The UN and Venezuela and the Security Council seat Mood: cool Now Playing: 181 member states of the United Nations voted yea in Venezuela’s favor Topic: Venezuela News
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power. (Wikimedia Commons)
Last week, 181 member states of the United Nations voted yea in Venezuela’s favor, allowing Caracas to take one of the two non-permanent seats on the Security Council reserved for Latin America.
Tongues clucked and fingers wagged. In the run-up to the vote, editorial boards, columnists and members of congress urged Washington to whip together the sixty-five nations needed to block Venezuela’s two-year term. But in the end, Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the UN, could only secure only eleven opposing votes. Venezuela was Latin America’s unanimous choice to replace outgoing Argentina, joining Chile, which has one more year left. Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, tweeted his concern: “Shameful that Latin America 1) proposes abusive #Venezuela for UN Security Council, and 2) no one else, so no choice.”
Power reacted to the vote by collectively scolding the Latin American caucus:
The UN Charter makes clear that candidates for membership on the Security Council should be contributors to the maintenance of international peace and security and support the other purposes of the UN, including promoting universal respect for human rights. Regional groups have a responsibility to put forward candidates that satisfy these criteria.
Nearly exactly one hundred years ago, Woodrow Wilson said he was “going to teach the South American republics to elect good men.” We’re still trying.
Power then went on to say, “Venezuela’s conduct at the UN has run counter to the spirit of the UN Charter and its violations of human rights at home are at odds with the Charter’s letter.”
The “conduct” here referred to is Caracas’s recent turn on the UN’s Human Rights Council, where it consistently opposed US-supported resolutions and supported resolutions the US opposed.
For instance, Venezuela joined with twenty-seven other members to pass a resolution calling on countries to ensure that armed drones in counter-terrorism and military campaigns operate “in according with international law, including international human rights and humanitarian law.” Sounds unobjectionable, right? Not to Washington. Its representative voted with the minority. The United States “said that it did not believe that the examination of specific weapon systems fell under the mandate of the Council.” Kenneth Roth didn’t think this worth a tweet. Venezuela also tended to vote against any resolution that might be deemed a stalking horse for US-led interventions, siding, for instance, with China, Cuba and Russia against condemning human rights violations in Syria.
Whatever one thinks about that alliance, Caracas is not alone in Latin America in holding firm to the ideal of absolute sovereignty. This is understandable, considering the long history of Washington claiming for itself the right to judge which governments are worthy of existence and which are beyond the pale and merit destruction. Latin America unanimously opposed the invasion of Panama; nearly all of South America was opposed to bombing Libya to remove Muammar Qaddafi; there was even more unanimity against Washington’s efforts to move on Syria last year. Argentina, which then held the UN Security Council Seat, “will never propose or support a foreign military intervention,” foreign minister Héctor Timerman said. “The Argentine people will not be complicit in new deaths.”
If any country has violated the UN charter, it is the United States. The US did not get UN support to wage war in Nicaragua; and when in 1986 the UN’s International Court of Justice (established in the charter that Samantha Power evokes, mandating that all UN member nations are subject to its rulings) rejected American claims of collective self-defense, found the United States guilty of breaches of international law, and ordered that it pay reparations to Managua, Washington ignored the ruling and announced it would henceforth no longer be subject to the court’s jurisdiction (the legal scholar Eric Posner identifies the US withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the ICJ as a “watershed” moment, clearing the way of all old muliltaralist restraints and laying the legal foundation for the kind of renewed unilaterial interventionism, starting in Panama and continuing to Iraq and beyond). Nor did it have UN support to invade Panama in 1989 or bomb Iraq in 2003.On the issue of sovereignty, the charter is clear: “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”; “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peacefulmeans”; “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force”; “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” Emphasis mine.
It’s funny, actually, that Power uses the phrases “spirit” and “letter.” Usually the US justifies violating the “letter” of UN law (that is, it doesn’t work through procedures to obtain a warrant for its actions) by saying it is acting in the true “spirit” of the UN, unilaterally enforcing values that the institution embodies but can’t execute. Spirits have long been calling the United States to follow a higher law.
One can debate whether the ideals of sovereignty and non-aggression as they were understood in the late 1940s, when the UN was founded, make sense in today’s world; but certainly people of good will can also admit that the alternative—the US acting alone—hasn’t exactly been a success. No? I guess not. Among liberals like Power and Roth it has become unreflective common sense that old-style notions of sovereignty are relics of the past. They chant “R2P” like a incantation, warding off mounting evidence that the destruction of the ideal of sovereignty has made the world considerably more volatile. Roth, who heads one of the most respected human rights organizations in the world, is still hot for action, having sent out a barrage of tweets urging Obama to intervene in Syria.
The United States should listen to Latin America more often. In her sermon to the region, Ambassador Power mentioned a number of serious crises the world faced. The Security Council, she said, “must meet its responsibilities by uniting to meet common threats. All members of the Council have an obligation to meet the expectations of those who have entrusted them with these critical responsibilities.” Responsiblities. Obligations. Trust.
Among the threats she listed was ISIS, the Islamic insurgency now threatening Iraq and Syria, which is direct blowback from Washington’s disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 (she also mentioned Mali, which itself is a consequence of yet another war Latin America opposed: in Libya). The vast majority of Latin American countries (twenty-six in thirty-three), and all of the major ones, were opposed to the invasion of Iraq, wanting to give inspections more time. Back then, it was Chile and Mexico who held the region’s non-permanent seat on the UN. The Bush administration placed extraordinary pressure on those two countries, including the threat of economic retaliation, to a resolution authorizing force to remove Saddam Hussein.
It is unclear how Mexico would have voted had a ballot taken place, but Chile went on record as saying “we will reject it.” In a memoir titled Una Guerra Solitaria: La verdadera historia de por qué la ONU dijo NO a la guerra de Irak (“A Solitary War: The True Story Why the United Nations said NO to the War in Iraq”), a Chilean diplomat at the time, Heraldo Muñoz, describes in detail Washington’s efforts to bend his country to its will.
Led by the moderate president Ricardo Lagos and Juan Gabriel Valdés, ambassador to the UN, Chile did try to work with Bush and Blair and come up with a sane solution to the problem Iraq posed. And Muñoz describes their trusting efforts to reason with Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice (a former Muñoz classmate at the University of Denver) and John Bolton, urging them to live up to their responsibilities and obligations to act as rational members of an equal community of nations. That didn’t happen. Seeing that it couldn’t pass without the support of Chile (and a few other countries, including Angola, who again will be joining the Security Council and is also, like Venezuela, criticized as being irresponsible) Washington shelved the resolution and assembled its “coalition of the willing.”
In other words, if Washington had listened to Latin America in 2003, one of the “threats” Power today lectures Latin America on wouldn’t exist.
Muñoz writes in his book: “Everybody has the right to due process; everybody, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. To deny this right in Guantanamo, or wherever, is to deny the moral superiority of democracy.” He’s currently Chile’s foreign minister, and has affirmed his support of Venezuela taking its seat on the Security Council.
If Kenneth Roth, Samantha Power, and the editorial board of the Washington Post want to know why, all they have to do is take a look at Iraq.
Looking ahead to the Security Council’s next term, this is what Ambassador Power will confront if she tries to put forward a war resolution: a “moderate,” “responsible” Chile, led by many of the same career diplomats who derailed Bush’s 2003 bid to obtain a warrant for regime change in Iraq, allied with a “radical,” “irresponsible” Venezuela. Caracas will bluster and showboat, and in so doing, make anything Chile proposes a reasonable, if not the only, alternative.
For Power, that just might be a problem from hell.
Read Next: One Thing Hillary Clinton Understands About Politics in 2014
Co-ops in Cuba - How Cuba is building socialism with subsidiarity Mood: happy Now Playing: Cuba is embracing the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decisions should be made at the lowest level feasible Topic: Socialism
by Cliff DuRand Cuba is poised to be the first country in the world to have cooperatives make up a major portion of its economy. It is a laboratory for a new society.
[published in Z Magazine, October 2013, under the title “Laboratory for a New Society: Moving toward a cooperative economy,” minus the footnotes.]
Cuba is engaged in a fundamental reshaping of its society. Calling it a renovation of socialism or a renewal of socialism, the country is re-forming the economic system away from the state socialist model adopted in the 1970s toward something quite new.
This is not the first time Cuba has undertaken significant changes, but this promises to be deeper than previous efforts, moving away from that statist model. Fidel confessed in 2005 that “among the many errors that we committed, the most serious error was believing that someone knew how to build socialism.” That someone, of course, was the Soviet Union. So, Cuba is still trying to figure out for itself how to build socialism.
To understand the current renovation it is important to distinguish between ownership and possession of property. The productive resources of society are to remain under state ownership in the name of all the people. Reforms do not change the ownership system. Reforms are changing the management system, bringing managerial control closer to those who actually possess property. So while the state will continue to own, greater autonomy will be given to those who possess that property.
In effect, Cuba is embracing the principle of subsidiarity, which holds that decisions should be made at the lowest level feasible and higher levels should give support to the local. This means more enterprise autonomy in state enterprises and it means cooperatives outside of the state.It is expected that in the next couple years 46% of the country’s GDP will be in the non-state sector of the economy. That includes cooperatives and private small businesses. Coops are likely to become the dominant part of that non-state sector.
Cooperatives Already 83% of agricultural land is in coops. Much of that has been in the UBPCs (Basic Units of Cooperative Production) formed in the 1990s out of the former state farms. But these were not true cooperatives since they still came under the control of state entities. Now they are being given the autonomy to become true coops.
Even more significantly, new urban coops are being established in services and industry. 222 experimental urban coops are to be opened in 2013. As of 1st of July, 124 have been formed in agricultural markets, construction, and transportation. A big expansion in this number is expected in 2014.In December 2012 the National Assembly passed an urban coop law that establishes the legal basis for these new coops.
Here are some of its main provisions:
A coop must have at least 3 members, but can have as many as 60 or more. One vote per socio. As self-governing enterprises, coops are to set up their own internal democratic decision making structures.
Coops are independent of the state. They are to respond to the market. This is to overcome the limits that hampered some agricultural coops in the past.
Coops can do business with state and private enterprises. They will set their own prices in most cases, except where there are prices established by the state.
Some coops will be conversions of state enterprises, e.g. restaurants. They can have 10 year renewable leases for use of the premises, paying no rent in the first year if improvements are made. Others will be start-up coops.
There will be second degree coops which are associations of other coops.
Capitalization will come from bank loans, a new Finance Ministry fund for coops and member contributions. Member contributions are treated as loans (not equity) and do not give additional votes. Loans are to be repaid from profits.
Coops are to pay taxes on profits and social security for socios.
Distribution of profits is to be decided by socios after setting aside a reserve fund.
Coops may hire wage labor on a temporary basis (up to 90 days). After 90 days a temporary worker must be offered membership or let go. Total temporary worker time cannot exceed 10% of the total work days for the year. This gives coops flexibility to hire extra workers seasonally or in response to increased market demands, but prevents significant collective exploitation of wage labor.
This is a big step forward for Cuba. Since 1968 the state has sought to run everything from restaurants to barber shops and taxis. Some were done well, many were not. One problem was worker motivation. Decisions were made higher up and as state employees, workers enjoyed job security even with poor performance.
However, their pay was low. Now as socios in cooperatives they will have incentives to make the business a success. The coop is on its own to either prosper or go under. Each member’s income and security depends on the collective. And each has the same voting right in the General Assembly where coop policy is to be made.
Coops combine material and moral incentives, linking individual interest with a collective interest. Each socio prospers only if all prosper.
Remittances:
Much of the start-up capital from members is likely come from remittances sent by relatives living abroad. This is a good way to harness for the social good some of the $2.455 billion of remittance money (2012 figures) that comes into Cuba. Although 62.4% of the population receive remittances, the bulk of this money is likely to come to whiter Cubans. As a result Black Cubans will end up being underrepresented in this sector of the economy. In the long run, this presents social dangers.
Recommendation:
Preferential bank lending policies can avoid this problem. Cuba does not need to adopt race based affirmative action policies to correct this imbalance. Banks can give preference in their lending policies to those coops that lack funding from remittances. To each according to his need.
State plan. If coops are truly autonomous, how can this sector of the economy be articulated with planning? Guideline #1 says the socialist planning system is to remain “the principle means to direct the national economy.” How can market and plan work together? In addition to responding to the market, coops are also charged (by charter?) with a “social object.” In addition, local entities can also request that they assist in specific social projects.
Their participation is voluntary. This applies to individual coops.
But beyond this, the investment function can be used to direct the development of this sector. Bank lending priorities can be based on state development plans.
The model for economic democracy developed by US philosopher David Schweickart shows how this can operate. In After Capitalism (1) Schweickart envisions a society made up of democratically managed cooperatives exchanging goods and services in a free market. But the allocation of investment capital is made by government bodies at national, regional and local levels based on social criteria democratically decided upon.
Something like this would seem to fit well the new economy developing in Cuba today.Coops are recognized as a socialist form of organization in the Guidelines or lineamientos. In part, this is because they foster a social consciousness. By bringing people together in their daily worklife in democratically self managed organizations, coops nurture the democratic personality and the human being is more fully developed.
This point has been strongly advocated by Cuban economist Camila Piñeiro Harnecker. She argues that coops “promote the advancement of democratic values, attitudes and habits (equality, responsibility, solidarity, tolerance for different opinions, communication, consensus building).” (2) Coops are little schools of democracy in which the new socialist person can thrive, more so than was possible under state socialism. (3) Thus coops spontaneously generate at the base of society momentum toward that society of associated producers that is the aim of socialism.
Coops are the kind of institution that can make socialism irreversible by embedding its practices in daily life.
Private Businesses The other component of the non-state sector is made up of private businesses. These small and medium sized private businesses are called self employment or cuentapropistas. While limited areas of self employment were opened up in the 1990s (e.g. paladares), this was expanded to 178 occupations in 2011. In part, this was designed to quickly absorb the large number of redundant state employees that were to be dismissed. It also allowed underground activities that had flourished since the Special Period to come out into the open and operate legally where they can be licensed, regulated and taxed.
The acceptance of small private businesses signifies that the leadership recognizes that a petty bourgeoisie is compatible with socialism. As it is often said, the state cannot do everything. Contrary to a common claim in the US media, this is not the beginning of capitalism.
The Guidelines say that accumulation of wealth is to be avoided. This means the petty bourgeoisie will not be allowed to grow into a big bourgeoisie, a capitalist class.
Unlike coops which nurture a social consciousness, private businesses foster individualism.
Self interest becomes the primary concern of private businesses. For that reason the petty bourgeoisie is a decidedly non-socialist class. While its existence is allowed, its growth should not be encouraged where coops can do the job instead.Unlike the paladares which could employ only family members, these private businesses can hire others as well. While this is also called self employment, in reality it is wage labor.
While the private exploitation of wage labor is widely understood to be incompatible with socialism (as well as in violation of the Cuban constitution), it is accepted as necessary to quickly absorb surplus workers.In recent years, small private businesses have been the fastest growing element in the Cuban economy. If they were to come to make up a sizable portion of the non-state sector, they could easily acquire significant political influence, moving Cuba away from socialism. This is because class power is fundamentally rooted in the significance a class has in the economy as a whole and thus the dependence other classes and groups have on its success.For that reason, the continued development of socialism requires that coops rather than private businesses come to make up the bulk of the non-state sector. That is likely to be the case for several reasons.
Coops are favored by the state in terms of tax policy and loan policies.
In direct competition between coops and private businesses coops often are in more advantageous positions. E.g. state restaurants that convert to coop restaurants generally have better locations than private restaurants.
Labor efficiency and productivity is high in coops due to the greater incentives for socios.Recommendation. In the long run it would be desirable to convert many private businesses into coops so all who are employed there can enjoy the benefits equally (no exploitation) and participate in decision making (democracy). This could be done by restrictions on the size of private businesses, tax incentives for conversion, and political organizing of their wage labor force.
Cooperative in actionRole of CTC (Central de Trabajadores de Cuba) In view of the new and growing diversity among Cuba’s workers, the role of its labor movement needs to be rethought. Under state socialism the CTC represented the interest of the working class as a whole in the councils of government.
Unlike unions in a capitalist society which represent workers in an industry or particular workplaces in an adversarial relationship with capital, in state socialism the state and the working class are considered to be united in their interests. It is for this reason that the CTC has been given a central position in the political structure.
Its role is not to represent workers in negotiations with their employers, but to be their voice in making public policy in a socialist society.Previously only 9% of employment was in the non-state sector. Now it is 22% and is expected to grow to 35%. This raises new questions for the labor movement. Reportedly, 80% of cuentapropistas have joined unions.
How can the CTC represent the interests of those cuentapropistas who are private business owners?
The petty bourgeoisie has interests different from the working class (even though they do work in their businesses). How can CTC at the same time represent the interests of the cuentapropistas who are in fact the wage laborers they employ (and exploit)?And how can the CTC represent the interests of cooperative socios given the fact that they are at once both owners and workers?
As I have suggested above, the CTC can advance socialism by advocating for the cooperative sector as a whole over against the private business sector. Beyond this, the CTC might also take on an entrepreneurial role for cooperatives, doing market research, organizing workers for new start-up coops, providing training in self-management, etc. It might even monitor coops to ensure compliance with their own self-governance processes.
21st Century Socialism
The project called 21st Century Socialism has been associated primarily with the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. It is an attempt to reinvent socialism after the collapse of the state socialism that characterized the 20th century.
In Venezuela this has involved using state power to promote cooperatives and communal councils at the base of society as seeds of a future socialism. Social transformation is constructed both from above and from below. (4) In Venezuela this is taking place in what is still overwhelmingly a capitalist society. In Cuba we see a very similar process in the context of a state socialist society.
Here the state is also promoting cooperatives, relaxing administrative control over enterprises and decentralizing governmental power to the local level. Both see the empowerment of associations at the base of society and the active participation of working people in directing their affairs as key to building the new socialism. In the Venezuelan case this is seen as eventually replacing the existing bourgeois state with a new communal state, the beginnings of which are being constructed by associations of communal councils.
In the case of Cuba, resistance to this dispersal of power away from the state is reportedly coming from the state bureaucracy itself. Some see this as motivated by the self interest of an entrenched bureaucratic class that will block Cuba’s reforms. Others see the resistance as due to bureaucratic habits that are slow to change. In that case it can be overcome by a change of mentality. (5) There is also bureaucratic resistance in Venezuela. That is why power and resources are being sent directly to communal councils, effectively by-passing traditional channels.
Something like that same strategy is being used in Cuba as some taxes are being collected at the local level rather than nationally to be distributed downward. This then shifts the capacity to initiate action to the local level, a far cry from the vertical structure of state socialism.
Democratically self governing cooperatives are an essential feature of 21st century socialism. They empower the associated producers in their daily work, giving them some control over their lives. At the same time these little schools of democracy are the soil in which the new socialist person will thrive, more so than was possible under state socialism.
And with that it becomes possible to envision the state eventually withering away as society comes more and more under the direction of a truly civil society, or what Marx called the associated producers.
Conclusion Cuba is poised to be the first country in the world to have cooperatives make up a major portion of its economy. It is a laboratory for a new society. Those who are implementing the Guidelines are aware that they are redesigning society and approach the challenge in an experimental way.
The new urban coops are being set up as experiments. As difficulties emerge lessons are to be learned so as to improve the process as it goes along.One difficulty is already evident. That is the need for education in cooperativism. (6) Previous experience in the UBPC agricultural coops showed that workers were not practiced in democratic decision making. Nor did the coops have the autonomy necessary for them to feel they were really in control.
The UBPCs were actually under the control of state enterprises, such as the sugar centrals. Now for the first time they are being given real autonomy.Likewise, the workers in urban state enterprises now being cooperativized have deeply established habits of compliance with higher authority.
Under state socialism decisions came from higher up. It was a structure that bred passivity. That is part of the “change in mentality” so often talked about these days that needs to take place.
Many years ago Cuban philosopher Olga Fernandez pointed out to me that under the model of socialism Cuba had adopted, rather than the state withering away, it was civil society that was withering away. Today’s renovation of socialism is an effort to rejuvenate civil society, to construct a socialist civil society. Cooperatives may be a key link in that rejuvenation that can sustain Cuba on its way to a society run by the associated producers.
If it can succeed, it will be of world historical importance.
Notes 1. David Schweickart, After Capitalism (Rowman and Littlefield, 2nd edition 2011), pp. 47-58. 2. Camila Piñeiro Harnecker, “Las cooperatives en el Nuevo modelo economico cubano” http://rebelion.org/mostrar.php?tipo=5&id=Camila%20Pi%F1eiro%20Harnecker&inicio=0, also Cooperativas y socialismo: Una mirada desde Cuba (La Habana: Editorial Caminos, 2011). 3. Michael A. Lebowitz, The Contradictions of Real Socialism (Monthly Review Press, 2012). 4. Dario Azzellini, “The Communal State: Communal Councils, Communes, and Workplace Democracy” NACLA Report on the Americas (Summer 2013), pp. 25-30. 5. Olga Fernandez “Socialist Transition in Cuba: Economic Adjustments and Socio-political Challenges” Latin American Perspectives (forthcoming). 6. This has been emphasized by Beatriz Diaz of FLACSO in “Cooperatives in the Enhancement of the Cuban Economic Model: The Challenge of Cooperative Education” Latin American Perspectives (forthcoming). Camila Piñeiro Harnecker has proposed establishment of a special department to train coop members for their new role. Op. cit.
The title is paraphrasing the line in the great fantasy film, "The Wizard of Oz." But fantasy and reality are evidently hard to differentiate for opponents of Hugo Chavez. Like a group of Munchkins, characters in the film, they seemed to take an attitude akin to the Munchkins, who happily sang “Ding dong the wicked witch is dead!” Chavez wasn't the "Wicked Witch,” in this case, of Venezuela, despite being vilified by his reactionary opposition. But rather than protecting freedom and democracy, elitist anti-Chavistas are willing to continue to maintain Venezuela as a market satellite under the current U.S.-dominated world order of unequal relationships among nations, especially regarding the "Third World."
And Hugo Chavez came to realize that "Third World" conditions in Venezuela must stop, thus his government's social reforms to prioritize the interests/rights of the working class and poor, deservedly so since it is their labor that creates the capital elites/imperial interests, local, and foreign, profit heavily from in the relationship of capital over labor. (Without the latter, the former would never exist.)
It is also Chavez' support for Bolivarian independence, not just for Venezuela but for other Latin American/Caribbean nations, that can contribute to changing the balance of power in the region in a more indigenous-like manner that threatens profiteering. Anti-Chavistas also hate him for this.
But like it or not, Hugo Chavez will be an important and permanent symbol for protecting sovereignty and prioritizing a sustainable equality, not a bourgeois one.
Anti-Chavistas have celebrated the death of their working class enemy, belching out (without saying "excuse me") the usual freedom-loving facade covering imperial relations. Examples within the U.S. were par for the course, whether being patronizing, relieved or joyful. John Grant's piece published in CounterPunch (03/13/2013) called "Hugo Chavez and the Knuckleheads," revealed the enthusiasm of Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin, both virtually getting off on Chavez' death using their "trademark" cheapshots. Grant also revealed more predictable anti-Chavism within the "mainstream U.S. media."
But it's the usual tiring theme: Chavez the "Tyrant, dictator, authoritarian, Commie," etc., Have they used the “Hitler” label yet?
Meanwhile there's a "fresh face" within the opposition posing as candidate for the Venezuelan presidency: Henrique Capriles. In an interview with Robert Giusti for El Universal (03/23/2013), Capriles echoed the holier-than-thou morality Chavez-haters are fond of, in this case calling his opponent, Chavez-picked Nicholas Maduro, a "fascist in his own right." This basically characterized his responses, which had a rather pretentious tone.
In Elizabeth Malimopoulos' article for Al Jazeera (03/11/2013) about Capriles, the latter portrays himself as a virtual champion of the working class and poor, citing his working class family background. But supporting neoliberal policies will threaten the working class and poor Venezuelans he claims to support. Chavez was and Maduro is working class also, only they tried to actually practice what they preach.
Capriles was, and probably still is, a candidate for the Roundtable of Democratic Unity (MUD, an appropriate acronym?), as reported by Rachel Booth in www.venazuelananylisis.com (08/23/2012). Booth revealed the creating of an economic plan by MUD before Venezuela's 2012 presidential election, of which Capriles ran in, and lost. "The plan includes the deregulation of the banks, opening up the economy to private investment and reduction of state funding for public services and communal projects. There also would be "cutbacks [in] food, housing and transport." This has already proven to be the slippery slope which is austerity, a 19th century-like economic policy. U.S. citizens themselves have experienced it, with the deregulation policies contributing to the 2008 Great Recession.
Booth quoted former governor of Anzoategui David de Lima about MUD's/Capriles' plan: "...there are two discourses, there's the economic discourse used to get votes, and the real one, that aims to place the economic policy of the country back in the hands of two or three sectors that always controlled it." The plan is compatible with Capriles' "upper-class family" owning "major stakes in newspapers, movie theaters and other businesses."
Another characteristic among Chavez-haters is colonial-style racism. Tariq Ali, in his piece, "Hugo Chavez and Me," published in CounterPunch (03/07/2013), asserts:
"Politicians like [Chavez] had become unacceptable. What [Chavez] loathed most was the contemptuous indifference of mainstream politicians in South America towards their own people. The Venezuelan elite is notoriously racist. They regarded the elected president as uncouth and uncivilized, a zambo of mixed African and indigenous blood who could not be trusted. His supporters were portrayed on private TV networks as monkeys. Colin Powell [probably still not learning his lesson about the U.S. GOP and its political nature] had to reprimand the U.S. embassy in Caracas for hosting a party where Chavez was portrayed as a “gorilla."
Chavez is obviously familiar with the racism: "I live here. I know them well."
A Capriles presidency could very well resemble that of Carlos Andres Perez, former president during the 1980s period of boom and bust economics. According to "Health and Liberalism: Venezuela and Cuba" by George Schulyer for the Policies Studies Organization, a government decision in 1983 to devalue Venezuela's currency-to focus on keeping up with the country's debt- fueled an already mismanaged, corrupt and failing economy. Poverty, crime and political instability erupted, inevitably leading to the 1989 food riots. Perez was later impeached.
Despite Capriles' blanket guarantees to reduce poverty, and emphasize education, employment and public assistance for the poor, the chance for neoliberal economics to return would show that his actions speak more truthfully than his words. Capriles is not a friend of the powerless. Perez condemned foreign debt as being responsible for the 1980s turmoil. Yet, he still allowed neoliberal economics to stay in place, which has fueled the debt along with further borrowing just to pay for debt, i.e., more debt paying off debt. Is Capriles like Perez in that regard?
Interim president Nicholas Maduro accused the U.S. of plotting to assassinate Capriles and shift blame on the government. He also accused plotters of contributing to Chavez' death. While this sounds like tabloid gossip, past U.S. actions in other countries have produced similar results.
The United States denied the accusations as “absurd.” But that's been the same line for years, regardless. And the denials have usually been false.
If elected, expect Capriles to follow the old script of imperial and economic subjugation. With Maduro, as with Chavez, in implementing compatible policies, expect a further chance for common Venezuelans to benefit and continuing the Bolivarian objective of sovereignty.
Anti-Chavistas, foreign and domestic, will continue to be haters; but for the sake of their own private interests/monopolies.
Ace goes to Venezuela for the 2012 Election Mood: loud Now Playing: An updated from US activist in Venezuela Topic: CHAVEZ
REPORT BACK 2012
Hola Joe,
I returned from an invigorating trip to Venezuela almost two weeks ago, and it's been a whirlwind of activity since then (most notably moving into a new apartment and working on B Media's 6th Variety Show, Electile Dysfunction) As many of you know, I was able to raise all of the funds I needed, and wanted to give you a quick debrief.
I was in Venezuela for 14 days, where I was able to reconnect with friends and work with journalists from popular movement fronts in Argentina and Spain providing independent coverage of the elections. I was the only English translator in our group: in addition to the three articles I wrote previous to election day, I translated three updates throughout the day, added subtitles to videos, and maintained a live blog on In These Times, which included post-election analysis. I feel so proud to have been able to be part of this process, and so incredibly indebted to all of you for empowering me to be there. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
For those of you who were able to donate, I am just about ready to sit down with some tea in my new home and wrap up your perks.
Here's a recap of everything I worked on for those who are interested:
Apr 11th 2012, by Ewan Robertson - Latin America Bureau
(Taringa.net)
As both countries head toward important presidential elections this year, the United States has been intensifying its interventionist policy in Venezuela. However, US attempts to influence Venezuela’s domestic politics while casting it a “rogue state” on an international level, is leaving the Obama administration increasingly out-of-sync with Latin America’s new political reality.
US Intervention in Venezuela
Since the election of President Hugo Chávez in 1998, US policy has aimed at removing the Venezuelan president from power and ending the Bolivarian Revolution which he leads. This policy has included support by the Bush presidency for the short-lived April 2002 coup in Venezuela, which failed after mass protests returned Chávez to power. Since then the US has focused on nurturing Venezuela’s conservative opposition, channelling over US$100 million to groups opposed to Chávez since 2002. Meanwhile Washington and US corporate mass media have attempted to de-legitimise his government internationally in a propaganda campaign, portraying Venezuela as a threat to the US and its president as a “dangerous dictator” who has trampled upon democracy and human rights.
Any hopes that the Obama administration would usher a new era of respect for Venezuelan sovereignty have long been dashed, with intervention intensifying as Venezuela’s October 7th presidential election draws closer and Chavez seeks his third term in office. In the last twelve months the US government has imposed sanctions on Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA for trading with Iran, expelled the Venezuelan consul in Miami based on a suspect documentary implicating the Venezuelan diplomat in plotting a cyber-attack against the US, and publicly criticised the appointment of Venezuela’s new Defence Minister Henry Rangel Silva.
While direct US actions have maintained a constant rhythm of pressure against Venezuela, Washington’s hopes of removing Chávez from power undoubtedly lie in the possibility of the conservative Democratic Unity Table (MUD) opposition coalition defeating Chávez in this year’s presidential election. According to investigative journalist Eva Golinger, the US is providing the opposition in Venezuela with political advice and financial support to the tune of US$20 million $20 million this year.
This funding for anti-Chávez groups comes from the US national budget, State Department-linked agencies, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, along with the US Embassy in Caracas. A curious detail suggests that the US Embassy has become a key conduit for the distribution of this money. While the Embassy currently only maintains a Charge D’Affairs responsible for diplomatic operations, and overall staff levels remain unchanged, the Embassy budget jumped from almost $16 million in 2011 to over $24 million for 2012, an unexplained increase of over $8 million.
Washington has long worked to see the development of a united Venezuelan opposition capable of defeating Chávez. With the current MUD coalition displaying relative unity behind opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski, and the still popular Chávez currently undergoing treatment for cancer, the US is likely hoping 2012 is the year to see an end to Chávez’s administration. Indeed, the make-up of Venezuela’s opposition reads like a “who’s who” of figures who have received advice and financial support from US sources over the previous decade. Several of those who ran in the opposition’s February primary elections to elect the MUD presidential candidate have ties with US financial aid, including the winner Radonski. His political party Primero Justicia has been a key recipient of funding and political training since its founding in 1999, which has helped it to grow into a national force. US funding has also followed fellow primaries candidate Leopoldo López throughout his political career, first in Primero Justicia, then in Un Nuevo Tiempo from 2002, before receiving NED and USAID funding to support his own organisation Voluntad Popular.
MUD National Assembly deputy and primaries candidate Maria Machado Corina has also received heavy US financial support, as well as holding a private meeting with George W Bush in 2004.
Machado has recently been appointed as a coordinator for Radonski’s “Tricolour Command” presidential election campaign, while Leopoldo López is now a member of the Radonski campaign’s select Political Strategic Command. The Political Strategic Command is headed by experienced opposition figure Professor Ramón Guillermo Aveledo, who with his close political colleagues “assists US sponsors in pouring money into the MUD,” according to analyst Nil Nikandrov.
The importance of US funding in helping to shape the current Venezuelan opposition should not be underestimated. Indeed, according to US Embassy cables released by Wikileaks, in 2009 US Embassy chargé d’affaires John Caulfield argued for increased US funding of opposition groups, as “without our continued assistance, it is possible that the organizations we helped create ... could be forced to close...Our funding will provide those organizations a much-needed lifeline”.
Another aspect of Washington’s approach to Venezuela moving into 2012 has been the increase of aggressive rhetoric designed to de-legitimise the government and open the possibility of more direct intervention. At a special Organisation of American States (OAS) session held in Washington in March, Democrat Congressman Eliot Engel said Venezuelan democracy was being “trampled” by the Chávez administration and advocated a “robust” OAS mission be sent to the country to monitor the October presidential elections.
Not to be outdone by their Democratic counterparts, Republicans have continued to wind up the rhetorical dial on Venezuela. In a presidential nomination debate in Florida this January, Mitt Romney made a commitment to “punish those who are following” Hugo Chávez and his ally Fidel Castro, ex-president of Cuba. He claims that Obama has “failed to respond with resolve” to Chávez’s growing international influence, arguing in his October 2011 foreign policy white paper foreign policy white paper that he would “chart a different course” in US policy toward Venezuela and other leftist governments in Latin America.
Of course, US foreign policy has nothing to do with concern for democracy nor fabrications that Venezuela is involved in plotting an attack against the US. Venezuela is one of the region’s most vibrant democracies, witnessing a huge increase in political participation in the previous decade, both in internationally-certified free and fair elections and in new grassroots forms, such as the thousands of communal councils which have sprung up around the country. Figures in Washington routinely ignore the facts and the evidence regarding Venezuela, for example never mentioning the Chilean-based Latinobarometro regional poll in which Venezuelan citizens regularly demonstrate they have one of the highest levels of support for democracy, and satisfaction with how their democracy works in practice, in Latin America.
Rather, the issue for policy makers in Washington is that since the arrival of Chávez Venezuela has refused to play its designated role within US imperial strategy. That is, to offer a reliable supply of cheap oil controlled by US companies, to act as a market for US-based private foreign investment, and to conduct itself as a submissive ally in US diplomacy. It is the Chávez administration’s policies of national control over oil and using the resource to fund social programmes, nationalising strategically important industries, and vocally opposing US foreign policy while pursuing regional integration on principles contrary to “free trade” that have made Venezuela a “problem” for US foreign policy.
The Regional Dynamic
One of the Chávez’s administration’s key regional integration initiatives is the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), established by Cuba and Venezuela in 2004 as an alternative to US free trade agreements by emphasising mutual solidarity and joint development between member states. The group now contains eight members in Latin America and the Caribbean. Venezuela has also reached out to the Caribbean with the Petrocaribe initiative, in which Venezuela sells oil at preferential rates to participating nations to support their development, with 18 Caribbean states now participating.
The US has responded by trying to isolate Venezuela and discredit the ALBA. Romney has described it as a “virulently anti-American ‘Bolivarian’ movement across Latin America that seeks to undermine institutions of democratic governance and economic opportunity”. Meanwhile, Council of Foreign Relations analyst Joe Hirst rather fancifully tried to paint the organisation’s inclusion of social movements as a mechanism for promoting international terrorism for promoting international terrorism, using information from the long-discredited Farc laptops .
The US has also applied diplomatic pressure to discourage other states from strengthening ties with Venezuela. These have included using intimidation and diplomatic manoeuvres to try to prevent an alliance between Nicaragua and Venezuela after the 2006 election of leftist Daniel Ortega to the Nicaraguan presidency, and using threats and pressure against Haiti in 2006-7 to scupper the Préval government’s plan to join Petrocaribe. This strategy failed, with Nicaragua joining the ALBA at Ortega’s inauguration in early 2007 and the first Petrocaribe oil shipment reaching Haiti in March 2008.
The US’s interventionist policy toward Venezuela and the ALBA has instead left it looking ever more isolated in the hemisphere. For example, the State Department’s sanctions against PDVSA last May were collectively rejected by the ALBA, Petrocaribe, and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The regional reaction to Cuba’s exclusion from the upcoming Summit of the Americas as a result of US opposition repeats this pattern, with the ALBA countries vocally backing Cuba’s future inclusion in such summits.
The US is increasingly out of touch with the Latin America’s new political reality, as even the smaller Caribbean states and nations friendly to the US are joining the region’s new mechanisms of integration. Within this dynamic, the results of the October presidential election in Venezuela will be decisive for both the future of the country’s Bolivarian Revolution and the continued development of Latin America and the Caribbean’s new regional organisations, most of all the ALBA and Petrocaribe.
Attorney and activist Eva Golinger has written an excellent piece on US-Venezuela relations that’s posted on her website Postcards from the Revolution. Golinger details the astonishing turnaround that Chavez has effected since he took office 12 years ago. Not only has Chavez routed the predatory oligarchs who once dominated Venezuelan politics, but his revolutionary social programs have also raised the standard of living for the poor and middle classes while strengthening the institutions that have transformed Venezuela into one of the hemishpere’s most vibrant democracies. Venezuela has seen a 50 percent reduction in poverty since Chavez took office in February, 1999. Venezuelans are now guaranteed free, universal health-care, a K-through-college education, and civil liberties that are protected under the constitution. US citizens have every reason to be envious of the social safety net Chavez has created for his people via his Bolivarian Revolution.
Naturally, Chavez’s progressive policies have raised a few eyebrows in Washington where his successes are seen as a threat to the established order. Corporate mandarins regard Chavez as a troublemaker and they’re doing whatever they can to get rid of him ASAP. This is why one never reads anything positive about Chavez or his accomplishments in the US media, because the corporate bosses hate him, as they do anyone who diverts money from the 1 percent at the top of the economic food-chain to the 99 percent at the bottom.
US-Venezuela relations have continued to deteriorate under Barack Obama, who has turned out to be as big a disappointment to Chavez as he has to his supporters in the US. The Obama administration continues to fund the stealth network of US-backed NGOs that have been working around-the-clock to depose the democratically-elected leader for more than a decade. Golinger has written extensively on U.S. government agencies and their persistent meddling in Venezuela’s politics. Here’s an excerpt from Golinger’s post:
"Ever since the US-supported coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela failed in April 2002, Washington has been pursuing a variety of strategies to remove the overwhelmingly popular South American head of state from power. Multimillion-dollar funding to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela through US government agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), has increased exponentially over the past ten years, as has direct political support through advisors, strategists and consultants - all aiming to help an unpopular and outdated opposition rise to power.
"US government agencies, including the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Directorate of Intelligence and the Pentagon, have pumped up their hostile language towards the Venezuelan government in recent years. The major oil-producing nation has been placed on the countless, and baseless 'lists' produced annually by Washington, including 'failure to cooperate with counter-narcotics efforts', 'failure to aid in the war on terror', 'trafficking in persons', and others, that are based on political decisions instead of concrete, substantial evidence to support their accusations. These classifications have enabled Washington to justify not only the millions of US taxpayer dollars channeled to anti-Chavez groups fronting as NGOs, but also to increase military presence in the region and convince public opinion that Hugo Chavez is an enemy." (“War on Venezuela: Washington’s False Accusations Against The Chavez Government”, Eva Golinger, Postcards from the Revolution)
So, things have not improved under Obama at all, in fact, they’ve gotten worse. The US congress – whose public approval rating has plunged to single digits – is also beating the war drums against Chavez trying to garner support for direct intervention.
While Obama has refrained from name-calling or explicit accusations, his underlings in and out of the bureaucracy never hesitate to connect Chavez to Iran or to suggest links between Chavez and terrorism. Obama’s role in the smear campaign is as clear as his role in eviscerating the Bill of Rights with his recently-passed NDAA.
Here’s more from Golinger: “Other 'commentators' and 'analysts' are busy writing blogs and columns warning of the growing terrorist threat south of the US border. These dangerous, unfounded accusations could easily be used to justify an attack against Venezuela, as weapons of mass destruction was used against Iraq and 'protecting the population' was used against Libya. ….Time again, Venezuela has shown there are no 'terrorist training camps' on its soil. Nor is it secretly building a bomb to attack the US. Venezuela is a nation of peace. It does not invade, attack or threaten other countries.”
So, what does a peaceful country like Venezuela need to do to avert a confrontation with the United States?
Venezuela needs to become more like neighboring Colombia that Obama and others regularly hold up as a model of “democracy” in the region. Colombia – where human rights abuses and targeted assassinations are routine and where the US spends billions on a drug eradication program (Plan Colombia) that routinely sprays toxic (re: poison) chemicals on crops, livestock, water supplies and children.
Here’s a little background from Al Jazeera: “In 2008, Colombian soldiers were revealed to have murdered possibly thousands of civilians and then dressed the corpses in FARC attire in order to receive bonus pay and extra holiday time. Juan Manuel Santos (who is now Colombia’s president) was serving as defence minister …when the 'false positives' scandal broke…. Despite this and other details – such as that, since Uribe’s assumption of office, more trade unionists have been assassinated in Colombia than in the rest of the world combined …(Even so)…..[that] the country has been applauded by the US State Department and the Inter-American Development Bank as a regional role model in confronting security threats ensures the fortification of a system in which profits depend on the perpetuation of insecurity.” (“Private security and ‘the Israelites of Latin America’”, Belen Fernandez, Al Jazeera)
So, this is how one becomes America’s friend; just follow orders, kill and imprison your own people, (preferably trade unionists) and allow the corporate looting to go unchecked. No wonder the repressive Saudi dictatorship consistently ranks so high on Washington’s Friend’s List.
So, what’s in store for Chavez, who’s done nothing except raise living standards, strengthen the rule of law, and make the world a better place for ordinary working people?
The Obama administration presently has its hands full with its wars in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa. But as soon as Obama is finished “liberating” Tehran, it’ll be on to Venezuela. You can bet on it. After all, Venezuela sits on the biggest ocean of oil in the world, “over 500 billion barrels”. That means it’s only a matter of time before WMD and Al Qaida training camps are discovered in Caracas.
The War on Drugs and LAtin America Mood: not sure Now Playing: The War on Drugs - Books - Links - Articles to share Topic: Latin America Solidarity
Washington Office on Latin America
From the "Just the Facts" blog
Monday, January 2, 2012
Long-form readings about Latin America in 2011: a list from Adam
Over the course of 2011, I read or saved a large pile of articles that were:
Somehow related to security in Latin America and the Caribbean; Available at no cost on the Internet; At least 2,500 words in length; and Not written by the three organizations participating in the “Just the Facts” project. See the end of this post for a list of our own 2011 long-form writings about security in Latin America and the Caribbean.
After a lot of reading over the holiday break, here are links to my favorite 2011 long-form articles about security in the Americas.
Congratulations and thanks to the authors of all of these very informative pieces. Comments are open on this post, so feel free to add anything that I may have missed — I was on the road a lot last year.
Bruce Bagley, “El ‘efecto globo’ o por qué se está perdiendo la ‘Guerra contra las Drogas,’” Razón Pública (Colombia), January 31, 2011. A veteran scholar of the “war on drugs” gives a thorough overview of this endeavor’s current state, its shortcomings and its unintended consequences. (Part 1) (Part 2)
Rory Carroll, “Drugs, murder and redemption: the gangs of Caracas,” The Guardian(UK), March 10, 2011. Carroll tells the stories of gang members in El Cementerio, a neighborhood in El Consejo, a city west of Caracas.
Jim Popkin, “Authorities in Awe of Drug Runners’ Jungle-Built, Kevlar-Coated Supersubs,” Wired, March 29, 2011. Worth a read, if only for the photos.
Perry Anderson, “Lula’s Brazil,” London Review of Books (UK), March 31, 2011. A fair and engrossing overview, from a political economy perspective, of Luis Inacio Lula da Silva’s eight years in office.
David Grann, “A Murder Foretold,” The New Yorker, April 4, 2011. An account of the bizarre conspiracy around the death of Guatemalan Rodrigo Rosenberg, which threatened the presidency of Álvaro Colom until investigators, especially the UN anti-impunity commission (CICIG), solved the case.
Patricio Zamorano, “Honduras: an urgent need for a new social pact,” Center for Democracy in the Americas, May 2011. The author observes the country’s peaceful “resistance” movement and determines that, in an atmosphere of extreme polarization, achieving reconciliation in post-coup Honduras will be a very complex task.
Sergio Arauz, Óscar Martínez, and Efren Lemus, “El Cártel de Texis,” El Faro (El Salvador), May 16, 2011. A remarkable investigative piece reveals a macabre alliance between narcotraffickers, gangs, police and politicians in northwestern El Salvador.
Karl Penhaul, “Inside the FARC: Colombia’s guerilla fighters,” Al Jazeera, May 30, 2011. The veteran war reporter, the first in several years to find a way to embed with Colombia’s FARC, finds a guerrilla group that remains deadly, but on the run and badly hurt by the Colombian military’s air superiority.
Kevin Casas-Zamora, “The Travails of Development and Democratic Governance in Central America,” The Brookings Institution, June 2011. While exploring Central America’s grave institutional, political and security shortcomings, Casas determines that Central America has still made important progress since the 1980s.
Max Chafkin, “A Constant Feeling of Crisis,” Inc., June 2011. Based on interviews with some of the country’s wealthy entrepreneurs, the author finds that despite its booming economy, Argentina is a difficult place to do business.
Eduardo Guerrero Gutiérrez, “La raíz de la violencia,” Nexos (Mexico), June 1, 2011. An exhaustive but clear look at violence trends in Mexico. The author concludes that “Mexico now needs to focus its efforts on reducing violence, even if this means directing less resources to fighting international drug trafficking.”
Nik Steinberg, “The Monster and Monterrey: The Politics and Cartels of Mexico’s Drug War,” The Nation, June 13, 2011. A Human Rights Watch researcher looks at the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Mexico’s principal industrial city.
“La telaraña de los ‘paras’ en Urabá,” Verdad Abierta (Colombia), June 14, 2011. The results of an investigation of how paramilitary groups in northwestern Colombia became big landholders, allied themselves with politicians, and even set up foundations that received international aid — while simultaneously massacring and displacing populations and trafficking drugs.
Daniel Wilkinson, “Death and Drugs in Colombia,” The New York Review of Books, June 23, 2011. A Human Rights Watch researcher’s review of a book by Claudia López offers one of the best overviews in English of paramilitary power and Álvaro Uribe’s presidency in Colombia.
Damien Cave, “Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North,” The New York Times, July 6, 2011. A look at demographic, economic and security reasons why Mexican migration to the United States has dropped sharply. I like the scrolling interactive feature in the left column.
“Para que los hechos no se repitan,” Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Honduras, July 8, 2011. While finding fault on all sides, the commission’s worthwhile report finds that an illegal military coup did take place on June 28, 2009, and that an alarming number of human rights abuses have followed.
Richard Marosi, “Inside the Cartel,” The Los Angeles Times, July 24-28, 2011. A four-part look, based on DEA investigations, of how Mexico’s Sinaloa Cartel “moves drugs into Southern California and across the United States.” (Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)
“Violence and Politics in Venezuela,” International Crisis Group, August 17, 2011. The report raises concerns about what worsening organized crime, proliferating small arms, deteriorating justice institutions and a polarizing political climate bode for Venezuela’s future.
Vanda Felbab-Brown, “Calderón’s Caldron,” The Brookings Institution, September 2011. Focusing on three zones, the author evaluates the Mexican government’s frustrated attempts to deal with organized crime, and suggests some strategic shifts.
María Teresa Ronderos, “La fiebre minera se apoderó de Colombia,” Semana(Colombia), September 6, 2011. Mining companies have requested 22,000 exploration and exploitation titles, covering one-fifth of Colombia’s territory. In eight years, the Álvaro Uribe government granted 9,000 of them. (Though it’s not 2,500 words, see also this June report on illegal mining in Madre de Dios, Peru, by Frank Bajak of the Associated Press.)
“Keeping Haiti Safe: Police Reform,” International Crisis Group, September 8, 2011. A diagnosis of Haiti’s National Police, which is undergoing a slow, halting reform amid official calls to restore the army that was abolished in the mid-1990s.
Xavier Albó, “El Alto in Flux,” Revista: Harvard Review of Latin America, Fall 2011. A look at life and politics in the sprawling majority-Aymara city that overlooks — and is now larger than — La Paz, Bolivia.
“A Culture of Cruelty: Abuse and Impunity in Short-Term U.S. Border Patrol Custody,” No More Deaths, September 21, 2011. A disturbing report based on interviews of thousands of migrants deported from the Border Patrol’s Arizona sector (PDF).
“Neither Rights Nor Security,” Human Rights Watch, November 9, 2011. An indictment of the Mexican government’s security policies, which have so far brought few improvements in security or the rule of law. A useful guide to Mexico’s security and justice institutions, which in HRW’s view are not reforming quickly enough.
Alma Guillermoprieto, “In the New Gangland of El Salvador,” The New York Review of Books, November 10, 2011. The veteran reporter tries to explain the country’s vexing maras phenomenon.
Juanita León, “Santos les está dando a los militares lo que Uribe nunca se atrevió a concederles,” La Silla Vacía (Colombia), November 16, 2011. Discussing several legislative initiatives that would make it harder to hold the military accountable for human rights abuses, León paints a portrait of troubled civil-military relations in Colombia under President Juan Manuel Santos.
Gustavo Gorriti and Romina Mella, “Entrevista a ‘Artemio’ en el Huallaga,” IDL Reporteros (Peru), December 6, 2011. Reporters interview a founding member of Peru’s Shining Path insurgency, who still leads a small guerrilla column deep in the jungle. “Artemio” admits his faction’s defeat and says he is willing to negotiate a truce.
Mattathias Schwartz, “A Massacre in Jamaica,” The New Yorker, December 12, 2011. A narrative of the U.S.-supported May 2010 offensive against Kingston drug trafficker Christopher “Dudus” Coke, in which Jamaican security forces killed and abused civilians.
Here are some 2011 long-form articles by organizations participating in the Just the Facts project.
Adam Isacson,”Rio de Janeiro’s Pacification Program,” WOLA, Just the Facts blog, January 5, 2011. Adam Isacson, “Six months in, Colombia’s Santos faces a murky security situation,” WOLA, Just the Facts blog, February 8, 2011. Elizabeth Newhouse, “The United States Should Take Immediate Steps to Improve Relations with Cuba,” CIP, February 14, 2011. Tom Barry, “Securing Arizona: What Americans Can Learn From Their Rogue State,” CIP, Boston Review, March-April 2011. Abigail Poe and Adam Isacson, “Stabilization and Development: Lessons of Colombia’s “Consolidation” Model,” CIP, April 2011. “No Relief in Sight: Report from Caribbean Coast of Colombia,” LAWGEF-Lutheran World Relief, May 2011 (PDF). Coletta Youngers, “The Obama Administration’s drug control policy on auto-pilot,” WOLA-International Drug Policy Consortium, May 6, 2011 (PDF). Adam Isacson, “In troubled Tumaco, little progress,” CIP-WOLA-MINGA-INDEPAZ, Just the Facts blog, May 24, 2011. Karelia Villa Mar, Adriana Beltrán, and Pablo González, “Mapeo de las intervenciones de Seguridad Ciudadana en Centroamérica financiadas por la cooperación internacional,” WOLA-IDB, June 2011 (PDF). “Tackling Urban Violence in Latin America: Reversing Exclusion through Smart Policing and Social Investment,” WOLA, June 2011 (PDF). Tom Barry, “Policy on the Edge: Failures of Border Security and New Directions for Border Control,” CIP, June 1, 2011. Elizabeth Newhouse, “Contending with Natural Disasters: Cubans and US Gulf Coast Emergency Managers Continue Conversation,” CIP, June 1, 2011. Merecedes B. Arce Rodríguez, “The Human Cost: Cubans and Cuban Americans Talk about Their Lives and the Embargo,” LAWGEF-WOLA, June 7, 2011 (PDF). Adam Isacson, “In La Macarena, a program on ‘autopilot’,” CIP-WOLA-MINGA-INDEPAZ, Just the Facts blog, June 9, 2011. Laura Carlsen, “Development and Migration,” CIP, CounterPunch, June 27, 2011. Tom Barry, “Aiding Insecurity: Four Years of Mexico’s Drug War,” CIP, TruthOut.org, July 16, 2011. Gimena Sanchez, “Against All Odds: Experiences of IDP Self-Protection Measures in Colombia,” WOLA, August 16, 2011 (PDF). Tom Barry, “U.S. Drug War Turns to Transnational Combat,” CIP, September 1, 2011. Gimena Sanchez and Kelly Nicholls, “Buenaventura, Colombia: Where Free Trade Meets Mass Graves,” WOLA-U.S. Office on Colombia, NACLA Report on the Americas, September 7, 2011. Tom Barry, “Border Security After 9/11: Ten Years of Waste, Immigrant Crackdowns and New Drug Wars,” CIP, Truthout.org, September 11, 2011. Adam Isacson, “Human Rights During the Juan Manuel Santos Administration’s First Year in Office,” WOLA-U.S. Office on Colombia, September 29, 2011 (PDF). Adam Isacson, “Land restitution and the “Black Hand”: Sunday’s local elections in Colombia,” Just the Facts blog, October 27, 2011. “A Cautionary Tale: Plan Colombia’s Lessons for U.S. Policy Toward Mexico and Beyond”, CIP-LAWGEF-WOLA, November 2011 (PDF) (PDF en español) Maureen Meyer, “Elections in Nicaragua,” WOLA, November 1, 2011. Adam Isacson, “A human rights counteroffensive in Colombia,” Just the Facts blog, December 1, 2011. Adam Isacson, “An Uneasy Coexistence: Security and Migration Along the El Paso-Ciudad Juárez Border,” WOLA, December 20, 2011.
Posted on 03 January 2012 by Zari Sundiata "Afro- Venezuela" film strating -up Mood: chatty Now Playing: Support POCO’s Afro-Venezuelan Film Project! Topic: Venezuela Solidarity
At a time when the North Atlantic empires are on the decline, it is an exciting and hopeful time in Latin America! Now, for the first time, millions of Venezuelans have access to education, job training, housing, land, clean water, and health care.
Africans in Venezuela, Indigenous peoples, and women are gaining power and rights, while a high-profile land reform campaign is sweeping the nation, giving poor farmers access to land and opportunities. However, despite their overwhelming contribution to the everyday life and culture of Venezuela, African communities in Venezuela continue to face racial and economic divisions that prevail from the days of colonization.
Racism against Africans in Venezuela continues to perpetuate historically rooted class divisions and contributes to a lack of political participation in decisions that mostly affect them. Despite a legacy of centuries of colonialism, Africans in Venezuela are conquering new political spaces in government institutions while communities organize themselves from the bottom up to make sure guarantees are met.
The film will highlight:
The history of slavery, racism, and economic inequality in Venezuela.
The 3-day San Juan Festival to celebrate African heritage in the coastal area of Curiepe, Barlovento.
Insiders view of government-sponsored health, education, and literacy programs aimed towards eradicating poverty in coastal communities.
Venezuelan hip-hop groups which are intersecting with social justice to create new voices of youth leadership in barrios in Caracas and elsewhere.
A comparison of conventional cacao plantations with organic agricultural cooperatives that are creating endogenous (“from within and below”) development in African communities in Venezuela.
Talks with government representatives about the economic, social, and political integration of Venezuela, the rest of Latin America, and countries of the African continent.
Your contributions to this endeavor will provide the necessary equipment to produce a high quality, grass-roots documentary that will be available to the people for free. These items include:
$10: ex-producer credit and DVD copy with bonus features
$25: ex-producer credit, access to daily journal (blog), autographed script (from all of us of course), and DVD copy with bonus features
$50: ex-producer credit, access to daily journal (blog), autographed script (from all of us course), DVD copy with bonus features, and Special Gift from Venezuela.
Contributions will be accepted through May 31, 2012.
This documentary will destroy the popular myths that revolution is not possible. It will proffer real self-determination and democracy aided by the government, not dominated by the government. The struggles of Africans in Venezuela and their resistance links African and oppressed people all over the world. It provides a clear example of how elevating all segments of society can be the harbinger of a more just world.
This is YOUR movie and YOUR project, so let’s make it happen.
Videos I have relating to South America Mood: chatty Now Playing: Joe Anybodyy - Videos - Caracas Venezuela - Solidarity -PCASC Topic: Venezuela Solidarity
I have a PCASC - Latin America Solidarity VIDEO PAGE
2 PCASC Activists head to Caracas Venezuela May 29 2011 Mood: bright Now Playing: USA activist head to Caracas - speaking against the US sanctions Topic: Venezuela Solidarity
Two of my fellow Central America Solidarity co-activists from Portland [PCASC] are flying to Caracas as I write this on Sunday.
They are to be on the stage in Caracas by the palace, for a big demonstration against the US sanctions being imposed, due to Venezuela providing oil to Iran against the US telling them not to.
(Question: Ha?! were do we get off telling other countries what to do?) (Answerer: - "we don't and in this case Hugo laughs in our face")
They flew out w/ a days notice w/ an interpreter, as US delegates, to speak about this serious ugly stuff, they will be back in a few days.
Chavez uses the countries oil and the money to help social causes and the imperialist / capitalist cant stand it.
More than 250,000 US citizens in 25 states have benefited to date from the Venezuelan government’s subsidized heating oil program. That not only means free heating oil to poor US families, but he taxes and then directs oil profits to his own country and the peoples programs.
Hugo Chavez has used Venezuela's oil wealth to invest heavily in improving the wellbeing of its people.
Currently, more than 60% of oil industry profits are directed toward social programs in Venezuela, including free healthcare, education, job training, community media, grassroots organizations and subsidized food and housing.
None of this will be mentioned in US mainstream press. Not on CNN, ABC, KGW, FOUX, or any of the corporate stations that are parroting for the US war machine.
Just for the heck of it here is the link to Eva Golinger who spoke in Portland a few weeks a go, our PCASC group brought her to the US to share her wealth of information.
I find her information regarding US intervention to be really fascinating to listen to.
If anyone gets a chance to see "South of the Border" by Oliver Stone, its a pretty good new "hollywood" movie recently released on Hugo and the USA, exposing that whole "Chavez is a dictator thing" http://youtu.be/KHQrqDcecXw (3 min video I made in Caracas)
Eva Golinger, reports on US santions regarding oil to Iran from Venezuela Mood: energetic Now Playing: Venezuela rejects US sanctions, evaluates oil supply to US Topic: USA IMPERIALISM
“Sanctions against the homelandof Bolivar? Imposed bythe US imperialist government”,declared Venezuelan PresidentHugo Chavez on Twitter this Tuesday(@chavezcandanga), “Bring iton, Mr. Obama. Do not forget thatwe are the children of Bolivar”, heexclaimed, reminding his morethan one and a half million followerson the social network that“the true impact of this latest USaggression is the strengthening ofour nationalistic and patriotic moralein Venezuela!”On Tuesday morning, the USState Department, announced itwas imposing unilateral sanctionsagainst seven internationalcompanies, including Petroleosde Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). Thisdecision marks the first time theUS government has taken directhostile action against the Venezuelanstate-owned oil company,which is one of the largest oilcompanies in the world.According to State Departmentreleases, the sanctions fall underthe Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) of1996, as amended by the ComprehensiveIran Sanctions, Accountabilityand Divestment Act(CISADA) of 2010, for alleged “activitiesin support of Iran’s energysector”. In the case of Venezuela,the State Department claims PDVSA“violated” the US legislationby “selling at least two cargoesof reformate to Iran between December2010 and March 2011”.Reformate is a blending componentthat improves the quality ofgasoline, which somehow, the USgovernment alleges, can help enableIran to make nuclear bombs.The State Department clarifiedthat in the case of PDVSA, the sanctions“prohibit the company fromcompeting for US government procurementcontracts, from securingfinancing from the Export-ImportBank of the United States, andfrom obtaining US export licenses”.The US sanctions do not affectVenezuela’s supply of oil to theUnited States, as clearly the Obamaadministration would not wantto directly affect its own interests.Nor do the sanctions apply to PDVSAsubsidiaries, such as CITGO, aUS corporation owned by PDVSAwhich has seven oil refineries andover 10,000 gas stations throughoutthe United States.BRING IT ONThe Venezuelan governmentreacted firmly to the unilaterallyimposed sanctions, clearly statingit will no adhere to any decisionmade by the US governmentregarding its oil business, nor willit accept any US interference in itsrelations with other nations. Duringa joint press conference lateTuesday afternoon, Venezuela’sForeign Minister, Nicolas Maduro,and PDVSA President and OilMinister, Rafael Ramirez, labeledthe US sanctions as a “hostile actof aggression” against the SouthAmerican nation. They also announcedthat Venezuela is “thoroughlyevaluating its response”and whether the US decision will“affect the supply of 1.2 millionbarrels of oil daily to the US”.On Wednesday, thousands ofworkers at PDVSA’s installationsthroughout Venezuela protested theUS sanctions and stated they would“defend their oil sovereignty” in theface of “US aggression and interference”.“PDVSA is a sovereign,dignified company that no longerbows down to US agenda”, workersdeclared, rallying at the company’sheadquarters in Caracas.President Chavez, who is recoveringfrom a knee injury andhas been forced to limit his publicappearances, tweeted throughoutthe day. “We don’t just have thelargest oil reserves in the world.We also have the most revolutionaryoil company in the world!”In another tweet, he exclaimed,“So, they wanted to see and feelthe flame of the people of Bolivardefending the independence ofthe Venezuelan homeland? Well,there you have it!”Venezuela’s legislative body alsoissued a firm declaration on Tuesdayrejecting the US-imposed sanctionsand warning the US to ceasethe hostilities against the SouthAmerican country or Venezuelacould stop its oil supply northward.The 40% opposition, anti-Chavez coalition in the Venezuelanparliament refused to adhere to thedeclaration, instead expressing approvalfor the US sanctions. ManyVenezuelans saw this as a posturebetraying their own sovereigntyand national security.INCREASING AGGRESSIONThe US government, which supporteda briefly successful coupd’etat against President Chavezin 2002 and has since been heavilyfunding anti-Chavez groupswith millions of dollars in orderto build an opposition movementin Venezuela, has been increasingits aggressive policies towardsthe Chavez administration duringthe past few years. In 2006,the State Department imposed itsfirst sanction against Venezuelafor allegedly “not fully cooperatingwith the war on terrorism”,and prohibited the sale of militaryequipment to the South Americancountry from the US or any companyin the world that uses UStechnology. In a clear attempt toleave Venezuela defenseless, thissanction has been renewed eachyear to the present date, thoughthe Chavez government hasfound other suppliers of defensematerials not subject to US pressures,such as Russia and China.In 2008, the Bush administrationevaluated placing Venezuelaon its unilateral “state sponorsof terrorism” list, but concludedit wasn’t possible, due to US dependenceon Venezuelan oil. Thisyear, calls from ultra-conservativemembers of Congress, includingIleana Ros-Lehtinen and ConnieMack, both Florida Republicanswho run the House Foreign RelationsCommittee, have vowed totake “direct actions against HugoChavez”. These latest sanctionsare a clear result of their pressure,and that of the still influential anti-Castro Cuban-American lobby,on the Obama administration.In addition to the multi-milliondollar US funding of anti-Chavezgroups in Venezuela, which feedsan ongoing internal conflict andclimate of destabilization, the USgovernment has also been waginga severe demonization campaignagainst the Chavez governmentin international media. In2010, the US Directorate of NationalIntelligence (DNI), labeledPresident Chavez as the regional“Anti-US Leader” in its annual“Worldwide Threat AssessmentReport”. The Venezuelan Presidentis also regularly referred toas authoritarian, dictatorial andanti-democratic in US media, despitehis overwhelming victoriesin several elections and his oversightof Venezuela’s most vibrantdemocratic process in history.Ros-Lehtinen and Mack haveagain requested the White Houseplace Venezuela on the list ofstate sponsors of terrorism thisyear. Though this is a far-fetchedobjective, this week’s sanctionspave the road towards an evenmore aggressive policy towardsVenezuela, the country with theworld’s largest oil reserves.Chavez faces reelection in 2012,and opposition candidates arebickering over who could unifytheir parties to challenge theoverly-popular head of state. Sofar, Washington’s hostility is notaiding the opposition, but is actuallyunifying Venezuelans againstforeign interference. Some fearthe Obama administration couldattempt a “Libya-esque” planagainst Venezuela: demonizingthe President, funding and supportingthe opposition, buildingup military presence in the regionand sanctioning the government,all with the goal of provoking regimechange “by any means”.Meanwhile, Venezuelans standstrong against US efforts to underminetheir democratic process.Written By:T/ Eva GolingerP/ Agencieshttp://www.chavezcode.com/
Eva Golinger speaks in Portland Oregon USA Mood: lyrical Now Playing: From Caracas Venezuela to Portland Oregon USA - Eva Golinger Topic: Venezuela News
Eva Golinger - WikiLeaks Analysis and more - May 6 in Portland - From Caracas to Cascadia Mood: lyrical Now Playing: Eva Golinger is coming to Portland "Get Your Tickets" Topic: Organizing-Activism-Info
OAS - manipulates and instigates - hunger strikers and USA Impearlism Mood: loud Now Playing: Venezuela's allies tell OAS chief not to meddle Topic: USA IMPERIALISM
THE POINT TO UNDERSTAND AND SEE IS THAT THE US HAS A HAND IN THIS AND THE DOCUMENTED OAS IS BEING TOLD TO STAY OUT:
Nations belonging to a left-leaning bloc led by Venezuela and Cuba accused OAS chief Jose Miguel Insulza of being a pawn of the U.S. government, which has urged Chavez's administration to allow an international investigation into alleged human rights abuses.
Students sleep on mattresses under during a hunger strike in Caracas, Venezuela, Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011. More than a dozen college students vowed to continue a hunger strike that began over two weeks ago outside the Caracas offices of the Organization of American States to demand an investigation into alleged rights abuses under Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. The sign reads in Spanish "16 days on hunger strike."
Latin American allies came to the defense of President Hugo Chavez's government on Saturday, telling the head of the Organization of American States not to meddle in Venezuela's domestic affairs.
Nations belonging to a left-leaning bloc led by Venezuela and Cuba accused OAS chief Jose Miguel Insulza of being a pawn of the U.S. government, which has urged Chavez's administration to allow an international investigation into alleged human rights abuses.
Dozens of Venezuelan students participating in a hunger strike are demanding that Insulza look into their allegations that the government improperly uses judges and prosecutors to persecute Chavez's political adversaries.
"We demand that the secretary-general of the OAS stop his attacks against Venezuela's government," members of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Nations of Our America, or ALBA, said in a joint statement.
Insulza said Friday that he has repeatedly asked for permission to travel to Venezuela, and Washington has said Caracas should let Insulza visit.
ALBA members, including Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, said Inzulsa's actions could bring about the possibility of "a dangerous return to the times when the OAS was an instrument of interventionism and colonialism" of the United States.
The hunger strikers have been protesting since Jan. 31 in front of the OAS offices and several embassies in Caracas, and in other cities. The hunger strike began with roughly a dozen students, but organizers say more than 60 people are now participating.
They say they are subsisting on only water and saline solution.
Chavez denies his government persecutes opponents.
Workers in Colombia - KRAFT shuts their factory down (Union Busting) Now Playing: KRAFT in Colombia - palying dirty pool with human lives / Union Busting Topic: Colombia Solidarity
Colombia suffered heavy rains and severe flooding in the latter months of 2010. Lives were lost and property damaged. In the tax-privileged industrial park Zona Franca del Pacífico, floodwaters shut down operations. Now the water has receded, and companies have restarted their facilities – except for Kraft Foods. Kraft has announced permanent closure of its facility, putting some 400 workers out of a job, and adding an economic catastrophe to a natural one.
Kraft claims that poor relations between Colombia and Venezuela have hurt its market, when the reality is that relations have improved since the inauguration of Colombia’s new president in August of 2010. Kraft also says it has unresolved issues with the owner of the industrial park land – but the mayor of the nearby city of Cali has offered Kraft other tax-privileged space, if the company cannot work out its differences at the present location. Perhaps the genuine motive for the closure is to bust the union representing the workers, in order to be able to exploit a contingent workforce.
Public resources are being deployed to assist businesses damaged by flooding (sometimes a bail-out is literal, not figurative), but what about the workers?
Please contact Kraft and ask them to get back to work in Colombia. Stand by the workers and ask Kraft to do the same.
cool
happy
d'oh
loud
incredulous
not sure
chatty
bright
energetic
lyrical
