Summit in Venezuela opens 'new phase in history'By Federico Fuentes
A summit of huge importance was held in Venezuela on December 2-3. Two hundred years after Latin America’s independence fighters first raised the battle cry for a united Latin America, 33 heads of states from across the region came together to form the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).
For Latin America, the summit represented a further step away from its traditional role as the United States’ backyard and its emergence as a player in its own right in international politics.
ResourcesThe importance of this new institution in world politics cannot be overstated. The combined gross domestic product of the countries within CELAC make it the third-largest economic powerhouse in the world.
It is also home to the world’s largest oil reserves and the first and third largest global producers of food and energy, respectively.
CELAC also builds on existing inter-regional bodies and experiments.
These include the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), UNASUR’s Defense Council, the Bank of the South (which only awaits the approval of the Uruguayan parliament in order to bring to life a bank that will count on US$20 billion for development projects), and the establishment of trade mechanisms between some countries that replaces the US dollar with local and new regional currencies.
Another important integration initiative is the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), a nine-nation anti-imperialist bloc initially formed in 2004 by socialist governments of Cuba and Venezuela.
CELAC explicitly excludes the U.S. and Canada
However, Cuba, which has been excluded from the Organisation of American States (OAS) for daring to challenge the US empire and carry out a revolution, was not only included but selected to host the 2013 CELAC Summit. Chile had already been selected to host next year's.
Some are already arguing the consolidation of CELAC will represent the final nail in the coffin of the Organisation of American States (OAS), traditionally dominated by the powerful neighbors up north.
Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa said on November 29: “We believe we need a profound change in the inter-American, basically Latin American, system because the US’s gravitational power [within the OAS] is clear.”
“We need another system ... where we discuss our problems in the region, not in Washington [the headquarters of the OAS], where institutions that are removed from our vision, traditions, values and needs are not imposed on us.”
The same day, Bolivian vice-president Alvaro Garcia Linera said the summit would represent “a meeting of the peoples, defending our destiny without tutelage, without patronage, so that together we can find a solution to our problems, without the presence of the US”.
Imperial weakeningThe step comes at a time when US economic and political power is in decline and the European Union is on the verge of collapse.
“Latin America is a continent on the move faced with a world in crisis,” Garcia Linera said. “Latin America is the vanguard of the world in regard to ideas, in regard to transformations, in regard to proposals at the service of the people and humanity.”
Luis Bilbao, editor of the Latin America-wide magazine America XXI, said in a November 28 article that CELAC represents “an opportunity without precedent to position the region as the starting point in a new phase in the history of humanity”.
Latin America is in a unique position given the global context, marked by three key features: “It maintains a dynamic of regional convergence while all other [continents] are suffering from violent centrifugal forces; until now it has suffered less as a result of the recession in the imperialist centres; [and] within this heterogeneous convergent whole exists a vital nucleus that, faced with the collapse of capitalism … has raised the banner of 21st century socialism.”
The US had tried everything possible to stop CELAC. Former Colombian president, Alvaro Uribe, a US puppet, made the most recent attempt.
A November 28 Venezuelanalysis.com article said that during a trip to meet with Venezuela’s right-wing opposition, Uribe urged them to issue a “public statement” denouncing the growing relationship between Colombia and Venezuela.
Under Uribe, relations between Venezuela and Colombia nearly degenerated into war. Uribe also worked to undermine the progress of UNASUR from within.
Despite continuing much of Uribe’s neoliberal and repressive politics at home, Venezuelanalysis.com said Colombian President Manuel Santos “has adopted a noticeably different stance with regard to foreign policy, aimed at integrating Colombia into regional organisations and re-establishing bilateral relations with other Latin American countries”.
This does not mean that the Colombian government, or many other Latin American countries, no longer follows US foreign policy dictates in the region, or that all agree that CELAC should automatically replace the OAS.
Nor does it mean there are not important differences on how to confront the global economic crisis and imperial wars, such as the recent NATO attack on Libya.
Bilbao noted a sole, unified response to these tremendous challenges by CELAC cannot be expected, “however what is possible is to find a common minimum denominator”.
The idea of the US’s backyard creating its own neighbourhood to collectively resolve problems, free of outside intervention, is an important starting point.
Venezuela leads the wayThat the summit was held in Venezuela represented a double blow to U.S. interests. Having waged a relentless campaign to destroy Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution, the fact it was chosen to host the summit undermines the lies peddled by Washington and the corporate media that Venezuela is isolated in the region.
Furthermore, the presence of a fully recovered Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whose bout with cancer early this year forced the summit to be postponed from July, has dashed hopes that health issues could succeed were U.S.-backed coups and destabilisation plans against the Chavez government have failed.
Instead, Chavez has announced his readiness to stand for re-election in next year’s October 7 presidential elections.
In response to Chavez’s call to form a “Great Patriotic Pole” of parties and social movements to support his re-election on a platform of deepening the revolution, more than 32,000 organisations signed on to the campaign during the four-week registration period begun in early October.
Polls show support for Chavez at more than 50%. The US-backed opposition remains unable to muster any candidate to seriously challenge him.
In response, the U.S. is gearing up for a big campaign to try and prevent a fresh mandate for Chavez’s anti-capitalist policies.
Investigative journalist Eva Golinger said in an August 11 Chavezcode.com article that the US has already budgeted $20 million to fund the opposition next year.
Another important ploy being used is capitalist hoarding and speculation with food prices to provoke shortages and worsen inflation, already hovering above 22% for the year.
Big business successfully used this tactic to help defeat the 2007 referendum on a raft of constitutional reforms proposed by Chavez, giving the capitalists their sole electoral victory in 12 years.
On November 27, Chavez said in the days prior, the Bolivarian National Guard seized 127,000 kilos of rice, 132,000 kilos of corn flour, 256,000 kilos of powered milk, 85,000 litres of vegetable oil, 246,000 kilos of sugar and 10,500 kilos of coffee — all of which were being illegally hoarded by private companies.
One company affected, Italian-owned Parmalat, published a declaration in several newspapers on November 26. It said it was “strange” the government seized 210,000 kilos of powdered milk from its warehouses as this milk was supposedly destined for the state food distribution company, CASA, as per a signed contract.
Chavez responded the next day: “We found Parmalat hoarding milk and this is typical of the bourgeoisie … they think we are fools or idiots … Gentlemen of Parmalat, we are not stupid!”
He ordered a large-scale investigation into the company and reminded Parmalat that his government has the power to expropriate the company if it continues carrying out such actions.
NationalisationsAn October 14 Reuters article cited figures provided by Conindustria, a Venezuelan business federation, to show that 459 companies had been nationalised this year. An estimated 1045 have been nationalised since Chavez came to power.
This has ensured the state plays a dominant role in strategic sectors such as oil, electricity, cement, steel, telecommunications and food production and distribution.
The day after Chavez’s response, Parmalat published another open letter offering its “most sincere apologies” for failing to “adequately communicate what had transpired” in regards to the powdered milk.
It pledged to support the government in ensuring that the needs of the people were met.
Parmalat is not the only company Chavez ordered be monitored. He named Colgate Palmolive, Pepsi Cola, Heinz, Nestle, Coca Cola, Unilever, Glaxo Smith Kline, and Polar, Venezuela’s largest food company.
These are among the companies affected by price controls on 18 food, hygiene and household products, in effect since November 22.
Since 2003, the government has placed price controls on various essential food items.
Under the new Law on Fair Costs and Prices, prices on the 18 goods are frozen until mid-December. The newly-created National Superintendency of Fair Costs and Prices audits the companies producing these goods to establish how much it costs to make the products to determine a reasonable price to sell them at.
As of December 15, this price will have to be printed on the product. Sanctions will apply for those who do not comply with the regulations.
A second phase will begin in January involving medicinal products.
On November 7, Chavez told state television channel VTV: “We cannot given the large business owners and large corporations the freedom to continue looting the pockets of Venezuelans.”
The new law, Chavez said, “was necessary and formed part of a strategy of state intervention into the economy, which is part of the transition from capitalism … towards socialism”.
No doubt this battle between socialist democracy and the dictatorship of the market will continue heating up as the presidential elections approach.
The outcome of this battle will have important ramifications not only for Venezuela’s future, but that of CELAC and the world.
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/49664
Venezuela We Are With You Coalition (CVEC) in harmony with the Bolivarian movement, champions national sovereignty without U.S. inspired interference, commitment to indigenous rights, Freedom for the Palestinians, Freedom for the Cuban Five, and justice, equal rights and opportunity for the disinherited in Canada and the world
The ALBA foreign ministers also deplore the complicity of various major international media, which have colluded with those interested in aggression and lent themselves to the purpose of distorting information about the state of affairs in Libya.
No option has yet been discarded, while the State Department will continue to evaluate which additional actions may be justified in the future, said the US government official.
3. Many capable people have resigned from Telesur or other government connected news outlets in Venezuela. A prominent broadcaster just was forced to resign or she was fired, exactly because she criticized Chavez in the matter of Perez. 
“This political event is the most important, and has more potential, than any others that have taken place in our America in a hundred years or more,” said Chavez at the beginning of the meeting.
Chavez denounced the attack on Libya as "pulverization" of international law and as a dangerous and unwarranted intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. He repeated that the war now descending upon the Libyan people is, "another imposition of the warmongering policies of the Imperial Yankee and its allies" and called it "... unfortunate, and it is unfortunate that the United Nations endorses the war, in contravention of its fundamental principles."
We might say that we know very little of what it happening in Libya and are suspicious about the condemnations coming from the Western media and institutional powers in recent days. We might leave it at that. The imperialists are more intelligent. With many specific interests in the area, they have defended their dictators to the bitter end, but when they have understood that those dictators were unsustainable, they have let them fall and chosen another strategy: that of supporting controlled democratic processes, choosing and deploying post-modern minorities as a driving force for limited change, a new rainbow of democratic rhetoric, in the sure knowledge that memory is short and leftist reflections quite immediate. Any kind of Western interference must be opposed, but we don't believe, truly, that NATO is going to invade Libya ; it seems to us that this threat, just barely pointed out, has the effect of entangling and blurring the anti-imperialist camp, even to the point of making us forget something that we ought to know: who Gaddafi is. Forgetting this produces three terrible effects in the end: breaking the ties with the popular Arab movements, giving legitimacy to the accusations against Venezuela and Cuba , and granting new prestige to the very damaged imperialist discourse on democracy. All without a doubt, a triumph for imperialist interests in the region. 
When Gaddafi visited France in December of 2007, Ayman El-Kayman summarized the situation in the following paragraph: "Almost ten years ago, as far as the democratic West was concerned, Gaddafi was no long a reprehensible individual: in order to get off the U.S. terrorist list, he took responsibility for the bombing over Lockerbie; in order to normalize his relations with the United Kingdom, he turned over the names of all the Irish republicans who'd trained in Libya; for normalization with the United States, he turned over all the information he had about Libyans suspected of participating in jihad along with Bin Laden, and renounced his "weapons of mass destruction," as well as calling on Syria to do the same; in order to normalize relations with the European Union, he became the guardian of concentration camps where thousands of Africans headed for Europe are held; in order to normalize his relations with his sinister neighbor Ben Alí, he turned over the opponents of the Tunisian regime who had been living as refugees in Libya. 
Europe 's relationship with Gaddafi has been a submissive one. Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Zapatero and Blair received him with open arms in 2007 and Zapatero himself visited him in Tripoli in 2010. Even the king, Juan Carlos, was dispatched to Tripoli in January of 2009 in order to promote Spanish business. On the other hand, the EU didn't hesitate to humiliate itself and make a public apology on March 27th, 2010, through the Spanish foreign minister at the time, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, for having prohibited 188 Libyan citizens entry into Europe due to the conflict between Switzerland and Libya over the arrest of one of Gaddafi's sons in Geneva where he was accused of assaulting his maids. More than that: the EU didn't issue the slightest protest when Gaddafi imposed economic, trade and human reprisals against Switzerland , nor when he effectively called for a holy war against that country and made a public statement about his wish that it be wiped from the map. 
And so now when Gaddafi's imperialist friends - who've seen how the Arab world revolted without their intervention - condemn the Libyan dictatorship and talk about democracy, we vacillate. We apply the universal template of the anti-imperialist struggle, with its conspiracy theories and its paradoxical distrust of the people, and ask for time so that the clouds of dust thrown up by the bombs dropped from the air might clear - to be sure that there are no CIA cadavers underneath. That is, when we don't offer direct support, as the Nicaraguan government did, to a criminal with whom the slightest contact can only stain forever anyone who claims to be leftist or progressive. It's not NATO who's bombing the Libyans, but Gaddafi. "Gun against gun" is how the revolutionary song goes; "Missiles against civilians" is something that we cannot accept and that, without even asking ourselves, we ought to condemn with all our might and indignation. But let's ask ourselves the questions as well. Because if we ask ourselves, the answers that we have - few as they might be - provide further proof of which side the revolutionaries of the world should be on right now. With any luck, Gaddafi will fall - better today than tomorrow - and Latin America will understand that what is happening right now in the Arab world has to do, not with the Machiavellian plans of the EU and the U.S. (which without a doubt are maneuvering in the shadows), but with the open processes of Our America, that America which belongs to everyone, that of ALBA and dignity, since the beginning of the 1990s, following in the wake of the Cuba of 1958. 
The opportunity is great and possibly the last for a definitive reverse in the balance of forces and for isolating the imperialist powers within a new global framework. We ought not to fall into such a simple trap. We ought not to underestimate the Arabs. No, they aren't socialists, but in the last two months, in an unexpected way, they have stripped away the hypocrisy from the EU and the United States, have expressed their desire for authentic democracy, far removed from any colonial tutelage, and have opened a space for the left to thwart capitalism's attempts to recover lost ground. It's the Latin America of ALBA, of Che, and Playa Girón, whose prestige in this area remained intact until yesterday, that must support the process before the world's timekeeper manages to turn the hands back and to its favor. The capitalist countries have "interests," the socialist ones only "limits." Many of these "interests" were with Gaddafi, but none of these "limits" have anything to do with him. He is a criminal and moreover, a hindrance. Please, revolutionary comrades of Latin America , the revolutionary comrades of the Arab world are asking that you not support him. 
