Liberalism favours capital over labour, the mobile over those slow to adapt. Investors in developing countries must prepare for the unexpected. If they are democratic, this drives a political cycle between statist intervention and deregulation. Statism addresses social goals inefficiently, while deregulation boosts inequalities. Mexico, Brazil and Peru are liberalising, which foments investment and growth. We seized this opportunity . . . and the high oil price . . . to snap up some juicy acreage in Peru on which there is already an oil discovery.

Like Chinese entrepreneurs, Peruvian exguerrillas are too busy making money to worry about Maoism. It matters not if a cat is white or black as long as it catches mice. But the cycle can be temporarily derailed. Neoliberalism has not delivered results for ordinary people in neighbouring Bolivia.

Benefits of economic growth were not spread widely. The drugs war shrank the economy, putting the burden of adjustment on indigenous farmers. It was a textbook example of democratic reform, involving minimal aid. They privatised sensitively, which made reform a stop-start process, undermining momentum and delaying results. They slashed inflation.

The reformers implemented everything demanded by the World Bank and IMF. But because state companies were over-manned, reform was disruptive. The leap forward was a 'plan for all', counting on growth to fund deficit spending. Infrastructure would pay its way. International investment would again make Bolivia's resource base competitive.

Capital came and a boom ensued. We found lots of natural gas but little oil.

Gas needs markets and expensive infrastructure to develop. Investors are slow to invest in risky, long-term projects. Capital is mobile . . . it requires a risk-adjusted return.

The higher the uncertainty, the higher the required return. So, paradoxically, socialist agitation impoverishes people by increasing the required rate of return. Poor farmers had their coca crops destroyed. But huge gas discoveries take time and capital to develop.

You cannot feed your family on narrowing bond spreads. Economic reform must be balanced by social and political reform.

Perceptions depend on your perspective: there was little gas discovered before we came. Companies see it as 'our' gas. Indians see it as their national patrimony, the lifeblood of the earth goddess. In the energy sector E&P means exploration and production, but for many teenagers E&P is what they do in discos on Friday nights.

Instead of copper-fastening reform, democracy undermined progress: the electorate dismissed their mainly white ruling class, voting in an indigenous government for the first time in 500 years.

For all his leftie slogans, president Evo Morales is more Michael Davitt than Marx . . .

his movement echoes the 19th century Irish Land League. Illiterate peasants are not ideological: they want a piece of the action.

They are not the enemy . . . they are our greatgreat-grandparents.

The answer to Irish destitution was the return of land to those who farmed it, investment in infrastructure, emigration for surplus population and independence. Why would Bolivians be any different? Doubtless compulsory purchase inconvenienced Anglo-Irish landlords. Reform is rarely ideal.

What's right is what works.

The indigenous backlash against neoliberalism will be a fact for a generation.

Business people can either be part of the solution or part of the problem. Bolivia has huge gas potential for an energy-hungry world. It's possible that everyone screws up, the gas lies undeveloped and Bolivia stagnates. A better outcome is to cut a deal that recognises new realities, works legally and gives investors a fair return.

Road warrior (21 July) The Cityjet flight to Paris was late, compounded by buses, French officialdom and distant gates. But I was able to run faster than my doctored geologists, and held the bus at the departure gate for them.

On discovering that the security official had not returned my boarding pass I asked for a replacement. Air France needed a ticket. As we had to be on that flight I agreed to buy another, but there wasn't time. I said we had come from Irlande and were rushing because the incoming flight was late. His visage softened. I could go back and recover my ticket . . . a ten-minute walk each way.

"Can you guarantee me five minutes? I can run like Zizou!" I pleaded. Mention of the head-butting Berber worked: "No guarantees, but run!" he exhorted. I made it back in five by jumping over barriers and sprinting, arriving drenched in sweat.

"Bravo!" they applauded, but there was no bus. "Pas de probleme!" reassured the staff.

They leaped into a Renault van and a glamorous chauffeuse drove me at speed across the apron. I began to worry about travelling to the Middle East . . . but because of fast women in fast cars!

Middle East (21-25 July) For Israel, the writing is on the wall. Israel and the Arabs have locked themselves into a negative feedback loop: the grievances and excesses of one provoke the other. Israel's assault is not motivated by the soldier captives . . . they could easily be swapped, as so often before. The attacks are designed to degrade Hezbollah in preparation for a US attack on Iran. The Iranians also know an attack is likely. But attacks on Iran, Lebanon, Gaza and Israel will achieve little. We need to make the vicious circle virtuous.

Israelis are due their De Klerk moment: is this the state they want to live in? To be the only country whose Supreme Court has legalised and regulated torture? To sicken decent people throughout the civilised world? To be a failed state dependent on hand-outs from the diaspora and the USA?

To apply double standards in relations with neighbours and even its own citizens, based on race and religion? The idea of a state for one religion or race is outmoded. In 100 years the Levant will again be multi-religious and multi-ethnic. So why wait?