.com, a popular fan website for the series.[16]

The Maze Runner was released on Region 1 DVD and Blu-ray combo pack December 16, 2014. The combo pack includes two hours of bonus features and extras as well as an exclusive comic book.[17]

The film grossed $102,427,862 in North America and more than $245.8 million in other territories for a worldwide total of $348.3 million[18]

Prior to its release in the U.S. and Canada, box office analysts predicted the film would be a box office success, citing effective marketing, good word-of-mouth publicity and a solid release date. Preliminary reports predicted the film would open with takings of over $30â€“32 million in North America.[19][20][21][22] According to movie ticket sale website Fandango, The Maze Runner was the biggest seller accounting for more than 50% of early tickets sales.[23] The film was released on September 19, 2014 in the United States and Canada across 3,604 locations and over 350 IMAX theaters.[24][25] It earned $1.1 million from Thursday night shows,[26] and $11.25 million on its opening day.[27] It topped the box office on its opening weekend with $32.5 million of which 9% of the gross came from IMAX theaters.[28] Its opening weekend gross is the seventh-highest for a film released in September,[29][30] and the 18th highest for a young-adult book adaptation.[31] The film earned a total of $102,272,088 at the North American box office becoming the twenty sixth highest-grossing film of 2014 in the U.S. and Canada.[32]

Outside North America, the film debuted in five countries a week prior to its North American release and earned a total of $8.3 million.[33] The film had a similar success overseas during its wide opening second weekend earning $38 million from 7,547 screens in 51 markets. It opened in South Korea with $5.5 million which is higher than the openings of The Hunger Games and Divergent,[34] the UK, Ireland and Malta with $3.4 million behind Gone Girl,[35][36] and China with $14.58 million behind Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.[37] Other high openings were witnessed in Russia and the CIS ($5.75 million), France ($5.2 million), Australia ($3.4 million), Mexico ($2.6 million), Taiwan ($2.2 million) and Brazil ($2 million).[33][34][38]

It became the third highest-grossing film of all time in Malaysia for Fox (behind Avatar and X-Men: Days of Future Past).[39][40][41]

Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes assigns the film a score of 65% based on 160 reviews, with an average rating of 5.9/10. The site's consensus states: "With strong acting, a solid premise, and a refreshingly dark approach to its dystopian setting, The Maze Runner stands out from the crowded field of YA sci-fi adventures".[42] Metacritic gives the film a score of 57 out of 100, based on 34 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[43] Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade of "A-" on an A+ to F scale.[44] According to Tim Ryan of The Wall Street Journal, critics considered the film better than most young adult book-to-film adaptations due to its "strong performances and a creepy, mysterious atmosphere".[45]

Rafer Guzman of Newsday gave the film a three out of four and described it as "solid, well crafted and entertaining".[46] Christy Lemire of RogerEbert.com said she found the film intriguing, writing that "it tells us a story we think we've heard countless times before but with a refreshingly different tone and degree of detail".[47] The Seattle Times's Soren Anderson said the film was "vastly superior to the book that inspired it" and gave it a score of 3/4.[48] Tony Hicks of the San Jose Mercury News was "hooked by the combination of fine acting, intriguing premise and riveting scenery".[49] Matthew Toomey of ABC Radio Brisbane gave the film a grade of Aâˆ’, giving praise to its intriguing premise saying that "it held [his] attention for its full two hour running time".[50] Justin Lowe of The Hollywood Reporter said it was "consistently engaging",[51] and Ella Taylor of Variety wrote "as world-creation YA pictures go, The Maze Runner feels refreshingly low-tech and properly story-driven".[52]

Michael O'Sullivan of The Washington Post said "The Maze Runner unravels a few mysteries, but it spins even more", giving it a 3/4.[53] Stephen Whitty of the Newark Star-Ledger wrote "it does leave you wanting to see the next installment. And that's one special effect that very few YA movies ever pull off".[54] Isaac Feldberg of We Got This Covered awarded the film 8/10 stars, calling it "dark, dangerous and uncommonly thrilling", while extolling it as "one of the most engaging YA adaptations to hit theaters in quite some time."[55] Rick Bentley of the Fresno Bee praised Wes Ball's direction, saying that he "created balance between a thin but solid script and first-rate action – and he doesn't waste a frame doing it".[56] Bill Zwecker of the Chicago Sun-Times called it "a well-acted and intelligent thriller/futuristic sci-fi romp".[57] Bilge Ebiri of New York magazine said he "was quite riveted".[58] Michael Sragow of the Orange County Register gave it a grade of "B" and said, "Ball is deft, though, at evoking claustrophobia of every kind, whether in the open-air prison of the Glade or the actual tight spaces of the Maze. And he elicits a hair-trigger performance from O'Brien".[59]

Claudia Puig of USA Today said "a sci-fi thriller set in a vaguely post-apocalyptic future must create a fully drawn universe to thoroughly captivate the viewer. But Maze Runner feels only partially formed", giving it a score of 2/4.[60] Time magazine's Richard Corliss said "like Jean-Paul Sartre's No Exit-tentialism, but more crowded and with the musk of bottled-up testosterone".[61] Wesley Morris of the website Grantland said "I think I have a touch of apocalepsy – excessive sleepiness caused by prolonged exposure to three and four-part series in which adolescents rebel against oppressive governments represented by esteemed actors".[62] Steven Rea of The Philadelphia Inquirer gave the film a 2.5 out of 4 rating and said "it's bleak business, and as it hurries toward its explosive, expository conclusion, the film becomes nonsensical, too".[63] Film critic Ethan Gilsdorf of The Boston Globe said "teens should eat up this fantasy's scenery-chewing angst and doom, and the hopeful tale of survival and empowerment (to be continued in the inevitable sequel or sequels)".[64]

On October 11, 2013, it was reported that Twentieth Century Fox had acquired the rights to the second book, The Scorch Trials. A screenplay was written by T. S. Nowlin, with director Wes Ball supervising the scriptwriting.[69] The sequel was released on September 18, 2015.[70][71] On July 25, 2014, Ball announced at San Diego Comic-Con International that filming for the sequel would commence sometime between March and May 2015, should The Maze Runner become a success when it hits the theaters.[72] However, two weeks prior to the film's release 20th Century Fox decided to move ahead with the sequel and pre-production began in early September 2014 in New Mexico.[73] Cast members Dylan O'Brien, Kaya Scodelario, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki-Hong Lee and Patricia Clarkson reprised their roles for the sequel, as did director Wes Ball. It was announced that Aidan Gillen would be joining the film to play Janson ("Rat-Man"),[74] as had Rosa Salazar who portrayed Brenda,[75] Jacob Lofland who starred as Aris Jones,[76] and Giancarlo Esposito who played Jorge Gallaraga.[77]

A second sequel, Maze Runner: The Death Cure was released on January 26, 2018.


what was the main reason of bolivia's water war

The Cochabamba Water War,[1] was a series of protests that took place in Cochabamba, Bolivia's third largest city, between December 1999 and April 2000 in response to the privatization of the city's municipal water supply company Semapa. The wave of demonstrations and police violence was described as a public uprising against water prices.[2]

Cochabamba Water War

The tensions erupted when a new firm, Aguas del Tunari – a joint venture involving Bechtel – was required to invest in construction of long-envisioned dam (a priority of Mayor Manfred Reyes Villa) - so they had dramatically raised water rates. Protests, largely organized through the Coordinadora in Defense of Water and Life, a community coalition, erupted in January, February, and April 2000, culminating in tens of thousands marching downtown and battling police. One civilian was killed. On 10 April 2000, the national government reached an agreement with the Coordinadora to reverse the privatization. A complaint filed by foreign investors was resolved by agreement in February 2001

The restoration of civilian rule to Bolivia in 1982 ended decades of military dictatorships, but did not bring economic stability. In 1985, with hyperinflation at an annual rate of 25 thousand percent, few foreign investors would do business in the country.[3] The Bolivian government turned to the World Bank as a last resort against economic meltdown. For the next 20 years, successive governments followed the World Bank's provisions in order to qualify for continued loans from the organization.[3] In order to move towards independent development, Bolivia privatised its railways, telephone system, national airlines, and hydrocarbon industry.

The World Bank said that "poor governments are often too plagued by local corruption and too ill equipped to, the World Bank stated that "no subsidies should be given to ameliorate the increase in water tariffs in Cochabamba".[4] The New Yorker reported on the World Bank's motives, "Most of the poorest neighborhoods were not hooked up to the network, so state subsidies e water utility went mainly to industries and middle-class neighborhoods; the poor paid far more for water of dubious purity from trucks and handcarts. In the World Bank's view, it was a city that was crying out for water privatization."[3]

In a 2002 publication the World Bank acknowledges that one of its loans, the "Major Cities Water and Sewerage Rehabilitation Project", included a condition to privatize the La Paz and Cochabamba water utilities. The privatization was required to allow a two-year extension of the project that was due to close in 1995. The World Bank project that began in 1990 had covered three cities, leading to sharply diverging outcomes: Access increased and service quality improved in Santa Cruz de la Sierra where a successful cooperative provided services, which enjoyed, according to the World Bank, "the reputation as one of the best-managed utilities in Latin America." However, results were mixed in La Paz and poor in Cochabamba. In the latter access to piped water had actually decreased from 70% to 60%, water losses had remained high at 40% and water supply had remained unreliable at about 4 hours a day despite the funds made available by the World Bank to support the public utility. Interestingly, the World Bank did not include a conditionality to privatize water in Santa Cruz where the local utility had been able to improve services, but only in the cities where the utilities had failed to improve services.[5]

The World Bank acknowledges that it provided assistance to prepare a concession contract for Cochabamba in 1997. However, its involvement with water in Cochabamba ended in the same year. At that time the bidding process for the concession had been declared void by the Supreme Court in response to a legal challenge by the municipality of Cochabamba. In the same year the World Bank project in the three cities ended. The World Bank thus was not included any more in the subsequent phase of the privatization.[5] The new concession included the Misicuni project that involved construction of a new dam. The dam had been opposed by the World Bank as being unnecessarily expensive compared to a cheaper alternative, but local politicians favoured the Misicuni project. An alternative, the Corani project, would have supplied water to Cochambamba from an existing dam. The high expected cost of the Misicuni project led to the 38% tariff increase imposed at the beginning of the concession. Had the advice of the World Bank been followed, the construction of the dam would not have been part of the concession, the tariff increase would have been unnecessary and Aguas del Tunari would have had to face competition in its drive to win the Cochabamba concession.[5] Such competition would have made it much more difficult to obtain some abusive conditions that were ultimately included in the concession.

The Misicuni project was later pursued by Evo Morales when he became President of Bolivia nine years later. It was justified through its benefits for hydropower generation and irrigation in addition to potable water supply for Cochabamba.[6] In 2010 the dam was under construction.

Prior to privatization the water works of Cochabamba were controlled by the state agency SEMAPA. After pressure from the World Bank, the Bolivian government put SEMAPA up for auction for privatization but not capitalization. Only one party was willing to bid on the project.[7] This was Aguas del Tunari, a consortium between the British firm International Waters (55 percent) - itself a subsidiary of the construction giant Bechtel Enterprise Holdings (USA) and United Utilities (UK) - the engineering and construction firm Abengoa of Spain (25 percent) and four Bolivian companies (5 percent each) including Constructora Petricevic, Sociedad Boliviana de Cemento (SOBOCE), Compania Boliviana de Ingenieria and ICE Agua y Energia S.A., all involved with the construction and engineering industry. The water network that they envisioned was projected to provide drinking water to all the people of Cochabamba. This was set to double the existing coverage area and also introduce electrical production to more of the region.[8]

Without regard for its weak bargaining position, the Bolivian government under President Hugo Banzer agreed to the terms of its sole bidder Aguas del Tunari and signed a $2.5 billion, 40-year concession "to provide water and sanitation services to the residents of Cochabamba, as well as generate electricity and irrigation for agriculture."[3][7] Within the terms of the contract the consortium was guaranteed a minimum 15% annual return on its investment, which was to be annually adjusted to the United States' consumer price index.[3] The implementation of Aguas del Tunari's program was set to correlate with a government plan to present a $63 million rural development package to peasants with funds for crop diversification, and extending electric and telephone services to remote areas.[9]

To ensure the legality of the privatization the Bolivian government passed law 2029, which verified the contract with Aguas del Tunari. To many the law appeared to give a monopoly to Aguas del Tunari over all water resources. Many feared that this included water used for irrigation by peasant farmers (campesinos), and community-based resources that had previously been independent of regulation.[7] The law was seen as "enabling the sale of water resources that had never really been a part of SEMAPA in the first place."[7] Many became worried that independent communal water systems which had yet to be connected with SEMAPA would be "summarily appropriated by the new concession."[7] By Law 2029, if Aguas del Tunari had wanted to, not only could it have installed meters and begin charging at independently built communal water systems, but it could have also charged residents for the installation of those meters.[3] The broad nature of Law 2029 led many to claim that the government would require a license be obtained for people to collect rainwater from their roofs.[10] The first to raise concerns over the scope of the law was the new Federación Departamental Cochabambina de Regantes (FEDECOR) and its leader Omar Fernandez.[7] FEDECOR was made up of local professionals, including engineers and environmentalists.[3] They were joined by a federation of peasant farmers who relied on irrigation, and a confederation of factory workers' unions led by Oscar Olivera.[3] Together these groups formed Coördinator for the Defense of Water and Life, or La Coordinadora which became the core of the opposition to the policy.[3][7]

Law 2029 was one of the primary points of disagreement between protestors and the government. The initial intent of the law was to introduce concessions and licenses for the supply of potable water for cities with more than 10,000 inhabitants.[11] Faced with a significant amount of disagreement over the implementation of the law, the Bolivian government held a referendum in which 97% of individuals disagreed with the privatization orientation of the new law.[12] For many Bolivians, the implementation of law 2029 and the concessions that accompanied it symbolized all that was wrong with the neoliberal development strategy--its alleged lack of concern for equity, its rejection of the role of the state, and in a country with a very long tradition of anti-imperialist rhetoric, the law represented a preferential attitude to foreign capital over the national interest. [13] This opposition expressed by the community arose from across the political spectrum. The traditional left claimed that the transfer of state property to private enterprises was unconstitutional while the right opposed the denationalization of enterprises that it considered vital and strategic.[14]

As a condition of the contract Aguas del Tunari had agreed to pay the $30 million in debt accumulated by SEMAPA. They also agreed to finance an expansion of the water system, and begin a much needed maintenance program on the existing deteriorating water system.[3] Dider Quint, a managing director for the consortium, said "We were confident that we could implement this program in a shorter period than the one required by the contract. [To accomplish this] We had to reflect in the tariff increase all the increases that had never been implemented before."[3]

On top of this, in order to secure the contract Aguas del Tunari had to promise the Bolivian government to fund the completion of the stalled Misicuni dam project.[3] The dam was purportedly designed to pipe water through the mountains, but the World Bank had deemed it uneconomic. While the consortium had no interest in building the dam, it was a condition of their contract, as it was backed by an influential member of Banzer's megacoalition, the mayor of Cochabamba, Manfred Reyes Villa.[3] An attempt to privatize the water system had been made without the condition of building the dam in 1997, but Reyes Villa had used his influence to quash the deal.[3] Critics of Reyes Villa held that the dam was a "vanity project" which would profit "some of his main financial backers".[3]

The officials in Bolivia for Aguas del Tunari were mostly engineers lacking marketing training.[3] They were also foreigners unaware of the intricacies of Bolivian society and economics.[3] Upon taking control the company raised water rates an average of 35% to about $20 a month. While this seemed minuscule in the developed nations that the Aguas del Tunari staff had come from, many of their new clients only earned about $100 a month and $20 was more than they spent on food.[10] In complete ignorance of the reality of his situation, a manager for the consortium, Geoffrey Thorpe simply said "if people didn't pay their water bills their water would be turned off."[3] The poor were joined in their protest by January 2000, when middle-class homeowners and large business owners stripped of their subsidies saw their own water bills increase.[3] As anger over the rates mounted, Reyes Villa was quick to distance himself from Aguas del Tunari.[3]

Starting in early January 2000 massive protests in Cochabamba began with Oscar Olivera among the most outspoken leaders against the rate hikes and subsequent water cut-offs.[15] The demonstrators consisted of regantes (peasant irrigators) who entered the city either under village banners, or carrying the wiphala; they were joined by jubilados (retired unionized factory workers) under the direction of Olivera [3] and cholitas.[3] Young men began to try to take over the plaza and a barricade across incoming roadways was set up.[3] Soon they were joined by pieceworkers, sweatshop employees, and street vendors (a large segment of the economy since the closure of the state-owned tin mines).[3] Anarchists from the middle-classes came from the University of Cochabamba to denounce the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and neoliberalism.[3] The strongest supporters of the demonstration were drawn from the city's growing population of homeless street children.[3]

Protesters halted Cochabamba's economy by holding a general strike that shut down the city for four days. A ministerial delegation went to Cochabamba and agreed to roll back the water rates; still the demonstration continued.[3] On 4 February 2000, thousands marching in protest were met by troops and law enforcement from Oruro and La Paz.[3] Two days of clashes occurred with the police using teargas. Almost 200 demonstrators were arrested; 70 protesters and 51 policemen were injured.[3]

Throughout March 2000 the Bolivian hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church tried to mediate between the government and the demonstrators. In the meantime, the Coordinadora made their own referendum and declared that out of fifty thousand votes, 96% demanded the contract with Aguas del Tunari be cancelled.[3] The government's reply was that "There is nothing to negotiate."[3]

In April 2000, demonstrators again took over Cochabamba's central plaza. When the leaders of the Coordinadora (including Óscar Olivera) went to a meeting with the governor at his office they were arrested. Though they were released the following day, some, fearing further government action, fled into hiding. More demonstration leaders were arrested, with some being transferred to a jungle prison in San Joaquin, a remote town in the Amazon rainforest on the border with Brazil.[3][16] The demonstrations spread quickly to other areas including La Paz, Oruro, and Potosí as well as rural areas. The protesters also expanded their demands calling on the government to resolve unemployment and other economic problems.[15] Soon demonstrators had most of the major highways in Bolivia barricaded.[3] The protest even inspired officers in four La Paz police units to refuse to leave their barracks or obey superiors until a wage dispute was settled.[16]

The Bolivian Constitution allows the President (with the support of his Cabinet) to declare a 90-day state of siege in one or more districts of the nation as an emergency measure to maintain public order in "cases of serious danger resulting from an internal civil disturbance".[17][18] Any extension beyond 90 days must be approved of by the Congress.[18] Anyone arrested at this time must be released after 90 days unless criminal charges are brought against them before a court.[17] With the roads cut off and fearing a repeat of past uprisings, President Banzer on 8 April 2000 declared a "state of siege".[3] Banzer said, "We see it as our obligation, in the common best interest, to decree a state of emergency to protect law and order."[3] Information Minister Ronald MacLean Abaroa described the rationale for the decree, saying "We find ourselves with a country with access roads to the cities blocked, with food shortages, passengers stranded and chaos beginning to take hold in other cities."[16] The decree suspended "some constitutional guarantees, allowing police to detain protest leaders without a warrant, restrict travel and political activity and establish a curfew."[15] Meetings of over four people were outlawed, and the freedom of the press was curtailed with radio stations being taken over by the military and some newspaper reporters being arrested. The police moved in to enforce the policy with nighttime raids and mass arrests.[10][15] At one point 20 labor union and civic leaders were arrested.[15] The police's tear gas and rubber bullets were met by the protesters' rocks and Molotov cocktails.[16] Continuing violent clashes between the demonstrators and law enforcement led to internal exile, 40 injuries, and five deaths.[10][15] International Human Rights Organizations decried the "state of siege" declaration.[17][19] This was the seventh time since Bolivia returned to democracy in 1982 that the "state of siege" decree had been employed.[16]

On 9 April 2000, near the city of Achacachi, soldiers met resistance to removing a roadblock and opened fire, killing two people (including a teenage boy) and wounding several others. Angry residents overpowered soldiers and used their weapons against military leaders. They wounded Battalion commander Armando Carrasco Nava and army captain Omar Jesus Tellez Arancibia. The demonstrators then found Tellez in hospital, dragged him from his bed, beat him to death and dismembered his body.[20]

Also, on 9 April 2000, 800 striking police officers fired tear gas at soldiers (to which the soldiers then fired their weapons in the air).[20] In response the government gave a 50% pay raise to the La Paz police to end the strike. This brought their monthly income up from the equivalent of $80 to $120.[20] The police then returned to enforcement procedures against those still demonstrating.[20] A group of soldiers soon demanded their own raise, declaring that there was racial discrimination in the pay scale. Police in Santa Cruz, the nation's second largest city, also went on strike demanding a raise.[20]

The coca growers of Bolivia led by then-Congressman Evo Morales (later elected President of Bolivia in December 2005) had joined the demonstrators and were demanding an end to the United States-sponsored program of coca eradication of their crops (while coca leaf can be heavily refined and made into cocaine it is used legally by many in Bolivia for teas and for chewing). Seeing the involvement of the coca growers, the Bolivian government claimed that the demonstrators were actually agents or pawns of drug traffickers.[3] Ronald MacLean Abaroa, the Minister of Information, told reporters the demonstrations were the work of drug traffickers trying to stop the government program to eradicate coca fields and replace them with cotton, pineapples, and bananas. He said that "These protests [were] a conspiracy financed by cocaine trafficking looking for pretexts to carry out subversive activities. It is impossible for so many farmers to spontaneously move on their own."[15] MacLean said President Hugo Banzer was worried because "political groups and traffickers are instigating farmers to confront the army."[15] Felix Santos, a leader of the farmers rejected such claims, saying "We are protesting because of higher gasoline and transportation prices and a law that will charge us for the use of water."[15]

Teachers of state schools in rural areas went on strike calling for salary increases (at the time they made $1,000 a year). In the capital city of La Paz students began to fight running battles with police. Demonstrators put up roadblocks of stones, bricks and barrels near Achacachi and Batallas, and violence broke out there as well (one army officer and two farmers were killed and dozens injured). Soldiers and police soon cleared most of the roadblocks that had cut off highways in five of the country's nine provinces.[15]

After a televised recording of a Bolivian Army captain, Robinson Iriarte de la Fuente, firing a rifle into a crowd of demonstrators wounding many and hitting high school student Víctor Hugo Daza in the face, killing him, intense anger erupted.[3] The police told the executives of the consortium that their safety could no longer be guaranteed. The executives then fled from Cochabamba to Santa Cruz.[3] After coming out of four days of hiding, Oscar Olivera signed a concord with the government guaranteeing the removal of Aguas del Tunari and turning Cochabamba's water works over to La Coordinadora. Detained demonstrators were to be released and Law 2029 repealed.[4] The Banzer government then told Aguas del Tunari that by leaving Cochabamba they had "abandoned" the concession and declared the $200 million contract revoked. The company, insisting that it had not left voluntarily but been forced out, filed a $40 million lawsuit in the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, an appellate body of the World Bank, against the Bolivian government, "claiming compensation for lost profits under a bilateral investment treaty."[10] On the day following Víctor Hugo Daza's funeral, Óscar Olivera climbed to his union office's balcony and proclaimed victory to the exhausted crowd.[3] The demonstrators declared that they would not relent until Law 2029 was changed. To get a quorum to amend the law the government even rented planes to fly legislators back to the capital. In a special session on 11 April 2000 the law was changed.[20]

The mayor and the Bolivian government were wrong to insist on an expensive and unnecessary dam. But the bigger problem was that Semapa's water tariffs had been too low for too long, starving the system of investment. Had the tariffs been raised earlier, more cash would have been available to improve service. These twin failings meant that any new contract, public or private, was bound to lead to unacceptable price rises.

On 12 April 2000 when asked about the outcome in Bolivia, World Bank President James Wolfensohn maintained that free or subsidized delivery of a public service like water leads to abuse of the resource; he said, "The biggest problem with water is the waste of water through lack of charging."[4]

In Washington, D.C. at the 16 April 2000 IMF and World Bank meetings, protesters attempted to blockade the streets to stop the meeting. They cited the Water Wars in Bolivia as an example of corporate greed and a reason to resist globalization. Oscar Olivera attended the protests, saying, "The people have recaptured their dignity, their capacity to organize themselves - and most important of all, the people are no longer scared."[4]

On 23 April 2002 Oscar Olivera led 125 protesters to the San Francisco headquarters of Bechtel, the only member of Aguas del Tunari located in the Americas. Olivera said "With the $25 million they are seeking, 125,000 people could have access to water." Bechtel officials agreed to meet him.[4]

The victory gained the cocalero and campesino groups international support from anti-globalisation groups.[10] Oscar Olivera and Omar Fernandez have become sought after speakers at venues discussing how to resist resource privatization and venues critical of the World Bank. His actions in the Water Wars raised the profile of Congressman Evo Morales and he became President of Bolivia in 2005. Omar Fernandez joined Morales' Movement for Socialism and became a Bolivian senator.[22]

The Cochabamba protests of 2000 are chronicled by Olivera in his book Cochabamba! Water Rebellion in Bolivia.

On 19 January 2006 a settlement was reached between the Government of Bolivia (then under the Presidency of Eduardo Rodriguez Veltze) and Aguas del Tunari, it was agreed that "the concession was terminated only because of the civil unrest and the state of emergency in Cochabamba and not because of any act done or not done by the international shareholders of Aguas del Tunari". With this statement both parties agreed to drop any financial claims against the other.[23]

When no sitting judge would hear the case against Captain Robinson Iriarte, it was transferred to a military tribunal (that had final jurisdiction over which cases it hears). In March 2002, Captain Iriarte was acquitted by the tribunal of any responsibility for the death of VÃctor Hugo Daza. After Iriarte's acquittal, he was promoted to the rank of major.[3][4]

In the end water prices in Cochabamba returned to their pre-2000 levels with a group of community leaders running the restored state utility company SEMAPA. As late as 2005, half of the 600,000 people of Cochabamba remained without water and those with it only received intermittent service (some as little as three hours a day). Oscar Olivera the leading figure in the protests admitted, "I would have to say we were not ready to build new alternatives."[24] SEMAPA managers say they are still forced to deal with graft and inefficiencies, but that its biggest problem is a lack of money (it can not raise rates, and after Aguas del Tunari was forced out, other international companies are unwilling to give them more loans).[24] Luis Camargo, SEMAPA's operations manager in an interview with the New York Times said they were forced to continue using a water-filtration system that is split between "an obsolete series of 80-year-old tanks and a 29-year-old section that uses gravity to move mountain water from one tank to another."[24] He stated that the system was built for a far smaller city and worried about shrinking aquifers. A system to bring water down from the mountains would cost $300 million and SEMAPA's budget is only about $5 million a year.[24]

The New Yorker reports "in Cochabamba, those who are not on the network and who have no well, pay ten times as much for their water as the relatively wealthy residents who are hooked up", and with no new capital the situation can not be improved.[3] A local resident complained that water-truck operators "drill polluted water and sell it. They [also] waste a lot of water."[3] According to author Frederik Segerfeldt, "the poor of Cochabamba are still paying 10 times as much for their water as the rich, connected households and continue to indirectly subsidize water consumption of more well-to-do sectors of the community. Water nowadays is available only four hours a day and no new households have been connected to the supply network."[25] Franz Taquichiri, a veteran of the Water War and an SEMAPA director elected by the community, said "I don't think you'll find people in Cochabamba who will say they're happy with service. No one will be happy unless they get service 24 hours a day."[24] Another Cochabamba resident and activist during the unrest summed up her opinion of the situation by saying, "afterwards, what had we gained? We were still hungry and poor."[26]

Similar protests took place in La Paz over Aguas de Illimani, a subsidiary of the French multinational Suez. Aguas de Illimani's contract with the state was broken after allegations were made by the Bolivian govt. that it did not respect all the clauses of the contract. According to the Bolivian ambassador Pablo Solón Romero, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), part of the World Bank Group, was a share-holder of Aguas de Illimani. The ambassador pointed out that since the case was brought before the ICSID, which is an arm of the World Bank, a conflict of interest arose in this affair.[27]