Venezuela We Are With You CoalitionCoalición Venezuela Estamos Contigo

Toronto Coming Events

2011-12-30T23:50:00.009-05:00

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
*^*^**^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

Venezuela Leads the Way on Sovereignty

2011-12-06T10:27:00.004-05:00

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.

Resources
The 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 weakening
The 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 way
That 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.

Nationalisations
An 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 Builds New Housing for Its People

2011-11-21T09:25:00.003-05:00

Venezuela’s Housing Mission Constructs Almost 100,000 Homes in First Seven Months
By Ewan Roberston

Mérida, November 17th (Venezuelanalysis.com) – 95,912 houses and apartments have been built in the first seven months of Venezuela’s massive house building program, the “Great Housing Mission” (GMV), confirmed energy and petroleum minister Rafael Ramirez yesterday.

Of these, 59,730 (62%) were built by the public sector and 36,182 (38%) by the private sector reported Ramirez, who is also Vice-president of the government’s Superior Housing Authority, which convened in the north-western state of Zulia yesterday.

“This is a number without precedent...there has never been so much done in one year” he commented with regards to the Venezuelan state’s contribution to the figures.

Launched on 30th April 2011, the government’s GMV program seeks to close Venezuela’s long-term housing deficit and ensure that everyone in the country has adequate housing. According to the government, the mission aims to build two million homes in seven years.

The program’s goal for 2011 is to build a total of 150,000 houses, followed by 200,000 in 2012 and 300,000 each year thereafter until 2017.

However, the national registration process for families needing new homes, completed toward the end of October, revealed that just under 2,711,000 families in Venezuela are in need of their own or a new home. As a result, the Venezuelan government has increased the GMV’s goal to correspond to this figure, and now aims to build a total of 2,725,648 homes, Ramirez stated.

The minister further added that 286,180 homes are currently in construction around the country for completion in the remainder of 2011 and 2012, with the 10,000 hectares of land needed to build these already available.

Public Sector and Grassroots Efforts to the Fore

The new figures also demonstrate the growing role of Venezuela’s public sector and grassroots organisations in the country’s house building industry.

With 62% of all new housing in Venezuela completed in the public sector so far this year, as compared with only 30% in 2009, the share of Venezuela’s public sector in the nation’s house building industry has more than doubled in two years.

Furthermore, of housing constructed by the public sector so far this year, 48% (28,202) was undertaken with the participation of grassroots “popular power” initiatives, particularly the Integral Participation of Habitats (TIH) and Substitution of Shanties for Houses (Suvi) programmes.

Communal councils throughout the country have also been encouraged by the government to form “construction communes” and contribute to house building programs in their local communities.

When the GMV was launched, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez stressed the importance of grassroots participation for the program’s success, stating “nobody knows how to build houses better than the people...if we want to put an end to poverty, then we must give power to the poor. This is the main principle of the socialist revolution”.

Reflecting on grassroots participation so far in the program, Ramirez commented yesterday that “the Venezuelan people, through various organisations of popular power, have turned themselves towards the resolution of these problems [of housing]...the whole people are completing the goals of the Great Housing Mission”.

Ramirez also emphasised the importance of the increase in public sector house building for stimulating the nation’s house building industry as a whole in order to achieve the GMV’s goals, arguing that “under capitalism the housing problem doesn’t have a solution, [as] it converts housing into a business”.

The increase in public sector housing construction also involves efforts to develop a national construction industry.

These include the establishment of the new National Public Works Company to manage publicly-owned construction equipment in August this year, and the announcement in October of a new national cement distribution system to increase access to the material produced by the country’s nationalised cement factories.

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6639

ALBA

2011-09-18T22:08:00.003-04:00

Dear Friends,

The Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA-TCP) nations Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela -- denounce the NATO for carrying out a military operation for regime change in Libya.
_______________________________________________

Special Declaration of the ALBA-TCP Foreign Ministers on the Situation of Libya and Syria

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2011/alba110911.html
The Foreign Ministers of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, meeting in Caracas, Venezuela on 9 September 2011, recalling the Special Communiqué of the Political Council on 4 March 2011 and the Special Communiqué of the Ministerial Social Council on 19 March 2011, condemns the NATO intervention in Libya and its illegal military aggression, carried out under the cover of a UN Security Council resolution, opportunistically exploiting the situation of the internal political conflict in that country.

The ALBA foreign ministers denounce the NATO for carrying out a military operation for regime change in Libya under the doctrine of preventive war, manipulating the UN to suit its geopolitical and economic interests in violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1973.

The ALBA foreign ministers demand the immediate and unconditional cessation of the NATO bombings and military intervention in the Libyan territory.

The ALBA foreign ministers deplore the fact that the NATO has disregarded the persistent efforts of the African Union in search of a solution to the internal conflict in Libya based on dialogue to achieve peace.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.

The ALBA foreign ministers issue their most urgent warning on the danger that the Libyan precedent may be repeated against Syria, by means of exploiting the ongoing political troubles in that Arab nation.

The ALBA foreign ministers reiterate their firmest commitment to the right to self-determination of the peoples of Libya and Syria.

The ALBA foreign ministers most energetically reject any attempt to turn Libya into a protectorate of the NATO or the UN Security Council.

In order to contribute to and support the efforts for peace demanded by the majority of the peoples of the world, the ministers agree to take the following actions:

Promote discussion in the UN General Assembly on the dangerous precedents set by what has been done to Libya and on the protection of the sovereign rights of that Arab nation of Africa, so as to ensure that Libya shall not be turned into a protectorate of the NATO or the UN Security Council.

Promote the establishment of a Working Group at the General Assembly to investigate and monitor the use of the frozen funds of Libya's financial reserves, which will report back to the General Assembly on its results and conclusions.

Call upon the international community to promote an initiative to investigate crimes committed in Libya by the NATO to the detriment of the Libyan people, the destruction of Libya's infrastructure and the deaths caused by the NATO.

Compile a list of media's lies and manipulations promoted by the empire to justify the aggression against the Libyan people.

Request the Secretary General of the United Nations for complete transparency, rendering a strict accounting of facts to the member states regarding his conduct on the subject of Libya and vis-à-vis Syria; and emphasize that his conduct must correspond to the mandates given by the General Assembly, before taking new actions to intervene in Libya. Equally, request the Secretary General to meet with the ALBA-TCP (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America-Peoples' Trade Treaty) countries to discuss the situation in Libya.

Support a central role of the African Union in efforts to promote peace in Libya.

Firmly reject giving Libya's seat at the United Nations to an illegitimate transitional faction or authority imposed by foreign intervention; and thus promote fundamental debate at the Credentials Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to prevent Libya's seat from becoming occupied until such time as a government that is the free and sovereign expression of the will of the Libyan people becomes established in a legitimate manner, without foreign intervention.

Propose to the Syrian government a mission of high representatives or foreign ministers of the ALBA-TCP; and, if accepted, report on it to the Latin American and Caribbean countries through UNASUR (Union of South American Nations), CARICOM (Caribbean Community), SICA (Central American Integration System), and the joint CALC (Latin American and Caribbean Summit)-Rio Group forum, and invite those who wish to join this initiative to participate.

Promote debate at the Coordination Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement on the threats looming over Syria.

Support, together with the Non-Aligned countries that are members of the Security Council, the resolution promoted by Russia and China with respect to Syria.

Send the UN Secretary General this Declaration and request that it be circulated among the member states of the United Nations as an official document of the General Assembly.

U.S. Tightens Grip on Sanctions Against Venezuela

2011-06-28T22:20:00.002-04:00

Washington Reiterates its Threats against Venezuela
June 24, 2011 by lchirino

South Journal--The United States does not discard the imposition of more severe sanctions against Venezuela, if this country does not stop its gasoline shipments to Iran, and this includes accusing Caracas of sponsoring terrorism, said a high government US official on Friday.

Thomas L. Delare director of the Office of Terrorist Finance and Economic Sanctions Policy with the US Department of State said on Friday, during a joint session of the subcommittees for National Security and for the Western Hemisphere of the House, that the sanctions imposed last month were aimed at convincing Venezuela´s PDVSA Oil Company to "take the right decision."

Delare said that if PDVSA does not stop (gas shipments to Iran), which they have made clear in conversations with the Venezuelan company and authorities, the Secretary of State reserves the authority to impose additional and more severe sanctions. Delare was referring to the sanctions imposed last month against PDVSA and other foreign companies for doing business with Iran.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.

PDVSA was excluded of all US contracts, as well as of federal finance for imports and exports, while it will be denied licenses to purchase special technology, though it will be able to keep selling to the US market and send shipments to CITGO, its branch office in the United States .

These were the first sanctions adopted against Venezuela for its oil-related exports to Iran since the US Congress approved a legislation allowing the adoption of this kind of measures last year.

Those countries labeled by the US State Department as "sponsors of terrorism" are facing sanctions that include the suspension of US assistance and the prohibition of sales and exports of military equipment. The countries currently facing these sanctions are Cuba , Iran , Sudan and Syria.

http://lchirino.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/washington-reiterates-its-threats-against-venezuela/

Cuba Condemns U.S. Sanctions on Venezuela

2011-05-31T15:08:00.002-04:00

Cuban Minister's of Foreign Affairs Statement on U.S. sanctions against on Venezuela's PDVSA
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/123963

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the Sanctions Imposed by the United States on the Company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA)

The government and people of Cuba express strong condemnation against this aggression against the people of Venezuela, the Bolivarian Revolution and the Bolivarian PDVSA.

The government of Cuba and all our people are in solidarity with President Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan people, and give unconditionally support for the resolution of the National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on this issue.

We share the statement of Commander Chavez, that the large reserves of Venezuela are not just of oil, but are its people; political reserves, moral reserves, Bolivarian reserves.

The United States is violating international law and applying unilateral laws extraterritorially.

We must condemn this aggression and we must ask whether the U.S. is mounting a new escalation against the Bolivarian Revolution. The key issue is not the economics of the measures against PDVSA, but the risk that this signifies the decision of the U.S. to provoke further conflicts in the region, new attempts to divide Latin America and the Caribbean, at a high point of its unity and independence.

When Venezuela is attacked, Cuba is attacked. Commander Chávez, the Venezuelan people, can count on our complete solidarity, with our full support. We will work in the international organizations, and work together for the restoration of international law, to prevent the United States from violating international law and assaulting our people in this way.

Cuba shares fully the statement of ALBA on this issue and is ready to act in international forums and events, with a strong formal complaint and for the adoption of international action against this new and brutal aggression against Venezuela and against Our America.

Havana, May 28, 2011

Venezuela Condemns U.S. "Imperialist" Sanctions

2011-05-29T21:25:00.005-04:00

Dear Friends,

The U.S. State Department sanctions on Venezuela's state oil company, PDVSA is an attack on Venezuelan sovereignty, and it should be sharply protested.

Washington is trying to assert control over companies outside the U.S. that are not subject to U.S. law. This is the outrageous policy that has been applied for years through U.S. sanctions against Canadian companies that trade with Cuba.

For a comprehensive report on the U.S. Sanctions on PDVSA and other similar attacks, read: http://www.marxist.com/us-sanctions-on-pdvsa.htm
_____________________________________________
Venezuela Condemns U.S. "Imperialist" Sanctions
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/6217
By Rachael Boothroyd

Coro, May 25th 2011- The Venezuelan government criticised the Obama administration's move to impose sanctions on Venezuela's state oil company PDVSA, calling the sanctions an "imperialist attack" against Venezuela.

The U.S. State Department enforced the sanctions in an attempt to put further pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear programme by penalizing companies which continue to trade with the Islamic Republic. U.S. Vice Secretary of State James Steinberg, who made the announcement to journalists on Tuesday, said that in approving the sanctions the U.S. wanted t send a "clear message" to companies which continue to "irresponsibly support Iran" -- "they will suffer serious consequences," he said.

Between December 2010 and March 2011 Venezuela, which has friendly bilateral relations with Iran, exported $50 million worth of a fuel additive to Iran. The U.S. government deemed the trade relations to be in breach of the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act.

"The U.S. needs to move quickly to cut off Chavez's source of revenue, and bring an end to both his influence in Latin America and his dangerous relationship with the terrorist-supporting Iranian regime before it's too late," said U.S. Congressman and Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Connie Mack.

The measures will also affect other smaller companies in Jersey, Monaco, the United Arab Emirates, Israel and Singapore.

Although PDVA will continue to sell oil on the U.S. market, the sanctions -- which will last two years -- prevent the company from entering into contracts with the U.S. government, as well as barring it from import-export finance programmes and obtaining licenses for U.S. oil processing technology. None of the company's subsidiaries will be affected.

Venezuelan Government: "Sovereign Nation"
In a press conference on Tuesday, Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Relations Nicolas Maduro said: "We are not afraid of these sanctions, nor are we going to debate the reasons that the North American government may have, but Venezuela is sovereign in making its decisions."

An official document rejecting the sanctions was drafted and signed by pro-Chavez Venezuelan ministers, but opposition politicians refused to sign it. "This shows once again that these politicians are representatives of North American imperialism," said Energy and Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez.

Ramirez also stated: "The imperialist powers are hoping to dictate the rules to us. They will have to go without, because we are going to keep advancing towards creating unity between oil-producing countries."

PDVSA Workers Stage Day of Action
In the early hours of this morning PDVSA workers initiated a day of action in defence of the company, taking part in demonstrations, take-overs of oil refineries, cultural activities and convoking a popular assembly in order to manifest their support for the government's foreign policy.

Workers have been engaged in activities in Anzoategui, Carabobo, Monagas and other states throughout the day.

A female worker in Monagas, Chiquin Yanez, said that the workers "will not accept Yankee imperialist interference in the sovereignty of Venezuela. The new Pdvsa is an independent company and the workers of this national company do not obey Yankee imperialism".

Expressing a similar sentiment, Domingo Franco, who works in PDVSA, reiterated the workers' rejection of North American interventionism, stating: "We reject this latest North American interference in Venezuelan matters. The workers are at the ready to defend our oil industry. Our call is to defend the Orinoco [Oil] Belt. The imperial powers want our natural riches and we will defend our resources even with our life".

Women's and peasant organisations, alternative media, and community councils also organised a march in Caracas in response to the sanctions. Socialist women's activist Anais Arismendi said the popular movement condemned "the unilateral decisions taken by a criminal state such as the U.S.A, which don't respect international conventions," adding that the U.S. was trying to "organise another right-wing offensive against the processes and countries which are currently liberating their own people".

Iran Reaction
Although Iranian President Ahmadinejad maintains that the programme is purely for supplying energy to civilians, the U.S. claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad has previously accused "nuclear nations" of "monopolising" science and technology in order to protect their own interests and also of prohibiting other countries from the "peaceful use of nuclear energy".

In a speech following the inauguration of an oil production project in the city of Abadan on Tuesday, Ahmadinejad accused the U.S. government of supporting dictators in the region. However, he did not comment on the newly imposed sanctions.

"Anywhere there is a dictator he is supported by you...he is your stooge..." he said in direct reference to Washington.

Sanctions against Iran have formed an integral part of U.S. foreign policy since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, with broader sanctions coming into effect during the Clinton administration in the 1990s and from 2005 under President Bush -- who also launched banking sanctions. Prior to 1979 Washington and Europe supported and provided assistance for the development of a nuclear plan under the Shah.

In an official statement the Venezuelan government said it would undertake a "general assessment of the situation to determine how these sanctions affect the operational capacity of our oil industry and, therefore, the supply of 1.2 million barrels of oil per day to the U.S."

Discussion on "Freedom for Joaquin Perez Becerra"

2011-05-29T21:23:00.003-04:00

Dear Friends,

Below is an important discussion article by Dieter Misgeld, answering John Riddell's "Freedom for Joaquin Perez Becerra" (www.johnriddell@wordpress.com), circulated earlier to this list.

These two contributions reflect some of the many views among solidarity activists not only on Becerra's defense but also on the changing relationship between Venezuela, Colombia, and the North American imperialist powers.
______________________________________________
By Dieter Misgeld
May 19, 2011

I am very much in agreement with the vast majority of the arguments developed by John in this article, as well as those which he relies on as stated by Luis Bilbao and Socialist Alliance.

Obviously it is very important to take a strong position in defense of Joaquin Perez Becerra's rights and those of all the political prisoners treated cruelly by the Colombian regime and its allies.

I very much value John's drawing attention to the Canadian government's active acquiescence in these practices and its misguided and servile listing of the armed Colombian insurgencies( FARC and ELN) as "terrorist" organizations , giving their "Anti Americanism " as a reason.

Nevertheless I have doubts regarding the integrity and astuteness of the actions engaged in by the Venezuelan government in the Perez B. case.

They are these:

1. Even if handing Perez Becerra over to Colombian intelligence and police was meant to avoid a trap, to avoid jeopardizing the initial negotiations for setting up CELAC, the new Latin American organisation, this does NOT justify, under any circumstance, breaking international agreements, spreading malicious and thoughtless comments , treating Mr. Perez B. rudely and forcing his abduction with violence, not permitting the representative of the Swedish government to speak with his/her citizen, and to repress and slander criticism of these actions within Venezuela and from among members of the Bolivarian movement.. Consider the following:

2. Chavez assumes personal responsibility for this action, and suggests, in one statement, that as he delivered a terrorist to Cuba( the one responsible for blowing up a Cuban plane many years ago, killing 80 or more persons in the plane) , so he now handed another over to Colombia. He avoided referring to P. Becerra as a terrorist, but left implied that this is what he meant (see article in Spanish by Heinz Dieterich, in . As we know, Chavez does not always weigh his words, unfortunately.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.

4. The Colombian insurgency cannot give up its arms and look for a political solution, as long as the Colombian government, army, paramilitary organizations, and the US government and military work toward total defeat and destruction of it- which is what they are doing and what Santos says he is doing.

It is dishonest and self-serving on Chavez' part to lecture the insurgency and tell them that they must look for a political solution. Yes, if he were to assume responsibility for mediating in the conflict- rather than wanting to be on the winning side, i.e. the Colombian government's and the US, in the end. For, "objectively', that is what his position comes to.

5. Clarity about the ethics involved is important: one does not willingly surrender an

avowed critic of a malicious counterinsurgency regime, of which one does not approve, in order to further apparently larger political projects. Betrayal is never justified , no matter how lofty the purpose. And that is what many people now fear in Latin America, especially people of the Left: that Chavez and the Bolivarian project in Venezuela can no longer be trusted.

6. Honduras: I am not ready yet to regard this as a victory for Venezuelan diplomacy. If it is or becomes one, it may very well turn out to be Pyrrhic. And the poor and dispossessed will once again be abandoned to their terrible fate, for the sake of some sort of political/diplomatic arrangement. For the return of Zelaya does not guarantee major social change, as has been noted by the section of the resistance which is not primarily concerned with his return and the face-saving restitution of constitutional government. Should the latter be the result then Santos' Diplomacy could claim victory, as it likely will. But that remains to be seen.

7. Finally, We should be vigilant critics of the Bolivarian government and Chavez, They need criticism from and by the Left. Especially as they do not like it and fear it. They must be taught to learn to live with it and take it seriously.

I value John Riddell's determination to turn the criticism in the direction where most of it belongs, the Colombian government.

Nevertheless, we may not let Chavez and his government off the hook. It is not good for them nor for us, to become preoccupied with strategy and tactics , rather than to remain utterly clear about fundamental ethical principles. For as this clarity is lost, socialist projects deteriorate and are contaminated by the "Machiavellian" reasoning which has always accompanied politics.

2011-05-24T23:03:00.004-04:00

Dear Friends,

There is a wide range of viewpoints among friends of Colombia and Venezuela on this question.

Below is the only one we have received from Canada.
______________________________
Freedom for Joaquin Perez Becerra!

by John Riddell on May 17, 2011

The Colombian government must 'immediately release independent media activist Joaquin Perez Becerra,' says the Socialist Alliance of Australia, in astatement published May 15 in the weekly newspaper, Green Left Weekly. Perez Becerra, a political refugee from Colombia and a Swedish citizen, was deported to Colombia on April 25 by the Venezuelan government. Socialist Alliance called on the Swedish and Venezuelan governments to do all possible to defend Perez Becerra's human rights.

Forced to leave Colombia in 1993 to escape a state-sponsored terror campaign that claimed the lives of his wife and more than 4,000 other leftist activists, Perez Becerra became the director of the New Colombia News Agency (ANNCOL), Colombia's fourth most widely read website. ANNCOL published attacks on human rights violations in Colombia, including information sourced from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), which the Colombian government accuses of being a "terrorist" organization "For this work," says the Socialist Alliance, "the Colombian government has accused Perez Becerra of being the 'FARC's ambassador in Europe' and 'conspiring in and helping finance terrorism,'" accusations that he vehemently denies. The Colombian government is notorious for repression and death-squad assassinations of political and union activists, of whom more than 7,500 are now in jail.

The Canadian connection
Despite its long terror campaign against its people, the Bogota regime has enjoyed strong support from the Canadian government. Ottawa lists the FARC as an organization associated with terrorism, which makes it a crime in Canadian law to "contribute to, directly or indirectly, any activity" of a listed group. The Canadian government charges the FARC with conducting an insurgency that seeks to replace the current government in Colombia with "a leftist, anti-American regime that would force all United States interests out of Colombia and Latin America."

The ban against the FARC, backed up by an apparatus of secret court proceedings hearing secret evidence, has been utilized by Ottawa to intimidate and harass Colombian political refugees in this country. Canada's complicity in Colombian government repression underscores the urgent need for human rights advocates here to demand freedom for Perez Becerra and other Colombian political prisoners, as well as an end to "anti-terrorist" harassment of dissidents in this country.

Establishing context
Venezuela's role in extraditing Perez Becerra into the hands of his Colombian jailers has come in for a great deal of criticism and condemnation on the left. In this discussion, the comments of Luis Bilbao, director of the Venezuelan-based journal America XXI, stand out in establishing the political context of the incident.
"I'd defend this man even if he were … a leader of the FARC," Bilbao says. "He should not be deported to his country of birth. Not because he's a Swedish citizen … but because he's an enemy of the Colombian oligarchy -- the crudest and most brutal on the continent -- he should be protected." (SeeSpanish and an English text.)

Nonetheless, the circumstances of his deportation are curious, Bilbao notes. Perez Becerra was detained at the Caracas international airport on April 23 on the basis of a "Code Red" alert from Interpol. However, "it seems -- there isn't any precise information -- the classification was changed abruptly during the flight [to Caracas]," Bilbao says. The Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos then called Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez -- during the flight -- and demanded Perez Becerra's extradition. Santos even knew Perez Becerra's seat number, passed on by two Colombian government agents travelling with Perez on the flight.

"The day that Joaquin Perez Becerra arrived in Caracas," Bilbao comments, "the foreign ministers of all of Latin America and the Caribbean started to arrive as well, for a preparatory meeting of the CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean states). On 5 July this organization will be launched in Caracas, and for the first time, there will be a regional organization without the presence of the United States [and Canada, we might add]. In other words, it's the death certificate of the sinister OAS [Organization of American States]. An unprecedented victory against U.S. imperialism."

Bilbao asks who had the greatest interest in attempting to sabotage CELAC's formation. "Wasn't it an obvious aim of the CIA to portray Venezuela as a FARC sanctuary, in order to abort the [CELAC] founding conference? Didn't Perez Becerra's presence in Caracas at that time fit imperialist provocation like a glove?"

This is a plausible explanation for Chavez's comment on the incident, made at a May Day march in Caracas: "They set a trap for him [Perez Becerra] in order to get at me." The Venezuelan government was caught in a lose-lose situation.

A pattern of provocation
The trap was sprung in the context of Venezuelan-Colombian relations that in recent years "reached the point of extreme tension and potential armed conflict," Socialist Alliance notes. The Colombian government has "repeatedly accused Chavez of supporting the FARC" and of "harbouring FARC bases inside its territory." WikiLeaks revelations demonstrate Bogota's willingness to send its troops into Venezuelan territory. Meanwhile, the U.S. has moved to escalate its war-making power in seven military bases within Colombia.

More recently, however, the Colombian government has taken steps to loosen its diplomatic alignment with Washington and strengthen ties with other countries of Latin America. When Juan Manuel Santos assumed the presidency on August 7, 2010, notes Andre Maltais of Quebec's L'aut'journal, "his initial speeches stressed national reconciliation, human rights, the struggle against corruption and protection of trade-union rights."

Such fine words were not followed by moves to halt the government's systematic repression of its population, which Santos, previously minister of defense, had maintained and justified. Nonetheless, when the neighbouring Ecuadorian government was shaken on September 30, 2010, by a rightist-supported coup attempt, Santos was quick to join with Chavez and other South American presidents in giving strong backing to the legitimate government of President Rafael Correa.

Joint mediation in Honduras
At the beginning of April, Santos took part in brokering an initiative to resolve the political crisis in Honduras created by a U.S.-encouraged military coup on June 28, 2009. Sustained mass resistance to the illegitimate coup regime and its "president" Porfirio Lobo Sosa, compounded by diplomatic isolation and economic crisis, led Lobo to approach Santos, seeking an accommodation with the mass opposition movement, FNRP (National Front for People's Resistance). Lobo then met with Santos and Chavez, after which Chavez contacted the ousted legitimate president, Manuel Zelaya, now exiled but still serving as a delegate of his country to the Central American parliament. Zelaya, general coordinator of the FNRP, consulted the Front.

The FNRP set four conditions:
• Safe return of all exiles, including Zelaya.
• An end to political repression and punishment of those responsible for violations of human rights.

• Initiation of a process to convene a national constituent assembly on a participative, inclusive, and democratic basis.

• Recognition of the FNRP as a militant political and social movement.

"The mediation is fragile," the FNRP stated May 9, but "positive so far"; the fact that Lobo approached Santos seeking a deal with the resistance "reveals the de facto [Lobo] government's impotence." Insisting on full implementation of the four conditions, the FNRP called for continued mass pressure and international solidarity. Lobo has not yet either accepted or rejected the four conditions.

The CELAC initiative reflects the same pattern of Colombia's integration into its region. CELAC will include 33 states of Latin America and the Caribbean, 29 of which were present at the April 2010 Caracas meeting, reports Rachael Boothroyd in Venezuelanalysis. Notably excluded are the United States and Canada. Structurally, CELAC is thus an alternative to the Organization of American States, which has served for decades as a pliant tool of U.S. hemispheric domination. Significantly, it is co-chaired by the governments of Venezuela and Chile, which are positioned at the left-wing and right-wing poles of continental politics. Colombia's participation is indispensable to its success.

The need to defend the CELAC initiative may not excuse Perez Becerra's deportation -- Bilbao believes it does not -- but CELAC reflects Venezuela's continuing role in spearheading progress toward Latin American and Caribbean unity and sovereignty in the face of imperialist domination.

Venezuelan policy
The Perez Becerra expulsion must also be measured against Venezuela's overall policy on the FARC.

"Venezuela has clearly stated that it believes Colombia's guerrilla forces, which Chavez has characterized as 'belligerent' forces, are not terrorists," notes the Socialist Alliance. "Chavez has called on these organizations to lay down their arms and seek a political resolution to the more than 40-year-old civil war.

"Chavez has rightly pointed out that any active support for the FARC on the part of Venezuela 'is the perfect excuse for imperialism to attack the people of Venezuela.'

"Chavez has also clarified that he has never accused Perez Becerra of being a terrorist and that he hopes 'the Colombian government respects his human rights and his right to a defense.'"

Despite Colombia's participation in some useful recent initiatives, Perez Becerra's incarceration is testimony that the human rights crisis in Colombia continues unabated. Our efforts to defend Latin American and Caribbean sovereignty must include active defense of Perez Becerra and all Colombian political prisoners.
Article published at: www.johnriddell.wordpress.com

Doors Open to Significant Changes in Central America

2011-05-24T21:13:00.003-04:00

Agreement Signed for Democratic Rights in Honduras

By Felipe Stuart Cournoyer and John Riddell, May 24, 2011 http://johnriddell.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/agreement-signed-for-democratic-rights-in-honduras/

On May 22, Honduran president Porfirio Lobo Sosa and former president Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales signed an agreement 'For National Reconciliation and the Consolidation of the Democratic System in the Republic of Honduras.'

Lobo was elected in November 2009 in a rigged vote organized by the regime installed through the June 28, 2009 military coup that overthrew Zelaya. The majority of Latin American and Caribbean nations refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Lobo government, despite the strong support it received from the United States and Canada.

The present agreement, finalized in Cartagena, Colombia, also bears the signatures of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro (on behalf of President Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias) as witnesses.

This agreement opens the door to significant changes in the Central American political landscape and to the re-entry of Honduras into the Organization of American States (OAS) and SICA (Central American Integration System).
An earlier article on this website, "Freedom for Joaquin Perez Becerra!" discussed the context that led Colombia and Venezuelan presidents to join in sponsoring that initiative.

The Resistance welcomes the agreement
In a May 23 statement, the Political Committee of the National Front for People's Resistance (FNRP), the main organization coordinating popular resistance to the coup inside Honduras, noted that "this agreement for international mediation enables us to put an end to our exile [and] reinforce our process for the refoundation of Honduras." It issued a "call to all members of the resistance inside and outside Honduras to unite in a great mobilization to greet and welcome our leader and the General Coordinator of the FNRP, Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, at 11 a.m., May 28, 2011, at the International Airport." The statement noted that the agreement complied with the four conditions set by the FNRP.

The FNRP also expressed "thanks for the process of international mediation" carried out by the Venezuelan and Colombian presidents.

By the terms of the Cartagena agreement, the signatories commit themselves to:
* Guarantee the return to Honduras in security and liberty of Zelaya and all others exiled as a result of the crisis. (Over 200 other exiled leaders of the resistance are also now able to return under the terms of the agreement.)
* Assure conditions in which the FNRP can gain recognition as a legal political party.
* Reaffirm the constitutional right to initiate plebiscites, particularly with respect to the FNRP project of convening a National Constituent Assembly. (It was President Zelaya's move to hold a non-binding plebiscite on calling a Constituent Assembly that the organizers of the 2009 coup cited to justify their action.)
* Create a Secretariat of Justice and Human Rights to secure human rights in Honduras and invite the UN Human Rights Commission to establish an office in Honduras.
* Constitute a Monitoring (Verification) Commission, consisting initially of the Colombian and Venezuelan presidencies, to help assure the successful implementation of the agreement.

U.S. disruption attempt
Notably absent from discussions leading to the Cartagena Agreement was the United States, which has long been the arbiter of Honduran politics. Washington kept silent on the Cartagena mediation process, while in fact attempting to torpedo it.

Alexander Main, an analyst for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted on May 19 that when, as part of the mediation process, Honduran courts dropped charges against Zelaya, the U.S. State Department issued an "exuberant statement" the following day calling for the suspension of Honduras from the Organization of American States (OAS) to be "immediately lifted" -- a move that would have cut short the Cartagena mediation process. This suspension, enacted in protest against the coup, was one of the factors driving the illegitimate Honduran regime to seek mediation. (See "What Now for a Post-Coup Honduras")

"For good measure," Main says, "the [U.S.] statement noted that 'since his inauguration, President Lobo has moved swiftly to pursue national reconciliation, strengthen governance, stabilize the economy, and improve human rights conditions.'"

In fact, according to the Committee of Family Members of Disappeared Detainees in Honduras (COFADEH), politically motivated killings have taken the lives of 34 members of the resistance and 10 journalists since Lobo took office. No killers have been prosecuted either for these crimes or for the 300 killings by state security forces since the coup.

Showdown at the OAS
The U.S. canvassed energetically among Central and South American countries subject to its influence for support for immediate reinstatement of Honduras -- prior to the conclusion of the mediation process. "In mid-May these divisions came to a head when a diplomatic tussle took place at the OAS," Main reports.

In Main's opinion, "the U.S. is not prepared to accept a political mediation in Honduras in which it doesn't play a leading role. The U.S. has traditionally been deeply involved in the internal affairs of Honduras," and "the country continues to be of great strategic importance to the U.S."

The OAS Secretary General, Jose Miguel Insulza, called a meeting of the OAS Permanent Council that was to consider readmitting the de facto Honduran regime. According to a reliable source at the OAS, Main reports, several Latin American countries, apparently including Colombia, demanded cancellation of the meeting on the grounds that it was "premature." Within hours, the meeting was cancelled.

The failure of this U.S.-inspired maneuver opened the road for the signing of the Cartagena agreement nine days later.

The Cartagena agreement, and the process that facilitated it, marks an important victory for the Honduran resistance. More broadly, it reinforces the process of Indo-Latin American and Caribbean efforts to shape their own national and regional policies free from imperialist domination. (See "Honduras se reintegra al CA-4.") It developed outside the OAS framework, and will help to strengthen and consolidate the new Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) that will meet this coming July in Caracas, Venezuela, under the joint chairmanship of that country and Chile.

Regional sovereignty
The Cartagena accord's impact in Central America was immediate and far reaching. Lobo and Zelaya flew from Cartagena to Managua the same day of the signing ceremony for a special meeting of the SICA (Central American Integration System) at which Honduras was welcomed back by three other Central American presidents -- Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), Mauricio Funes (El Salvador), and Alvaro Colom (Guatemala). At the meeting Ortega announced the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Nicaragua and Honduras.

In a joint statement, the four presidents called on the OAS to re-admit Honduras, and new agreements were also announced regarding a Customs Union of the four countries. These measures mark a defeat for those forces in Central America inimical to the regional integration process, including the Costa Rican government and its hostile campaign to isolate Sandinista Nicaragua diplomatically and economically.

Need for continued solidarity
Whether the Honduran government will fully carry out the Cartagena agreement remains to be seen. In particular, the coup has produced an entrenched pattern of systematic repression and unrestrained operation of death squads in Honduras. Experiences in other countries, including Colombia, show that such right-wing repression can run rampant, with under-the-table support from security forces, despite formal statements of government disapproval.

The establishment of the Colombia-Venezuela monitoring commission will be vital to keeping the pressure on the Lobo government. Friends of Honduran democracy in North America will need to do some monitoring as well, as an expression of continued solidarity with the Honduran people.

Further reading:
Toni Solo, "Varieties of Imperial Decline: Another Setback for the U.S. in Latin America," May 23, 2011
Ida Garberi, "El regreso de Mel Zelaya es un deber, el retorno de Honduras en la OEA es indigno," May 24, 2011

Community of Latin American and Caribbean States

2011-05-01T11:36:00.003-04:00

Another Step for Latin American and Caribbean Sovereignty
By Rachel Boothroyd

Coro, April 28th 2011 - On Tuesday at the Melia Caracas Hotel, 29 representatives from Latin American and Caribbean states attended a meeting to organise the preliminary agenda and structure of CELAC – The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, an organisation that hopes to counter the influence of the U.S in the region.

The meeting was convened in order to establish the foundations for the first summit of the recently formed organisation - due to be held on the 5th of July in Caracas. In a meeting that lasted several hours, the 29 delegates out of CELAC’s 33 member states deliberated on the principal issues that will constitute the main points of discussion at the July conference. The delegates also paid specific attention to CELAC´s constitution.

The meeting ended with the signing of a structural document that defines the CELAC. This document will be considered over the next 30 days by the delegates and member heads of state for approval before the July summit.“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.

Some of the key issues to be addressed in the July summit are the approval of a human rights charter and a fund to finance poverty eradication. Other topics on the agenda include; food security, health, education, technology and sports strategies. Chile and Venezuela, who are jointly presiding over the forum, will be in charge of drafting up any further documents in the interim.

The official inauguration of CELAC in July will coincide with the bicentenary of Venezuela’s independence and denotes a significant milestone in regional integration and autonomous organisation - independent of representatives from the U.S.A and Canada.

The Architects of an Alternative
CELAC was first initiated in February 2010 at a Latin American and Caribbean Unity Summit in Cancún, Mexico, just eight months after the coup which ousted democratically elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

Citing a need for a forum which ‘consolidates and projects the Latin American and Caribbean identity’, the organisation is founded upon the following principles - which the organisation describes as the “common values” of Latin American and Caribbean culture.

Respect for International Law and the Charter of the United Nations: The sovereign equality of states
The non-use, nor the threat of use, of force, Democracy, Respect for Human Rights, Respect for the environment, taking into consideration the environmental, economic, and social pillars of sustainable development International cooperation for sustainable development. The unity and integration of Latin American and Caribbean countries. An ongoing dialogue that promotes peace and regional security. Similar to projects such as the ALBA (The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America), CELAC is another organisation aimed at promoting regional cooperation and at offsetting Western dominance in the region, particularly that of the USA.

However, unlike the ALBA - an economic bloc based on mutually beneficial trade agreements and which rejects the economic paradigm of neo-liberalism – CELAC is a representative body that will include all Latin American and Caribbean nations and aims to become ”the region's most representative interlocutor vis-à-vis main international actors, other groups of countries and regional organizations” CELAC is specifically designed to represent and increase Latin America and the Caribbean’s presence and influence on the international stage – or to enhance the “Latin American and Caribbean agenda on global forums”. Theoretically, membership of CELAC should not depend on whether the right or left win at the ballot box as is the case with ALBA. However, although not of a strictly leftist agenda, CELAC clearly has progressive tendencies.

Different to the Organization of American States (OAS)?
Whilst the U.S. government has denied that CELAC is of any detriment to the regional influence of the OAS (Organisation of American States, which includes all of the CELAC countries as well as the U.S. and Canada), some observers have remarked that the organisation could eventually end up replacing the OAS; or, if not replacing it entirely, then certainly act as a counter-balancing agency. A brief comparison reveals important differences between the two organisations.

In contrast to the OAS, whose “four main pillars” are; democracy, human rights, security, and development, CELAC stresses its commitment “sovereignty”, “multilateralism”, “the right of any state to establish its own political system” and specifies its dedication to ”sustainable” development.

Furthermore, whereas the OAS does not make reference to economic factors, interestingly CELAC’s declaration hints at certain economic concepts that have come to be related to the development of the democratic left in recent years.

Although economic models are not mentioned explicitly, CELAC highlights that the organisation will strive for “social welfare”, “equality and the widest social justice” ”independent development”, whilst taking into account “the importance of ensuring favourable treatment for the small vulnerable economies and land-locked and island developing states” – clearly rejecting the neo-liberal consensus.

Finally, the inclusion of a democracy clause seeks to prevent any further coups, such as the recent coups in Honduras and Haiti and the attempted coups in Ecuador and Venezuela.

Changing Relations; Bolivar Unites America’s ‘Back Yard’
Perhaps one of the most striking aspects in the development of CELAC is not the rhetoric employed by some of the more radical currents in the region, but that used by centre or centre-right administrations. Although certainly not an admission of any socialist tendencies, quotes such as the following suggest at least a tentative commitment to regional unity.

“We are here constructing the basic regulatory architecture for the functioning of this new institution…We are constructing the dream of integration that the Liberator [Simon Bolivar] sought for all of Latin American and the Caribbean,” said Fernando Schmidt, Chile’s centre-right Vice-Chancellor.

Whether this is purely pragmatism; representing the right’s attempts to respond to changing power relationships in the region, the creation of CELAC may suggest that a real unison of Latin American and Caribbean nations is not only becoming a reality, but also that serious changes in the political dynamics of the region and hemisphere are taking place.
www.venezuelanalysis.com

Wikileaks Sheds light on U.S.-Colombia and Venezuela Relations

2011-04-11T16:23:00.006-04:00

Latin America shakes off the US yoke
by Mark Weisbrot - The Guardian

On Thursday, the United States expelled the ambassador from Ecuador, in retaliation for Wednesday's expulsion of the US ambassador from Ecuador. This now leaves the United States without ambassadorial relations in three South American countries – Bolivia and Venezuela being the other two – thus surpassing the Bush administration in its diplomatic problems in the region.

U.S. Ambassador Heather Hodges was declared "persona non grata" and asked to leave Ecuador "as soon as possible", after a diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks showed her saying some disparaging things about Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa. In the cable, she alleges that President Correa had knowledge of corruption by a former head of the national policeAlthough the Bush administration intervened in the internal affairs of countries such as Bolivia and even Brazil, it was somewhat better at keeping its "eyes on the prize" and avoiding fights that would distract from its main goal. The prize, of course, is Venezuela – home to the largest oil reserves in the world, estimated by the US Geological Survey at 500bn barrels. Washington's goal there for the last decade has been regime change. The Bush team understood that the more they fought with other countries in the region, the less credible would be their public relations story that Venezuela was the problem.

It's nothing personal, really – Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez could have chosen to be the perfect diplomat and he would still be treated in much the same manner by the US government. And it's not the oil itself, since Venezuela still sells the US more than 1m barrels a day and there is a world market for oil, in any case. It's just that any country with that much oil is going to have regional influence; and Washington just doesn't want to deal with someone who has regional influence and doesn't line up with its own goals for the region – not if it can get rid of them. And they have come close to getting rid of Chávez, in the 2002 coup – so they are not giving up.

But Washington is losing ground there, too. A big blow was the change in Colombia's foreign policy last summer, when President Juan Manuel Santos took office. An important part of Washington's strategy in Venezuela is to maintain tension between Colombia and Venezuela. They have a head start on this project since the 2,000km border between the two countries has been plagued by paramilitary and guerrilla violence for decades. Conflict between Venezuela and Colombia is also important to Washington's electoral strategy in Venezuela. When there is trouble between the two countries, as in 2009, when Venezuela cut off bilateral trade in response to the US effort to expand its military presence in Colombia, it has a negative impact on a lot of Venezuelans in border states. This helps garner some anti-Chávez votes in border states, as in last year's congressional election in Venezuela. Andaccusations of Venezuelan support for the Farc guerrillas in Colombia – despite Washington's failure to offer any evidence – are a key element of bringing its anti-Venezuela efforts under the "war on terror" umbrella.

Although Colombia's previous president, Álvaro Uribe, was – in recent years – very much allied with the United States' strategy toward Venezuela, Santos immediately rejected it and decided to make peace with Chávez. This turned out to be quite easy to do, despite their past fights when Santos was Uribe's defence minister. As anyone who follows Venezuela knows, Chávez is friendly to any head of state or government that is friendly to Venezuela.

Santos's U-turn towards Venezuela is very interesting for several reasons. First, it shows how important regional economic integration is as a force for peace and stability in the area. The attempt by Washington and Santos's predecessor to expand the US military presence in Colombia led to a cutoff of $2.3bn of Colombia's exports to what had recently become their second most important trading partner, Venezuela. This was more than 11% of Colombia's exports, and the bulk of it was in livestock and textile products for which replacement markets were not so readily available. Venezuela also has very close relations with Brazil and most of the rest of South America, and they all felt the same way about Colombia's foreign policy. They were especially concerned about the US military expansion in Colombia – and even more opposed after US Air Force documents made it clear that this expansion was for "mobility operations … on the South American continent" and against the "constant threat" from "anti-US governments".

Santos was basically faced with a choice of continuing to do Washington's bidding or being part of South America. He chose South America. The key role of commerce here, as South America continues to integrate economically, illustrates some of the most important "gains from trade". These are far greater than the neoclassical "efficiency gains",often exaggerated by advocates of "free trade" agreements.

Also, Santos's choice to rejoin South America shows how geopolitical changes led by the left governments of the region have now encompassed even rightwing governments. This is a result of changes in institutions (foreign ministries, multilateral organisations such as Unasur, the Rio Group), ideas, and norms that have taken place over the last decade.

Now comes Washington, demanding that Colombia extradite one Walid Makled, an accused Venezuelan narco-trafficker arrested in Colombia, to the United States. No, thank you, says President Santos – this guy goes to Venezuela. Santos cites Colombian law, stating that, first, Colombia has an extradition treaty with Venezuela, not with the United States; second, Venezuela got their extradition request in first; and third, Makled is wanted for more serious crimes (including murder) in Venezuela than in the US (drug-trafficking). All of these are facts that legally require extradition of Makled to Venezuela.

This is most infuriating to Washington. To understand why this is so important to the state department, one has to look behind official pronouncements about Makled getting "a fair trial" in Venezuela and other nonsense repeated with charming innocence by the major media. Venezuela has a presidential election next year. For every important election or referendum in Venezuela – and there are many, but none more important to Washington than this one – there is an international media campaign, with the participation of the US government. (A recent WikiLeaks cable shows the Colombian government sharing with US officials its coordinated media campaign to link both Chávez and Correa to the Colombian Farc guerrillas.) Makled has already offered to sing about alleged corruption of Venezuelan officials, but only if he is extradited to the US. So, if they could only get him to Miami, they could have a splendid show trial that would be better than any international media campaign that the state department could organise.

If all that seems like it's not worth the trouble, it's exactly what happened in 20. U.S. authorities used a sketchy show trial of a Venezuelan slapped with dubious "failing to register as a foreign agent" charges – but not with actual espionage – in order to broadcast allegations of corruption at the "highest levels" of the Venezuelan government. The allegations made headlines throughout the hemisphere and, of course, were a mainstay of the Venezuelan opposition-dominated media. Just think what the Makled trial could do: no one would ask what the witnesses were offered for their testimony, or whether there was any corroborating evidence for their allegations. It would be one big free-for-all smear-fest, with reporters gobbling it all up.

But Santos is not co-operating, despite enormous pressure and, of course, the currently pending "free trade" agreement between the US and Colombia. Perhaps Washington wants this agreement more than he does.

In any case, the Obama administration – like its predecessor – is fighting a losing battle. President Obama's recent trip to Latin America was hardly more successful than those of Bush. He gets better press – no riots in the streets or Mayan leaders cleansing the site after his visit. But every president and foreign minister there can see that U.S. policies haven't changed one bit.

2011-03-22T14:22:00.003-04:00

President Hugo Chavez, backed by South American Presidents, Condemns the Attack on Libya

March 19, 2011 Caracas --Today, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez told South Americans on VTV and TeleSur that the attack on Libya by the West's "men of war" is aimed at seizing the North African country's oil reserves. Earlier this month Chavez announced a peace plan, backed by other Latin American presidents, for Libya. Qaddafi accepted the proposal but the rebels, armed by the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia, rejected the offer of foreign mediation for peace.

President Chavez condemned today's military assault against Libya in a televised address to the nation, stating that the United States and its European allies are attacking the country to seize its petroleum. He called the assault against Libya by the U.S., France and others, "disgusting". He continued in his televised talk to the nation today, "These are the men of war … what irresponsibility. Behind this is the hand of the United States and its European allies, instead of taking the path that we have modestly proposed they choose more death, more war. They are the masters of war ... They want to seize Libya's oil. The lives of Libya's people don't matter to them at all ... It is deplorable that once again the warmongering policy of the Yankee empire and its allies is being imposed, and it is deplorable that the United Nations lends itself to supporting war, infringing on its fundamental principles instead of urgently forming a commission to go to Libya. We know what's going to happen: bombs, bombs, war, more suffering for the people, more death."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."

Fidel Castro, and Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, Daniel Ortega, President of Nicaragua, Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador, Cristina Ferdinez, President of Argentina - all stand with President Chavez against the U.S./NATO invasion of Libya indicating that the western media reports of Libya's military action as an attack on civilians is a lie. Rather their view is that Libya's military action is nothing more or less than a heroic national defense against a foreign-backed insurrection to achieve a coup d'etat to gain control of Libya's petroleum reserves.

Today, Fidel Castro asked why the U.N. Security Council exists and said that NATO's military force, "serves only to show the waste and chaos generated by capitalism." Evo Morales accused the U.S. & Company of a strategy to, "invent a problem, but their problem is their desire to take control of oil." President Chavez condemned Barack Obama of launching another war patterned after the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, noting Obama's fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize. He also pointed out the hypocrisy of French and other European leaders, saying that they assume the right to own and control the world. He said that the freezing of Libyan accounts in U.S. and European banks (estimated at $200 billion) "is a robbery, it's looting, taking advantage of Libya's internal conflict." He continued, "What is that called? Intervention in another country's internal affairs ... We demand a true cease-fire."… www.venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuelanalysis.com Editor's Note:
Over the weekend, Venezuelan students and representatives of the Latin American left expressed their open rejection of the NATO attack on Libya's national sovereignty.

On Saturday, students of Venezuela's progressive and revolutionary movements gathered outside the French Embassy to protest what they called an "aggression against the Libyan people."

"This protest is a protest against the French government...They are the ones who have initiated this aggression against the Libyan people, not against Muammar Al Gaddafi. In fact, they've already begun with their excuses of navigation failures, and their missiles have begun hitting civilian buildings," said student protestor Jhonalbert Viera.

On Sunday, hundreds of people including Aristobulo Isturiz -Vice President of Venezuela's National Assembly - gathered outside of the Libyan Embassy in Caracas to stand in solidarity with the Libyan people.

Also over the weekend, representatives of over 40 Latin American leftist political parties approved a unanimous statement denouncing the NATO attack on Libya. Organizers of the 'Parties & the New Society' Conference, currently being held in Caracas, considered the declaration an important step in consolidating criteria among the parties.

"We consider the statement a success because here we have the majority of the Latin American Left represented, and we've secured a unanimous rejection of the [NATO] aggression against Libya," said Rodrigo Cabezas, chief coordinator of International Affairs for the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

Parties represented at the conference include Brazil's Workers' Party (PT), Nicaragua's Sandinista Front for National Liberation (FSLN), Bolivia's Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), Venezuela's United Socialist Party (PSUV, and Cuba's Communist Party (PCC), among others.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_62572.shtml
See also:
03/03/2011: Chavez Says Gaddafi Accepted Proposal for Goodwill Commission in Libya[3]
11/03/2011: Latin American Nations Pledge for Peace in Libya[4]
28/02/2011: Venezuelan Government Rejects Possible Intervention in Libya[5]

What Side Are We On: Let's be Clear

2011-02-25T16:45:00.009-05:00

What's going on in Libya ? From the Arab World to Latin America
By Santiago Alba Rico and Alma Allende
Translated by Machetera

We have the impression that a great worldwide liberation process may be aborted by the unappeasable ferocity of Gaddafi , U.S. interventionism, and a lack of foresight in Latin America .

We might describe the situation like this: in a part of the world linked once again to strong internal solidarities and from which only lethargy or fanaticism was expected, a wave of popular uprisings have arisen which have threatened to topple the allies of Western powers in the region, one after the other. Independent of local differences, these uprisings have something in common that radically distinguishes them from the orange and rose colored "revolutions" promoted by capitalism in the former Soviet bloc: they demand democracy, certainly, but far from being fascinated by Europe and the United States, they are the holders of a long, entrenched, radical anti-imperialist tradition forged around Palestine and Iraq. There's not even a hint of socialism in the popular Arab uprisings, but neither is there one of Islamism, nor - most importantly - of Euro-centric seduction: it is simultaneously a matter of economic upheaval and democratic, nationalistic and anti-colonial revolution, something that, forty years after their defeat, suddenly opens an unexpected opportunity for the region's socialist and pan-Arabist left.

Progressive Latin America , whose pioneering liberation processes constitute hope for world-wide anti-imperialism, ought to support the Arab world right now without reservation, moving beyond the strategy of the Western powers overtaken by events, as well as those that are providing an opportunity for Gaddafi's return - perhaps militarily, but above all, propagandistically - as a champion of human rights and democracy. That discourse is hardly credible in this part of the world, where Fidel and Chávez enjoy enormous popular credit, but if Latin America aligns itself, actively or passively, with the tyrant, the contagious popular advances that are already extending toward Europe, and have gone as far as Wisconsin, will not only see themselves irreparably halted but will also produce a new fracture in the anti-imperialist camp, so that the world's ever vigilant timekeeper, the United States of America can seize advantage in order to recover lost ground. Something like this may already be occurring as a result of a combination of ignorance as well as schematic and summary anti-imperialism. The Arab people, who are returning to history's stage, need the support of their Latin American brothers and sisters, but above all, it is the relationship between world powers that cannot allow for vacillation by Cuba and Venezuela without having Cuba and Venezuela also suffer the consequences, with Latin America and the hopes for transformation at a global level suffering along with them. 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.

Over the past ten years, Gaddafi has been a great friend to the European Union and the United States , and its dictator allies in the region. We need only recall the inflammatory statements of support from the Libyan Caligula for the deposed Ben Alí, to whose militias he quite probably provided weapons and money in the days following January 14th. It's sufficient as well to recall Gaddafi's docile collaboration with the U.S. in the framework of the so-called "war on terrorism." The political collaboration has been accompanied by close economic ties with the EU, including Spain: the sale of oil to Germany, Italy, France and the United States has paralleled the entry into Libya by the large Western oil companies (the Spanish Repsol, the British BP, the French Total, the Italian ENI and the Austrian OM), not to mention the juicy contracts for European and Spanish construction firms in Tripoli. Moreover, France and the U.S. have continued providing the weapons that are now killing Libyans from the air, following imperial Italy 's example from 1911. In 2008, the former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice made it quite clear: " Libya and the United States share permanent interests: cooperation in the fight against terrorism, trade, nuclear proliferation, Africa , human rights and democracy."
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.

As is apparent, Gaddafi is neither a revolutionary nor an ally, not even a tactical one, of the world's revolutionaries. In 2008 Fidel and Chávez (along with Mercosur) rightly denounced what was known as the "shameful directive" from Europe that reinforced an already very severe persecution in Europe of defenseless immigrants who'd been stripped of everything. Of all Gaddafi's crimes, perhaps the most serious and least known is his complicity in the EU's immigration policy, particularly that of Italy , as the executioner of African migrants. Anyone seeking a wealth of information on the subject can read Il Mare di mezzo, by the courageous journalist Gabriele del Grande, or consult his website, Fortresseurope, where there is a collection of horrifying documents. By 2006 Human Rights Watch and Afvic denounced the arbitrary arrests and tortures taking place in Libyan detention centers financed by Italy . The Berlusconi-Gaddafi agreement of 2003 can be read in its entirety at Gabriele del Grande's site, and its consequences summarized succinctly and painfully in the cry of Farah Anam, the Somali fugitive from Libyan death camps: "I'd prefer to die at sea than return to Libya ." Despite the denunciations of the real extermination practices taking place - or precisely because of them, proof of Gaddafi's efficiency as Europe's guardian - the European Commission signed a "cooperative agenda" in order to "direct migration flows" and "control borders," valid until 2013 and accompanied by the delivery of 50 million Euros to 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.
http://

www.tlaxcala-int.org/article.asp?reference=4011

U.S. Congressman Threatens Embargo Against Venezuela

2011-02-20T21:45:00.003-05:00

Dear Friends,

The first article below gives evidence that the United States is continuing their plan of aggression and disruption against sovereign Venezuela. The second article shows what the U.S. lawmakers are worried about: It describes the Mission Milagros eye improvement program in which the people of Venezuela, in conjunction with Cuba, extends its solidarity with other Latin American countries through this social program.
_______________________________________
(1) U.S. Congressman Threatens Embargo Against Venezuela
by Ana Luisa Brown
Feb, 18, 2011

Caracas, Feb 18 (Prensa Latina) The Venezuelan people will respond to U.S. threats with more unity, the First Vice President of the National Assembly, Aristobulo Isturiz, affirmed Friday.In declarations to Prensa Latina, the socialist deputy said no one should be surprised at the call of Republican congressman Connie Mack for an embargo against Venezuela and its inclusion in the U.S. budget of 2012 in paragraph devoting resources to internal destabilization.

Washington's aggression is not a surprise, because of the example and prestige of the Bolivarian Revolution and the international leadership of Hugo Chavez, Isturiz said.

The imperialist threat is nothing new, and will surely intensify, but the Venezuelan response will be mass mobilization with growing political awareness, unity and patriotism, he revealed.

That is why the most important thing now is to have the people in the streets dismantling every maneuver and lie, he added.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/121153
__________________________________________________
(2) More People to Benefit from Cuba-Venezuela Free-Eye Care Program
HAVANA, Cuba, Feb 15 (acn) The Mision Milagro Foundation in Venezuela --which provides free eye care to low-income people-- hopes to increase the number of weekly surgeries in 800 in order to improve ophthalmological services in public hospitals.

Manuel Pacheco, coordinator of this organization, said that, as part of this program promoted by Cuba and Venezuela, a total of 3,900 weekly surgeries were performed last year at the biggest hospital of Caracas, the Miguel Perez Carreno.He added that, in order to increase this figure, several infrastructure improvements were made and more specialists will join the public services to offer free health care, Prensa Latina news agency reports.

The leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, wrote on his December 29, 2010, reflection that the Mision Milagro program began with ophthalmologists treating very poor Venezuelan people suffering from cataracts. "This initiative," he wrote, "has helped nearly 1.8 million people from 35 countries recover or improve their sight, including that of Mario Teran, the Bolivian sergeant that assassinated Ernesto Che Guevara in 1967 in Bolivia."

Mision Milagro was born on August 21, 2005, in Villa Bolivar, in the municipality of Sandino, in the Cuban westernmost province of Pinar del Rio, with the signing of an agreement between Fidel Castro and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/message/121156

Venezuela, Bolivia, Hail Egyptian revolution

2011-02-14T22:54:00.004-05:00

Venezuelan Foreign Relations Ministry
Official Statement
The president and commander-in-chief of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, in the name of the Venezuelan people, applauds the genuine lesson of political and democratic maturity that the courageous Egyptian people have brought before the eyes of the world.

The Bolivarian government has paid close attention to the development of the people’s movement that is underway in the fraternal Arab Republic of Egypt, and, in light of the events that took place on Friday, February 11th, joins in the Egyptian people’s jubilation in this moment of peaceful triumph, trusting that, as the sole master of their destiny, the people will continue to consolidate this emancipatory political process. .The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will act in solidarity with the Egyptian people in the actions and decisions that they take while using their sovereign and inalienable prerogative as the dignified heirs to the legacy of the historic leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Egypt can count on the fraternal willingness of Bolivarian Venezuela to construct a pluri-polar world of equality and justice on the basis of an authentic relationship of friendship and cooperation.
Caracas, February 11th 2011
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5993
_____________________________
Statement by Evo Morales'

Addressing the World Social Forum taking place in Dakar, Senegal, February 6–11, Bolivian President Evo Morales said that to save life and humanity it is necessary “to identify internal and external enemies and to fight imperialism and its main financial instrument that dominates the world’s population – capitalism.”

Morales also declared that “while there is injustice in different continents and while there is capitalist oppression or repression of the people, they will continue to rebel.”

With regards to the recent protests in Egypt and Tunisia, he believes that “the rebellion of the Arab population is against U.S.He stated that “the people’s struggles will be unstoppable, even though the U.S. government has provided funds of millions and millions to stop such movements.”

Finally, the Bolivian president suggested that “capitalism is suffering throughout the world, due to the rebellion of the people.”

– Excerpted from http://www.argentinaindependent.com/currentaffairs/newsfromlatinamerica/bolivia-morales-calls-to-save-mother-earth-at-world-social-forum-/

Celebrate Cuba's Revolution and Independence

2011-01-28T21:14:00.003-05:00

Venezuela Celebrates 'Week of Cuban Culture' with Film, Music and Dance

Merida, January 21st 2011-- Yesterday Venezuela began a weeklong celebration of Cuban culture by commemorating the 130th anniversary of Cuban independence hero Jose Marti's arrival and extended stay in Caracas from 21 January 1881 to 27 July 1881.

Organized by Venezuela's Ministry of Culture, the '"Week of Cuban Culture" will include numerous film, music, dance, and performance art exhibitions in Caracas as well as the release of recently published books on the historical ties between Venezuela and Cuba.

"Marti left with his heart filled with Caracas," said Venezuela's Minister of Women's Affairs, Nancy Perez, during opening ceremonies yesterday.
"But now Jose Marti has returned in the millions, and thousands of Cubans are in Venezuela doing what Marti professed, they are here in the Missions helping Venezuelans," she said. Marti is renowned for having said, "Doing is the best way of saying".

"It is significant that we are here together today, Cubans and Venezuelans, in this homeland that belongs to everyone," said Cuban ambassador to Venezuela Rogelio Polanco."Now, today, we have a Bolivarian Alliance for the People of the Americas (ALBA). Now, today, we have a Bolivarian Revolution that is paving the way for the union of the great homeland. How pleased would Marti be today seeing this [Bolivarian] Revolution and seeing our people fraternally united."

The Venezuelan and Cuban governments are expected to approve over 200 projects of cooperation in the coming weeks. The projects were to be agreed upon in late 2010, but a second intergovernmental session to finalize details between the two countries was postponed due to record-setting rains in Venezuela.

Apart from yesterday's opening ceremony, plans for the weeklong event include: a poetic recital entitled 'Poets Sing to Marti'; the presentation by Doctor Edmundo Aray of the book, Venezuela in Marti, written by Mirla Alcibiades; free screenings of Cuban films for children and adults; as well as the laying of floral arrangements at Caracas's Plaza Bolivar and Plaza Marti by representatives of the Venezuelan and Cuban governments, including, for example Humberto Gonzalez, president of Venezuela's Casa de Nuestra America Jose Marti and director of Venezuela's National Library; as well as numerous theatre performances.

The closing event will be held at the Casa de Nuestra America Jose Marti on January 29, celebrating the 120th anniversary of the publication "Our America," one of Marti's most famous essays.

According to Fidel Barbarito, Director of International Relations at Venezuela's Ministry of Culture, the celebrations are part of a newly launched program by the ministry designed to celebrate the culture of friendly nations."[The new program] is a way to bring the Venezuelan people closer to the way of life lived in brotherly countries, closer to the historical processes lived by those who share geographical spaces, dreams, ideals of liberty, solidarity, fraternity," said Barbarito.

During the first quarter of 2011, Venezuela will host weeklong celebrations of a number of countries and cultures, beginning with Caribbean nations, then Bolivia, Ecuador, Russia, Vietnam and Iran, in that order.
www.venezuelanalysis.com

Chavez Welcomes Opposition in Parliament to Maintain Dialogue and Respect the People

2011-01-19T09:57:00.008-05:00

Venezuela’s Chavez Outlines Government’s Achievements in Annual Speech
By Tamara Pearson

Mérida, January 17th 2011 – In the National Assembly and around the country on Saturday people in their homes and in plazas listened to president Hugo Chavez’s 7 hour annual speech summarising the government’s management, achievements, and obstacles in 2010 and making projections for this year.

The Venezuelan constitution states in article 237 that the president of the country, within ten days of the installment of the National Assembly, must personally address the assembly about the achievement of national objectives and account for the government’s administration for the past year.

Speaking to the legislators, with the opposition having a substantial number of seats in the new national assembly, Chavez asked them to “maintain dialogue and respect with the people” and said he was happy to see the opposition in parliament again.During the 2006-2010 National Assembly session the opposition was practically not represented at all because they had boycotted the 2005 legislative elections.
Enabling law could be withdrawn by 1 May.

In response to international mainstream media and opposition criticism, Chavez argued that the Enabling law passed last month by the outgoing National Assembly is justified and that the opposition criticises everything and “don’t consider reason...I need ...to be able to act quickly to the... rains and housing [situation],” he said.

“[The opposition] goes around saying [the government] is a dictatorship, in five months we can create the laws to deal with all the emergencies, we have almost 120,000 people still in refuges.” “We could be finished by 1 May, so that nobody feels limited, I could withdraw the enabling law, I’m going to work harder and quicker,” he said. The outgoing National Assembly had given Chavez an enabling law that allows him to pass laws by decree for 18 months.

The economy
Looking back on 2010 the president remembered that bank fraud “obliged” the state to intervene in four private banks, and that the government created the Bicentenary bank.

Following the recession over the last two years, Chavez said there were encouraging indications for this year and a predicted economic growth of 2%.

“I thank the private sector. Most of the private sector works hard...[we should] work together and increase national production,” he said.

Also last year external debt was reduced. According to Chavez it was 20.17% of GDP, compared to in 1988 when it was 80%.

Housing
Housing is a priority this year for the government, “I accept that we’ve been held back by the historical problem of housing in Venezuela, so we’re going to take measures, because housing isn’t merchandise but rather a right of all Venezuelans,” Chavez said.“We’re far from the goal but we’re heading towards it... in Fuerte Tiuna we’re going to create a big city with at least 40,000 apartments, and in the centre of Caracas we’re constructing another 20,000 apartments.”

He also announced the government’s commitment to constructing 150,000 houses this year and 200,000 in 2012.

Technology and communications
In 2010 over a million people were trained in computing in the internet Infocentros, Chavez said. Domestic access to the internet increased by 242,993 homes last year, for a total of 1,351,269 connections, an increase of 22%. This translates to 33% of the population with access to internet in their homes, compared to 3% before Chavez was elected.

The “Canaima” plan of providing school children with mini laptops saw 875,000 computers given to first and second grade students, and the Venezuelan president said that this year the government is projecting to hand out 500,000 laptops to third grade students.

In 2010 the government expanded the state’s satellite network, installing 728 satellite antennas. “The antennas are being produced thanks to a project presented by some university students,” Chavez said.

Landline phone installations increased by 20%, and Chavez argued that this “democratisation” of access to telecommunications was thanks to the nationalisation of the communication company CANTV.

“CANTV is a company that continues to be efficient and provide better service than before it was nationalised,” he said.

Further, the state mobile phone manufacturing company Vetelca produced 160,000 phones in 2010. The production aim for this year is 1.5 million phones, through the creation of two more production lines.

Last year there was also the electrical crisis, mostly due to severe drought in 2009Chavez said that as a result, the government replaced 70 million light bulbs with the electricity saving kind, allowing for a total savings of over 1000 megawatts.

Food
Chavez announced the approval of a food plan to increase national production. He said the country currently has two months of basic foods in reserve and the state is supplying 32% of the national food network, with an aim of increasing that to 50-60% this year.“This is because the distribution of food can’t be a big profit business, it just can’t be,” Chavez said.

He also said nationalised companies had been producing better results, with Pronutrico producing 748 tonnes per month of precooked cornmeal before the state intervened in December 2009, and now it produces 4,791 tonnes per month. The production of Diana oil increased from 1,535 tonnes in July 2008 to 4,756 tonnes in November last year.

The government also built 13 of the 16 milk plants it had agreed to build with Iran, and 8 of the 10 corn plants. Also, in an agreement with Belarus, the government invested $55 million in a truck and tractor factor, which Chavez said should be in operation by the second half of this year, and producing 10,000 trucks and 5,000 tractors annually.

Crime and other issues
Chavez said that in its first year of existence last year, the National Bolivarian Police “together with organised communities achieved a reduction of 44% of murders”. The police force began with 952 officers, and now, in a year, it has grown to 4,222 officers, according to Chavez.

“The Bolivarian National Police is a new, serious, and human policing model,” he said.

He also recognised the solid waste problem and the need to increase rubbish collection capacity. “I assume my responsibility for [this] but it’s really a problem of the local governments,” he said.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5940

It's No Wonder: U.S. Government Hates Hugo Chavez

2011-01-07T17:23:00.012-05:00

Why Washington Hates Chavez: Venezuela vs. the Banks
Jan 5th 2011, by Mike Whitney

In late November, Venezuela was hammered by torrential rains and flooding that left 35 people dead and roughly 130,000 homeless. If George Bush had been president, instead of Hugo Chavez, the displaced people would have been shunted off at gunpoint to makeshift prison camps--like the Superdome--as they were following Hurricane Katrina. But that's not the way that Chavez works. The Venezuelan president quickly passed "enabling laws" which gave him special powers to provide emergency aid and housing to flood victims. Chavez then cleared out the presidential palace and turned it into living quarters for 60 people, which is the equivalent of turning the White House into a homeless shelter. The disaster victims are now being fed and taken care of by the state until they can get back on their feet and return to work.

The details of Chavez's efforts have been largely omitted in the US media where he is regularly demonized as a "leftist strongman" or a dictator. The media refuses to acknowledge that Chavez has narrowed the income gap, eliminated illiteracy, provided health care for all Venezuelans, reduced inequality, and raised living standards across he board. While Bush and Obama were expanding their foreign wars and pushing through tax cuts for the rich, Chavez was busy improving the lives of the poor and needy while fending off the latest wave of US aggression.Washington despises Chavez because he is unwilling to hand over Venezuela's vast resources to corporate elites and bankers. That's why the Bush administration tried to depose Chavez in a failed coup attempt in 2002, and that's why the smooth-talking Obama continues to launch covert attacks on Chavez today. Washington wants regime change so it can install a puppet who will hand over Venezuela's reserves to big oil while making life hell for working people.

Wikileaks
Recently released documents from Wikileaks show that the Obama administration has stepped up its meddling in Venezuela's internal affairs. Here's an excerpt from a recent post by attorney and author, Eva Golinger:

"In a secret document authored by current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly, and sent by the US Embassy in Santiago in June 2007 to the Secretary of State, CIA and Southern Command of the Pentagon, along with a series of other US embassies in the region, Kelly proposed "six main areas of action for the US government (USG) to limit Chavez's influence" and "reassert US leadership in the region".

Kelly, who played a primary role as "mediator" during last year's coup d'etat in Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, classifies President Hugo Chavez as an "enemy" in his report.

Chavez: "Formidable Foe"
"Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends... To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries". Further on in the memo, Kelly confesses that President Chavez is a "formidable foe", but, he adds, "he certainly can be taken". (Wikileaks: Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela, Eva Golinger, Postcards from the Revolution)

The State Department cables show that Washington has been funding anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela through non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that pretend to be working for civil liberties, human rights or democracy promotion. These groups hide behind a facade of legitimacy, but their real purpose is to topple the democratically elected Chavez government. Obama supports this type of subversion just as enthusiastically as did Bush. The only difference is the Obama team is more discreet. Here's another clip from Golinger with some of the details on the money-trail:

"In Venezuela, the US has been supporting anti-Chavez groups for over 8 years, including those that executed the coup d'etat against President Chavez in April 2002.
Since then, the funding has increased substantially. A May 2010 report evaluating foreign assistance to political groups in Venezuela, commissioned by the National Endowment for Democracy, revealed that more than $40 million USD annually is channeled to anti-Chavez groups, the majority from US agencies....

Venezuela stands out as the Latin American nation where NED has most invested funding in opposition groups during 2009, with $1,818,473 USD, more than double from the year before.... Allen Weinstein, one of NED's original founders, revealed once to the Washington Post, "What we do today was done clandestinely 25 years ago by the CIA…" (America's Covert "Civil Society Operations": US Interference in Venezuela Keeps Growing", Eva Golinger, Global Research)

Obama revokes Visa to Punish VenezuelaOn Monday, the Obama administration revoked the visa of Venezuela's ambassador to Washington in retaliation for Chavez's rejection of nominee Larry Palmer as American ambassador in Caracas. Palmer has been openly critical of Chavez saying there were clear ties between members of the Chavez administration and leftist guerrillas in neighboring Colombia. It's a roundabout way of accusing Chavez of terrorism. Even worse, Palmer's background and personal history suggest that his appointment might pose a threat to Venezuela's national security. Consider the comments of James Suggett of Venezuelanalysis on Axis of Logic: "Take a look at Palmer's history, working with the U.S.-backed oligarchs in the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Sierra Leone, South Korea, Honduras, "promoting the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Just as the U.S. ruling class appointed an African-American, Barack Obama to replace George W. Bush with everything else intact, Obama in turn, appoints Palmer to replace Patrick Duddy who was involved in the attempted coup against President Chavez in 2002 and an enemy of Venezuelans throughout his term as U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela."

Venezuela is already crawling with US spies and saboteurs. They don't need any help from agents working inside the embassy. Chavez did the right thing by giving Palmer the thumbs down. Besides, Chavez disproved Palmer's spurious accusations just last week when he extradited ELN commander Nilson Albian Teran Ferreira, alias "Tulio" to Colombia, "the first extradition of a Colombian guerrilla to his home country." (Colombia Reports) The story appeared NOWHERE in the western media. (because it proves that Chavez is not supporting paramilitary groups operating in Colombia.)U.S. Plans of "More of the Same"
The Palmer nomination is just "more of the same"; more interference, more subversion, more trouble-making. The State Dept was largely responsible for all of the so-called color-coded revolutions in Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan etc; all of which were cookie cutter, made-for-TV events that pitted the interests of wealthy capitalists against those of the elected government. Now Hillary's throng want to try the same strategy in Venezuela. It's up to Chavez to stop them, which is why he's pushed through laws that "regulate, control or prohibit foreign funding for political activities". Cracking down on NGOs is the only way he can defend against US meddling and protect Venezuelan sovereignty.

Chavez is also using his new powers to reform the financial sector. Here's an excerpt from an article titled "Venezuelan National Assembly Passes Law Making Banking a "Public Service":

"Venezuela's National Assembly on Friday approved new legislation that defines banking as an industry "of public service," requiring banks in Venezuela to contribute more to social programs, housing construction efforts, and other social needs while making government intervention easier when banks fail to comply with national priorities."...
The new law protects bank customers' assets in the event of irregularities on the part of owners... and stipulates that the Superintendent of Banking Institutions take into account the best interest of bank customers -- and not only stockholders... when making any decisions that affect a bank's operations."

So why isn't Obama doing the same thing? Is he too afraid of real change or is he just Wall Street's lackey? Here's more from the same article:

"In an attempt to control speculation, the law limits the amount of credit that can be made available to individuals or private entities by making 20% the maximum amount of capital a bank can have out as credit. The law also limits the formation of financial groups and prohibits banks from having an interest in brokerage firms and insurance companies.

The law also stipulates that 5% of pre-tax profits of all banks be dedicated solely to projects elaborated by communal councils. 10% of a bank´s capital must also be put into a fund to pay for wages and pensions in case of bankruptcy.

According to 2009 figures provided by Softline Consultores, 5% of pre-tax profits in Venezuela's banking industry last year would have meant an additional 314 million bolivars, or $73.1 million dollars, for social programs to attend the needs of Venezuela's poor majority."

Chavez Protects the Public on Speculations
"Control speculation"? Now there's a novel idea. Naturally, opposition leaders are calling the new laws "an attack on economic liberty", but that's pure baloney. Chavez is merely protecting the public from the predatory practices of bloodthirsty bankers. Most Americans wish that Obama would do the same thing.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "Chavez has threatened to expropriate large banks in the past if they don't increase loans to small-business owners and prospective home buyers, this time he is increasing the pressure publicly to show his concern for the lack of sufficient housing for Venezuela's 28 million people."

Caracas suffers from a massive housing shortage that's gotten much worse because of the flooding. Tens of thousands of people need shelter now, which is why Chavez is putting pressure on the banks to lend a hand. Of course, the banks don't want to help so they've slipped into crybaby mode. But Chavez has shrugged off their whining and put them "on notice". In fact, on Tuesday, he issued this terse warning:

"Any bank that slips up…I'm going to expropriate it, whether it's Banco Provincial, or Banesco or Banco Nacional de Credito."

Bravo, Hugo. In Chavez's Venezuela the basic needs of ordinary working people take precedent over the profiteering of cutthroat banksters. Is it any wonder why Washington hates him?

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01042011.html

Wikileaks Corroborates U.S. Increased Aggression Towards Venezuela.

2010-12-16T14:40:00.003-05:00

Wikileaks: Documents Confirm US Plans Against Venezuela

By Eva Golinger
http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/12/wikileaks-documents-confirm-us-plans.html

State Department documents published by Wikileaks evidence Washington's plans to "contain" Venezuela's influence in the region and increase efforts to provoke regime change

A substantial portion of the more than 1600 State Department documents Wikileaks has published during the past two weeks refer to the ongoing efforts of US diplomacy to isolate and counter the Venezuelan government.

Since Hugo Chavez won the presidency for the first time in 1998, Washington has engaged in numerous efforts to overthrow him, including a failed coup d'etat in April 2002, an oil industry strike that same year, worldwide media campaigns and varios electoral interventions. The State Department has also used its funding agencies, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), to channel millions of dollars annually to anti-Chavez NGOs, political parties, journalists and media organizations in Venezuela, who have been working to undermine the Chavez administration and force him from power.

When these interventionist policies have been denounced by the Chavez government and others, Washington has repeatedly denied any efforts to isolate or act against the Venezuelan head of state.

Nonetheless, the State Department cables published by Wikileaks clearly evidence that not only has Washington been actively funding anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela, but it also has engaged in serious efforts during the past few years to convince governments worldwide to assume an adversarial position against President Hugo Chavez.

"CONTENTION" PLAN AGAINST A "FORMIDABLE FOE"
In a secret document authored by current Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Craig Kelly, and sent by the US Embassy in Santiago in June 2007 to the Secretary of State, CIA and Southern Command of the Pentagon, along with a series of other US embassies in the region, Kelly proposed "six main areas of action for the US government (USG) to limit Chavez's influence" and "reassert US leadership in the region".

Kelly, who played a primary role as "mediator" during last year's coup d'etat in Honduras against President Manuel Zelaya, classifies President Hugo Chavez as an "enemy" in his report. "Know the enemy: We have to better understand how Chavez thinks and what he intends...To effectively counter the threat he represents, we need to know better his objectives and how he intends to pursue them. This requires better intelligence in all of our countries". Further on in the memo, Kelly confesses that President Chavez is a "formidable foe", but, he adds, "he certainly can be taken". In 2006, Washington activated a Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mission Manager for Venezuela and Cuba. The mission, headed by clandestine CIA veteran Timothy Langford, is one of only four such intelligence entities of its type. The others were created to handle intelligence matters relating to Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan/Pakistan, evidencing the clear priority that Washington has placed on Venezuela as a target of increased espionage and covert operations.

Another suggestion made by Kelly in the secret cable, is a recommendation to increase US presence in the region and improve relations with Latin American military forces. "We should continue to strengthen ties to those military leaders in the region who share our concern over Chavez".

Kelly also proposed a "psychological operations" program against the Venezuelan government to exploit its vulnerabilities. "We also need to make sure that the truth about Chavez - his hollow vision, his empty promises, his dangerous international relationships, starting with Iran - gets out, always exercising careful judgment about where and how we take on Chavez directly/publicly".

Kelly recommended US officials make more visits to the region to "show the flag and explain directly to populations our view of democracy and progress". Kelly also offered details on how Washington could better exploit the differences amongst South American governments to isolate Venezuela:

"Brazil...can be a powerful counterpoint to Chavez's project...Chile offers another excellent alternative to Chavez...We should look to find other ways to give Chile the lead on important initiatives, but without making them look like they are our puppets or surrogates. Argentina is more complex, but still presents distinct characteristics that should inform our approach to countering Chavez's influence there".

PRESSURING MERCOSUR
Kelly also revealed the pressure Washington has been applying to Mercosur (Market of the South) to not accept Venezuela as a full member in the regional trade bloc. "With regard to Mercosur, we should not be timid in stating that Venezuela's membership will torpedo US interest in even considering direct negotiations with the trading bloc".

MEXICO, BOGOTA & OTHERS ASK TO "FIGHT" CHAVEZ
The cables published by Wikileaks not only reveal US hostility towards Venezuela, but also the requests made by regional leaders and politicians to work against President Chavez.

One secret document from October 2009 referring to a meeting between Mexican President Felipe Calderon and US Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair tells of how Calderon confessed he was "trying to isolate Venezuela through the Rio Group". The Mexican head of state also appealed to the US intelligence chief, "The region needs a visible US presence...the United States must be ready to engage the next Brazilian president. Brazil, he said, is key to restraining Chavez...The US needs to engage Brazil more and influence its outlook".

URIBE REQUESTS "MILITARY ACTION" AGAINST CHAVEZ
In several secret documents authored by the US Embassy in Colombia, efforts by ex President of Colombia, Alvaro Uribe, to convince Washington to take action against Venezuela are evidenced.

In one cable from December 2007, the US Ambassador in Colombia recounts a meeting between Uribe and a delegation of US congress members, including Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. According to the text, Uribe "likened the threat Chavez poses to Latin America to that posed by Hitler in Europe".

And in yet another report summarizing a January 2008 meeting between Uribe and the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, Uribe is quoted as recommending military action against Venezuela.

"The best counter to Chavez, in Uribe's view, remains action - including use of the military".

Later in that same secret cable, Uribe urged Washington to "lead a public campaign against Venezuela...to counter Chavez..."

OPPOSITION BISHOP REQUESTS US ACTION
In addition to regional politicians and US diplomats urging plans against President Chavez, one cable reveals how during a meeting between a Venezuelan Archbishop and the US Ambassador, the religious leader asked for Washington to act against his own government. At the meeting, which took place in January 2005 according to the document, Archbishop Baltazar Porras told Ambassador William Brownfield that the "US government should be more clear and public in its criticism of the Chavez administration" and that the "international community also needs to work and speak out more to contain Chavez..."

The plans and strategies revealed through these official documents confirm what other evidence has already corroborated regarding Washington's increase in aggression towards Venezuela. The US continues to fund opposition groups that act to undermine Venezuelan democracy while escalating its hostile discourse and policies against the Chavez government.

This week's Senate affirmation of Larry Palmer as Ambassador to Venezuela will only make matters worse. Palmer was rejected by the Venezuelan government after he made negative statements about the Chavez administration in August. Washington's insistence of sending Palmer appears to be an effort to provoke a rupture in diplomatic relations.

NGO PROVEA in Venezuela Paid in U.S. Dollars

2010-12-14T11:25:00.005-05:00

Canada & VenezuelaDecember 12, 2010
http://www.zcommunications.org/canada-and-venezuela-by-yves-engler-1
By Yves Engler

While many on the left know that Washington has spent tens of millions of dollars funding groups that oppose Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, less well known is Ottawa's role, especially that of the Canadian government's "arms-length" human rights organization, Rights & Democracy (R&D).

Montreal-based R&D recently gave its 2010 John Humphrey Award to the Venezuelan non-governmental organization PROVEA (El Programa Venezolano de Educacion-Accion en Derechos Humanos). According to R&D's website, "The Award consists of a grant of $30,000 and a [December] speaking tour of Canadian cities to help increase awareness of the recipient's human rights work."

PROVEA is highly critical of Venezuela's elected government. In December 2008 Venezuela's interior and justice minister called PROVEA "liars" who were "paid in [US] dollars."

During a September visit "to meet with representatives of PROVEA and other [Venezuelan] organizations devoted to human rights and democratic development" R&D President, Gerard Latulippe, blogged about his and PROVEA's political views. "Marino [Betancourt, Director General of PROVEA] told me about recent practices of harassment and criminalization of the government towards civil society organizations." In another post Latulippe explained, "We have witnessed in recent years the restriction of the right to freedom of expression. Since 2004-2005, the government of President Chavez has taken important legislative measures which limit this right." Upon returning to Canada, Latulippe cited Venezuela as a country with "no democracy". He told Embassy magazine, "You can see the emergence of a new model of democracy, where in fact it's trying to make an alternative to democracy by saying people can have a better life even if there's no democracy. You have the example of Russia. You have an example of Venezuela."

Latulippe's claims have no basis in reality. On top of improving living conditions for the country's poor, the Chavez-led government has massively increased democratic space through community councils, new political parties and worker cooperatives. They have also won a dozen elections/referendums over the past twelve years (and lost only one).

R&D, which is funded almost entirely by the federal government, takes its cues from Ottawa. The Canadian government has repeatedly attacked Chavez. In April 2009 Stephen Harper responded to a question regarding Venezuela by saying, "I don't take any of these rogue states lightly" and after expressing "concerns over the shrinkage of democratic space" in September, Minister for the Americas Peter Kent said, "This is an election month in Venezuela and the official media has again fired up some of the anti-Semitic slurs against the Jewish community as happened during the Gaza incursion." Even the head of Canada's military recently criticized the Chavez government in the Canadian Military Journal. After a tour of South America, Walter Natynczyk wrote "Regretably, some countries, such as Venezuela, are experiencing the politicization of their armed forces." The Harper government's attacks against Venezuela are part of its campaign against the region's progressive forces. Barely discussed in the media, the Harper government's shift of aid from Africa to Latin America was largely designed to stunt Latin America's recent rejection of neoliberalism and U.S. dependence by supporting the region's right-wing governments and movements.

To combat independent-minded, socialist-oriented governments and movements Harper's Conservatives have "played a more active role in supporting U.S. ideologically-driven [democracy promotion] initiatives," notes researcher Neil A. Burron. They opened a South America focused "democracy promotion" centre at the Canadian Embassy in Peru. Staffed by two diplomats, this secretive venture may clash with the Organization of American States' non-intervention clause.

According to documents unearthed by Anthony Fenton, in November 2007 Ottawa gave the Justice and Development Consortium (Asociacion Civil Consorcio Desarrollo y Justicia) $94,580 "to consolidate and expand the democracy network in Latin America and the Caribbean." Also funded by the U.S. government's CIA front group National Endowment for Democracy, the Justice and Development Consortium has worked to unite opposition to leftist Latin American governments. Similarly, in the spring of 2008 the Canadian Embassy in Panama teamed up with the National Endowment for Democracy to organize a meeting for prominent members of the opposition in Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Ecuador. It was designed to respond to the "new era of populism and authoritarianism in Latin America." The meeting spawned the Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe para la Democracia, "which brings together mainstream NGOs critical of the leftist governments in the hemisphere." The foremost researcher on U.S. funding to the anti-Chavez opposition, Eva Golinger, claims Canadian groups are playing a growing role in Venezuela and according to a May 2010 report from Spanish NGO Fride, "Canada is the third most important provider of democracy assistance" to Venezuela after the U.S. and Spain. Burron describes an interview with a Canadian "official [who] repeatedly expressed concerns about the quality of democracy in Venezuela, noting that the [Federal government's] Glyn Berry program provided funds to a 'get out the vote' campaign in the last round of elections in that country." You can bet it wasn't designed to get Chavez supporters to the polls.

Ottawa is not forthcoming with information about the groups they fund in Venezuela, but according to disclosures made in response to a question by former NDP Foreign Affairs critic Alexa McDonough, Canada helped finance Sumate, an NGO at the forefront of anti-Chavez political campaigns. Canada gave Sumate $22,000 in 2005-06. Minister of International Cooperation Jose Verner explained that "Canada considered Sumate to be an experienced NGO with the capability to promote respect for democracy, particularly a free and fair electoral process in Venezuela." Yet the name of Sumate leader Maria Corina Machado, who Foreign Affairs invited to Ottawa in January 2005, appeared on a list of people who endorsed the 2002 coup against Chavez, for which she faced charges of treason.

The simple truth is that the current government in Ottawa supports the old elites that long worked with the U.S. empire. It opposes the progressive social transformations taking place in a number of Latin American countries and as a result it supports civil society groups opposed to these developments.

Yves Engler's the author of Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid and the Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy . For more info: http://yvesengler.com

Venezuelan Government and Civil Society Increase Flood Relief for Thousands of Rain Victims

2010-12-12T11:31:00.006-05:00

Venezuelan Government and Civil Society Increase Flood Relief for Thousands of Rain Victims
by James Suggett
Dec 7th 2010
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5842

Mérida, December 7th 2010 – In response to heavy flooding caused by two weeks of torrential rains, the Venezuelan government declared a 90-day state of emergency in four additional states yesterday and announced a $2.3 billion (10 billion bolivars) special fund for flood victims.

The states of Zulia, Mérida Trujillo, and Nueva Esparta were added to the list of seven other states where official emergencies have been declared with the purpose of “allowing decisions to move forward that transcend the power and the capacity of the local governments,” according to President Hugo Chavez.

Nearly half of Venezuela’s states are now in an official state of emergency.
The president pledged that the 10 billion bolivars will be drawn from the National Reserve Fund and used toward “an integral reconstruction plan” for every community impacted by the rains. In addition, the government will use profits from the state-owned telecommunications company, CANTV, to pay a 1,223 bolivar ($284) holiday “bonus” to each of the 5,000 families – approximately 20,000 people – who were forced from their homes by the flooding.

Chavez has been on a non-stop, nation-wide, night and day tour of the areas affected by the flooding.
On Monday, during a visit to the rural, mostly indigenous Guajira region of northwestern Zulia, Chavez described the situation as “very dramatic.”

“The Guajira is underwater. It is a sea in the Guajira... we saw people leaving their homes with children in water up to their chests,” Chavez said as he met with hundreds of flood victims on national television.“The water swept away a dignified soldier who we still haven’t found. I am filled with dismay, very impacted, and sensitized to the calamity that the people are living,” Chavez said.

To house the flood victims, starting on Saturday and throughout the coming months the government will gradually hand over 1,045 recently nationalized homes and apartments in the capital city of Caracas as well as in the states of Miranda, Trujillo and Zulia.

Chavez also announced that 4.3 billion bolivars ($1 billion) earned from a recent sale of oil refineries to Russia will be earmarked for new housing construction for the flood victims.

In the meantime, the Venezuelan head of state issued a decree obligating large luxury hotels to open their doors temporarily to people displaced by the mudslides, rains, and flooding.

“How are we going to permit these huge luxury hotels to be here, while people outside are up to their necks in rain?” Chavez declared after giving the nationally televised order to occupy the hotels.

Chavez repeatedly called for “order” in the process of transporting people and occupying the hotels and charged National Guard General Luis Motto to manage the proces.

In an interview with the state television station VTV, General Motto stressed that there is no seizure of private property occurring at the hotels as some media outlets have alleged, and that the government is coordinating with the hotel owners for the temporary occupation.

“It is completely calm here. The private management is collaborating willingly. The hotel owners have communicated with us and up until now they have offered 150 bedrooms,” said Motto amidst a group of flood refugees outside of the Higuerote Hotel near Caracas.

The opposition television channel Globovision interviewed the vice president of the National Federation of Hotels, Ricardo Cusanno, who stated: “We are always open to helping, but within a cordial relationship in which the rules are clear.”

Civil Society Efforts
A number of independent efforts by people and organizations around the country have also strengthened the overall response to Venezuela’s worst rain in 40 years.

The Venezuelan Network of Afro-Descendants has opened its Center for Integral Studies of the African Diaspora in the coastal region of Barlovento to house and provide basic services to flood victims.

Several labor unions and community organizations have also initiated spontaneous efforts to aid flood victims. The state-funded leftist youth organization Frente Francisco de Miranda has sent brigades of relief workers to affected communities nation-wide.

María Rosa Jimenez, a national coordinator of the Frente Francisco de Miranda, described the civil society relief effort to the state television station VTV: “What is happening is the people are deepening their solidarity with one another, and their trust in the government, which has shown its face,” she said.

“The crisis is the product of the economic and social model we live in,” Jimenez said, reiterating the argument made by many Venezuelan socialists that capitalism has caused environmental destruction that in turn has created natural disasters such as the recent rains.

“Whatever the government of President Hugo Chavez does, those who sustain this model and the private media that serve it and serve the historically dominant classes are going to try to generate fear and fabricate a reality that is not the one the people are living,” said Jimenez.

Government officials and members of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela have repeatedly called on the Catholic Church and the opposition-controlled state and local governments to help in the flood relief effort by opening their facilities to people displaced by the rains and by actively helping the relief effort.

Venezuela experienced a record-setting drought in 2009 that nearly shutdown the nation’s largest dam and contributed to a national electricity shortage. The recent rains have punctuated a particularly heavy rainy season this year.

David Sánchez of the National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology announced yesterday that light rains are expected to continue in Venezuela’s eastern and Andean regions.

The last two weeks of rains have caused the death of 35 people, destroyed the homes of more than 5,000 people, and led more than 70,000 to flee their homes and take refuge in hundreds of emergency tent camps, hotels, and government buildings including the presidential palace and other structures that have been transformed into shelters.

New Health Care Agreement With Cuba

2010-12-09T21:34:00.005-05:00

45,174 Venezuelans received free medical assistance in Cuba
November 30, 2010
http://www2.minci.gob.ve/noticiaingles.asp?num=2644

“It has been 10 years after the endorsement of the Comprehensive Health Agreement Cuba-Venezuela and the results can be clearly seen: 45,174 Venezuelan affected by different pathologies went to Cuba in order to receive assistance for their health problems.” Explained the coordinator of the cooperation program Johnny Ramos.

Ramos assured that there are cases of patients who were declared terminally ill in health centers of Venezuela. These people suffered from cancer, CVAs and conditions in their vital organs. They underwent a proper medical treatment in Cuba and now enjoy perfect health and have a better quality of life.

He explained that one of the conclusions about the neglect of patients with serious diseases is that a significant number of Venezuelan doctors have a mercantilist conception of health. Thus, doctors send home patients who cannot afford a medical treatment.

“In Venezuela, there are excellent doctors, they are among the best of the world. The difference stems from the point of view in which medicine is considered. Venezuelan doctors had the idea of making money, while in Cuba they have the idea to help those human beings in need.” Ramos pointed out.

“We understand than a professional of medicine has studied to have a better life but a persons health cannot be priced, and that is what has occurred in our health care system.” He said.

However, thanks to the agreement endorsed by the Venezuelan and Cuban governments, the philosophical conception of health in Venezuela is being transformed through the education of new professionals of the Latin American Medicine School (ELAM).

More than 1,000 graduates are doing postgraduate courses in Cuba and Venezuela to date. A group of these postgraduates have joined the flagship bi-national health program: Mission Barrio Adentro. “The directors Mission Barrio Adentro are Venezuelan. There are currently around 10,000 students in the last year of the medicine school and all of them are professionals with another way to conceive medicine, as socialist medicine, in which people is not treated as merchandise.”

Another decade to go
On November 10, President Hugo Chávez Frías and Raúl Castro Ruz ratified the comprehensive agreement for another decade.

Ramos stated that this new phase has the aim to create centers of specialized assistance. The main objective during the first ten years was to consolidate Mission Barrio Adentro in its phases I, II and III, which include primary health care, comprehensive care, Centers of Comprehensive Diagnosis, Comprehensive Rehabilitation Rooms and restoration of public hospitals.

“The specialized centers allow not only to give assistance to the patients, but also to contribute to the education of the human resources. We are currently working on the creation of the Oncological Hospital, the National Center for Neurological Restoration and the National Center for the Treatment of Addictions.” Ramos remarked.

The agreement will enter a new phase in 2011: “10,000 Venezuelan doctors will join the program. They are going to progressively replace our Cuban brothers because the health system is intended to be managed by Venezuelans.” He added.

Ministry of Peoples Power for Foreign Affairs

Self-Emancipation and Struggle Are the Keys to Changing the World

2010-12-08T22:32:00.001-05:00

Dear Friends,

Putting Humans Back in Socialism is a new book by Michael Lebowitz which draws on his more than ten-year experience in Venezuela. Referring to what President Hugo Chavez calls "the elementary triangle of socialism" -- social ownership of the means of production, social production organised by workers, and production for communal needs -- Lebowitz outlines what is at the heart of this radical alternative for the 21st Century.
___________________________________
Putting Humans Back into Socialismby Federico Fuentes
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5838
Book Review: The Socialist Alternative by Michael Lebowitz, Monthly Review Press, 2010, 192 pages; US$15.95

The onset of the global economic crisis in mid 2008, symbolised by the collapse of some of Wall Street's most iconic companies, led to soaring sales of Karl Marx's seminal work Das Kapital, as many sought explanations to the tumultuous events unfolding.

Although written more than 100 years ago, this devastating and insightful dissection of how capital functions is still a powerful tool for people looking to understand and change the world.

Marx's aim was to provide a handbook for working-class activists that unravelled the logic of capital and its inherently exploitative nature. Marx said this was necessary because as long as workers did not understand that capital was the result of their exploitation, they would not be able to defeat their enemy.

Michael Lebowitz's latest book, The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development says it is essential also to investigate the important insights Marx made regarding the alternative.

This easily accessible book is written to provide young and working-class socialist militants a weapon in their struggle for a better world.

It is hard to agree more with Bill Fletcher Jr., when he says this book "should be the focus of discussion groups of activists as they attempt to unite their radical practice with theorising a radical, democratic and Marxist alternative for the future".

Lebowitz rejects the old saying that "if we don't know where we want to go, any path will take us there." Rather, if you don't know where you are going, no path will lead you there.

Lebowitz says: "The purpose of this book is to point to an alternative path" focused on the "full development of human potential".

Pulling together the different threads in Marx's various sketches on socialism, and drawing on his own personal experiences and studies on "real existing socialism," social democracy, and most importantly, Venezuela's struggle for a new socialism for the 21st Century, The Socialist Alternative aims to "develop a general vision of socialism and concrete directions for struggle".

Lebowitz's idea of socialism breaks from the dominant vision that prioritises "the development of productive forces" that, supposedly, will one day provide abundance and "allow everyone to consume and consume in accordance with their needs".

Instead, he places humans at the centre of its focus.
The book does not set out to be about the Bolivarian process in Venezuela -- Lebowitz has lived in Venezuela since 2004 -- but many of the ideas in it will be familiar to those acquainted with the ideas being debated today within a mass movement where the idea of socialism has gripped the mind of the masses and converted itself into a material force for change.

The idea that self-emancipation and struggle are the keys to changing the world and people is essential to Lebowitz's argument.

Citing Friedrich Engels, Lebowitz maintains that the aim of communists is "to organise society in such a way that every member of it can develop and use all his capacities and powers in complete freedom and without thereby infringing the basic condition of this society".

The only way to do so is through "revolutionary practice" because human development is not a gift given from on high. Marx explained that revolutionary struggle produces a simultaneous "changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change".

Put another way, "without the protagonism that transforms people, you cannot produce the people who belong in the good society … and understand that the development of the human capacities on the one side [cannot be] based on the restriction of development on the other".

Capitalism offers no alternative in this regard. Rather, it is a system based on a "vicious cycle".

People have real needs but do not possess the means to satisfy them. They are therefore forced to work for those that do (capitalists) and compete against others in repetitive labour, so as to be able to buy at least some of the products they need.

Lebowitz says: "Add to this the fact that workers' needs to consume grow as a result of the combination of the alienation (the impoverishment, the "complete emptying-out) characteristic of capitalist production and the constant generation of new needs by capital in its attempt to sell commodities, and it is easy to see why workers are compelled to continually present themselves in the labour market".

This vicious cycle never stops under capitalism. Capital requires workers to see the cycle as a "normal" part of life.

"The advance of capitalist production develops a working class which by education, tradition and habit looks upon the requirement of that mode of production as self-evident natural laws," wrote Marx in Capital.

Today however, capital is haunted by the spectre of "socialism for the 21st century".
Drawing on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and what he calls "the elementary triangle of socialism" -- social ownership of the means of production, social production organised by workers, and production for communal needs -- Lebowitz outlines what is at the heart of this radical alternative for the 21st Century.

Private ownership of the means of production must be replaced with social ownership of the products of social heritage and social labour as the "only way to ensure that these are used in the interests of society and not for private gain".

But social and state ownership are not the same. A real socialist alternative requires a "profound democracy from below rather than decisions by a state that stands over and above society", where all workers are able to develop their human capacities.

Critical to this is the second side of the triangle: Social production.

In opposition to the command-and-obey workplace, a socialist alternative must be based on the replacement of the division of labour between those that think (intellectual labour) and those that do (manual labour).

This artificial division can best be overcome with collective democratic decision-making in the workplace.

To complete the triangle of social ownership and worker management, Lebowitz says productive activity must be geared towards the needs of others.

That is, the creation of a society based on solidarity, where there is an exchange "not of exchange values but 'of activities, determined by communal needs and communal purposes'".

The second half of the book deals with how we get there: "Knowing where you want to go is only the first part; it's not at all the same as knowing how to get there."

Here again, Lebowitz puts stress on revolutionary practice. He says the impulse for the development of socialism must be the drive of workers for their own human development.

Workers need not only "seize possession of production" to introduce worker management and communal production. They also need to "seize possession of the state" and conquer political power.

As the Communist Manifesto says: "The first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class."

From this position of power, "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state".

The experience of the Paris Commune convinced Marx and Engels workers could not use the ready existing state for its own purposes; rather it had to be smashed and replaced by a new state of "self-working and self-governing communes".

So the struggle for a socialist transformation must unfold on two fronts: within the state that owns the means of production, and in the workplaces.

But the struggle also unfolds within the context of an emerging new society that is, said Marx, "economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old [capitalist] society from whose womb it emerges".

For the struggle to succeed, it is vital to fight consciously against the "defects" inherited from the old society and subordinate -- rather than try to use -- these defects to one's ends.

Lebowitz is opposed to a vision of socialism that suggests it must pass through distinct stages, where priority is first given to developing the productive forces to create a world of abundance, and says this was not Marx's view.

Chapter six, "Making a path to socialism", offers a kind of transitional program for socialism in the 21st century.

Lebowitz's starting point is that the transition towards socialism must move forward simultaneously on all three fronts of the socialist triangle.

He says every concrete measure must serve to change circumstances while helping to produce revolutionary subjects and raise their capacities.

"Only in a revolution," wrote Marx and Engels, can the working class "succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew."

Threats to this revolutionary process are always present from counter-revolutionary capitalist elements, the tendency of bureaucrats to "seize production" for themselves and the tendency to rely on the market to resolve problems.

To combat this, a "socialist mode of regulation" is essential to allow socialism to subordinate all elements of society to itself, and create the organs it still lacks.

This encompasses an ideological struggle against capitalism and for socialism ("The Battle of Ideas"); the creation of worker and community councils where people can organise to change their circumstances and themselves at the same time; and "a state that supports this struggle ideologically, economically, and militarily and thus serves as the midwife for the birth of the new society".

At this point, Lebowitz asks a central question: "What do we mean by the state?

"We have to talk about two states here -- one, the state that workers captured at the outset and that initiates despotic inroads upon capital, that is, the old state; and, second, the emerging new state based upon workers councils and neighbourhood councils as its cells.

"The two must coexist and interact throughout this process of becoming.

"The inherent tension between these two states -- between the top-down orientation from within the old state and the bottom-up emphasis of the workers and community councils -- is obvious."

"Yet," Lebowitz argues adamantly, "that tension is not the principle contradiction."

Given the presence of revolutionaries in the old state, it would be an error to act as if it was the same as the capitalist state.

Similarly, it would be a mistake to ignore the vices of the old society present in the embryonic forms of the new state.

The struggle against bureaucrats seeking to defend their privileges or ideological inertia will unfold within both states.

At the same time, Lebowitz says, "interaction between the two states is essential".

The old state has the advantage of being able to see the picture as a whole and concentrate forces, but it also has a tendency to act from above and prioritise expediency over revolutionary practice.

The new organs can identify "the needs and capacities of people and can mobilise people to link those needs and capacities directly".

But there is also a tendency towards localism and the new emerging state "is not capable at the outset of making essential decisions that require concentration and coordination of forces".

Critical to all this is a political instrument -- or political party -- that can provide leadership. This is needed because a society marked by the vices of the old cannot produce a process where all workers become socialists at the same time.

But a new kind of leadership that "fosters revolutionary practice only by continuously learning from below. There is, in short, a process of interaction, a dialectic between the political instrument and popular movements.

"By itself, the former becomes a process of command from above; by itself, the latter cannot develop a concept of the whole -- that is, it cannot transcend localism."

The Socialist Alternative is an inspiring and insightful contribution to the discussion of rebuilding the socialist project in light of past failures and the current challenges facing anti-capitalist activists everywhere.

No doubt here in Australia, in the context of the resources boom and the growing environmental crisis, the ideas raised in the book regarding social ownership and the need to struggle for transparency -- "open the books" -- will provide much food for thought for ecosocialists in the battles that lie ahead of us.

Challenge: Debate, Revolutionary Strategy, and Tactics

2010-11-30T15:02:00.001-05:00

States and revolution in Latin America
Sunday, November 28, 2010
By Federico Fuentes

It should come as no surprise that Latin America, a region converted into a laboratory for ongoing experiments in social change, has increasingly become the topic of discussion and debate among the broader left.

Latin America has not only dealt blows to imperialism but also raised the banner of socialism on a global scale. It is of strategic importance for those fighting for a better world, especially at a time when capitalism is in systemic crisis.

Latin America’s landscape of powerful social movements, left governments of various shades, revolutionary insurrections, and growing expressions of indigenous resistance and worker control, provides a perfect scenario for leftists to learn about, and debate, revolutionary strategy and tactics.

This should not simply be an academic debate. It should look at how to best build solidarity with these movements for change and gain insight for struggles at home.

Of late, burning dispute has opened up, mostly among those writing from an anti-capitalist orientation: a debate over the complex relationship, or “dance” as Ben Dangl calls it, between social movements and states in Latin America.

Dancing with Dynamite: States and Social Movements in Latin America is Dangl’s second book.

Like his first book, The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia, (reviewed GLW issue 714 http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/37786), Dangl’s latest offering provides an opportunity for the subjects of the social changes underway in Latin America to speak for themselves and tell their own story.

However, this time he expands his focus beyond Bolivia and the wars between communities and corporations, to look at how an intriguing dance between states, governments and social movements is playing out in seven different countries. All the countries have varying characteristics but similar challenges.

Moreover, Dancing with Dynamite is a much more explicit polemic, developing some of the ideas first outlined in The Price of Fire.

Dangl’s introduction to Dancing with Dynamite says: “The discussion surrounding the question of changing the world through taking state power or remaining autonomous has been going on for centuries.

“The vitality of South America’s new social movements, and the recent shift to the left in the halls of government power, make the region a timely subject of study within this ongoing debate.”

As the title suggests, Dangl comes out strongly for “remaining autonomous” from state power.

Whatever one might think of this thesis, Dangl’s book is an important contribution to the debate that should be read for at least two reasons.

First, it is written by the founder of Upsidedownworld.org, one of the most influential English-language websites on the left for information and analysis about Latin America.

Anyone who follows this website (such as me), will have some sense of the politics put forward in the book.

The focus here, as in Upsidedownworld.org, is very much on the social movements and struggles unfolding within each national context.

Second, Dangl not only sets out to analyse the movements in Latin America, but also to examine what lessons activists in the United States can extract from the struggles south of the border.

In essence, while his views on the various governments and their character differ, each chapter tends to portray a similar picture.

Citing Emma Goldman, Noam Chomsky and John Holloway, author of the polemical book Change the World Without Taking Power, Dangl argues that in each country he studied, while social movements are constantly on a “tightrope walk between cooptation and genuine collaboration,” more often than not, cooperation with the state leads to demobilisation.

The dance between state and social movements can be deadly, because “the state and governing parties is, by its nature, a hegemonic force that generally aims to subsume, weaken or eliminate other movements and political forces”.

Faced with this dangerous dance, Dangl reaches the same conclusion as Raul Zibechi, Uruguayan activist and author of Dispersing Power: Social Movements as Anti-State Forces.

“If the state is in danger of falling into the hands of fascist groups”, Zibechi says, “we should do all we can to prevent that from happening, including participating in the elections, in a direct form or in support of other connected groups.

“But we know that there, in this field, in this space, what is central to our future is not being fought over. We will not put our best forces in this terrain because we know that what is fought over there, usually, is not decisive in terms of changing the system.”

This is why, according to Dangl, Venezuelan Presiden Hugo Chavez, Bolivian President Evo Morales and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva “demonstrate important parallels”.

It’s just that “populist rhetoric, constitutional changes, and funds from nationalised industries cushion the setbacks in Venezuela and Bolivia”.

If we want to look for a real alternative, Dangl says we won’t find them in Venezuela or Bolivia, where many of the movements “bow down to politicians and parties during campaign seasons, and then prostrate themselves for government handouts or positions”.

Instead, he says we need to look at the Landless Workers Movement of Brazil (MST), which “doesn’t wait for the state — it acts according to its own logic and needs”.

The MST best encapsulates the correct approach of both “pressuring the state and empowering their own territories from below.”

Using an approach of expanding — or “dispersing” — power “can mean working to become a sustainable movement that can weather political climates”, says Dangl.

Leaving to one side whether this accurately reflects the goals of the MST or not, a number of problems arise in such an analysis.

For a start, Dangl uses the terms government and state interchangeably, confusing two different things. Second, his ideal of “dispersing power” (while pressuring the existing state), as opposed to creating an alternate state power, leads to some contradictory conclusions.

On the one hand he argues that by their nature, states coopt and ultimately destroy social movements.

Yet, Dangl also argues that while “working for a better world without a state” a “viable strategy” could be “supporting state-based programs, if they indeed help people achieve their long and short term goals”.

The chapter on Venezuela best highlights what Dangl means.

Correctly pointing out that the old, existing state “replicates the inequalities and challenges found in many other nations”, Dangl also notes that this state is attempting to, in the words of Sara Motta “create a new set of state institutions that bypass the traditional state, and distribute power in a democratic and participatory manner”.

The explanation for this seeming contradiction is simple.

First, Dangl confuses the difference between a movement — in this case the Bolivarian movement — winning government and controlling the state.

When Chavez was first elected in 1998, he was elected as the head of a capitalist state. However, he and the movement very quickly realised that this state had not been created to benefit the majority, and that instead it was necessary to “give power to the people” to tackle poverty.

To shift the rules of the game more in its favour, the Bolivarian movement convoked a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution.

But to make this, and the government’s social and economic programs, a reality, it was necessary to gain real control over the state, and in particular PDVSA, the state oil company.

It was the attempt by the Chavez government to move forward on this front that triggered an intense reaction by Venezuela’s elites, who saw it as a direct attack on them.

The intense class battles of 2002 — the struggle to defeat the April military coup and then the December-January 2003 bosses’ lockout of the oil industry — led to the emergence of a number of important social movements (particularly the workers movement) and a break of capital’s control over the armed forces.

These forces were crucial to the survival of the government, but also shifted the balance of class forces in favour of the poor majority and their government, which only now had the power to move forward on a number of its social programs.

And more importantly, they helped in the creation on the new state institutions that Dangl and Motta refer to.

Since then, the Bolivarian movement has worked to stimulate the self-activity of the masses to create new organs of popular power — worker councils, communes and peoples militias — as the bedrock of the new communal state.

By operating within the old state to destroy it, and working to build a new state from below at the same time, the Bolivarian movement has been able to advance.

Michael Lebowitz argues in his new book The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development, that while tensions between the “top-down orientation” of the old state and the “bottom-up emphasis” of the new communal state will exist in Venezuela, this “tension is not the principle contradiction”.

Rather, just as we find revolutionaries working within and against the old state in order to build a new society, so do we find old ideas and vices present within social movements that have emerged in the old society.

The challenge is how to best link these two forces through the revolutionary struggle to destroy the old state and build the new communal state.

Essential to this is the construction of a political instrument — a mass revolutionary party — that can bring together these activists to share experiences and provide political leadership in the battle to capture power, destroy the old state and build a new socialist society.

This is the struggle unfolding today in Venezuela, both in the developing worker and communal councils, and in the construction of a mass revolutionary party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela.

In all these areas we will find evidence of the old state bureaucracy and its allies working to undermine self-organisation of the masses. Just as we will find rank and file militants who drag with them the vices inherit in a capitalist society.

Bringing together revolutionaries to build an independent movement of workers and oppressed sectors and confront and destroy the old state helps to overcome these obstacles.

The alternative, that focuses solely on building local power, but refusing to destroy the capitalist state, can only lead on the one hand to support for pro-capitalist forces and the demoralisation of social movements on the other.

By downplaying the political struggle, reducing it to electoral terms, Dangl ends up lending support to the idea of voting for politicians like Obama. If the political struggle is not important, then why not just support the “lesser evil” rather than build a political independent movement of the working class?

Similarly, by refusing to create an independent working class party to help cohere and orientate local struggles not only to resist, but take power, the struggle can be led down the path of demoralisation and defeat.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46272

Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA)

2010-11-24T22:00:00.004-05:00

Cuba and Venezuela Commemorate 10th Anniversary of Bilateral Cooperation
by James Suggett

Mérida, November 8th 2010 – The Cuban and Venezuelan governments commemorated the 10th anniversary of the beginning of their bilateral cooperation during a working visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to the Caribbean island over the weekend.

On October 30, 2000, during Chavez’s second year in office, the two countries signed the “Integral Agreement for Collaboration” in Caracas. It marked the beginning of an anti-imperialist alliance and a form of exchange that was presented as an alternative to the US-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas.

Through the accord, Venezuela began shipping 53,000 barrels per day of its principal export, oil, to fuel-starved Cuba in exchange for human services worth the approximate market value of the oil.

In subsequent years, tens of thousands of Cuban doctors, dentists, optometrists, physical therapists, nurses, and other health care workers staffed free clinics in thousands of Venezuela’s poorest neighborhoods. Cuba also provided vaccines, treatment for illnesses such as heart disease, anemia, asthma, HIV and AIDS, and began training Venezuelan doctors in a program called “Integral Community Medicine.”

Also through the accord, Cuban agronomists worked with Venezuelan officials to modernize Venezuela’s sugar industry, and Cuban specialists provided on-site training in agroecology, organic fertilizer production, irrigation, sustainable forestry, and the promotion of agricultural cooperatives. Cuban literacy trainers assisted Venezuela’s national drive to eradicate illiteracy, a goal that was achieved in 2005 according to the United Nations. In addition, Cuban physical education experts worked to integrate athletics into Venezuela’s public health and public education systems.

Bilateral relations between Cuba and Venezuela have expanded over the years to include state-controlled economic development projects in the areas of oil refining, electricity production, tourism, mining, light and heavy industries, and railway systems.

In 2004, Venezuela and Cuba created a bloc called the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) that is based on the Cuba-Venezuela model of cooperation and now also includes Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.

In an interview broadcast on Venezuelan and Cuban television on Sunday, President Chavez said this system of integration was “unprecedented in Latin America and the world.”

He said bilateral cooperation with Cuba has helped his oil-dependent nation boost its long-neglected agricultural sector, diversify its industry, and strengthen its anti-poverty programs.

“The Cuban people have made a great contribution to the Bolivarian Revolution,” said Chavez, referring to his government’s program, which is named after Simon Bolivar, a Latin American independence hero. “Both nations have benefitted from this relationship, respecting the particularities of our respective systems... both revolutions will continue to be consolidated and to mutually support each other,” said Chavez.

The president boasted about Venezuela’s reduction of poverty, malnutrition, infant mortality, and economic inequality, and its increase in educational enrollment from primary school through the university under his ten-year administration. He noted that these achievements are recognized by the United Nations and said they are steps toward “21st Century Socialism.”

“We have become the cradle of a new world,” said the president.

Chavez emphasized the role of the US government in impeding this process by supporting a military coup organized by the Venezuelan opposition in April 2002 and by maintaining its blockade against Cuba despite repeated unanimous votes in the United Nations to end the blockade.

“Cuba and Venezuela have united to break the chains of backwardness, and we have helped Cuba to minimize the impact of the blockade imposed by the United States,” Chavez said. “That is why the [US] empire attacked and continues to attack Cuba so much, they are trying to put out the flame,” said the Venezuelan president.

The Venezuelan opposition has strongly criticized the Chavez administration’s cooperation with Cuba. In September, opposition candidates for the Venezuelan National Assembly centered their campaign platforms on ominous warnings that Venezuela was on the road toward a “Castro-communist dictatorship.” Large opposition media outlets regularly state that the increased role of the Venezuelan state in industries such as oil, food, construction, and electricity stifles economic growth and violates the constitutional right to own private property.

The government has responded by asserting that the government is defending the right of Venezuela’s poor to participation in private property ownership by guaranteeing access to basic goods and services.

www.venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuela Will PRovide All Aid and Support Necessary

2010-11-24T21:52:00.000-05:00

Hugo Chavez Demands End of Military Intervention in Haiti www.insidecostarica.com/dailynews/2010/november/22/latinamerica10112202.htm

CARACAS - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday demanded the withdrawal of foreign soldiers from Haiti, where a cholera epidemic has worsened the humanitarian crisis.

"How long would the military occupation continue in Haiti behind the shield of the UN? With what moral authority can the Haitian people be asked to cease their protests against foreign troops?

Haiti does not want to be Puerto Rico, a yankee neocolony, but that does not matter in the least to the United Nations or the Organization of American States," Chavez wrote in his Sunday column, Las Lineas de Chavez (Chavez' Lines).

According to the statesman, the world cannot remain impassive in face of the Haitian situation.

That tragedy continues to strike hearts, said Chavez, who lamented the death of over 1,000 people from cholera, in the nation devastated by a January earthquake.

The president reaffirmed Caracas' support to Haiti in that space.

"Venezuela will continue providing all aid and support necessary to the Haitian people. We will also speak out to increase efforts in solidarity within UNASUR and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America," Chavez stated.

Toronto Teach-In Discusses Cochabamba Agenda for Climate Justice

2010-11-18T10:34:00.000-05:00

Dear Friends,

The November 13 teach-in on climate justice, endorsed by Venezuela We Are With You Coalition, was a great success. More than 125 participants heard 18 presentations from members of 16 different organizations. The teach-in aimed to bring into focus the Cochabamba agenda for social justice and defense of the "rights of Mother Earth," to draw together community groups working on social issues related to climate justice, and to highlight ongoing campaigns for climate justice both in Canada and internationally. The article below summarizing our successful conference was published today at http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=3459

Toronto Teach-In Discusses Cochabamba Agenda for Climate Justice
November 17, 2010

Activists discuss concepts far removed from the usual media babble about cap-and-trade and carbon offsets -- ideas that are unfamiliar to many on the left
by John Riddell

TORONTO -- An all-day conference on climate justice here November 13 indicated broadening support for the global climate justice movement.
Entitled Lessons from Bolivia: Building a Global Movement for Climate Justice, the conference was endorsed by 35 community organizations, ranging from the Toronto & York District Labour Council to the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Council of Canadians, and York University's Centre for Research on Latin America and the Caribbean.

More than 125 participants heard 18 presentations from members of 16 different organizations.

The conference took as its starting point the decisions of the April 2010 People's Assembly on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The Assembly's decisions charted a path toward countering climate change through measures based on social justice and respect for the "rights of nature."

The governments of Bolivia and other less-developed countries have secured the integration of many recommendations of the 30,000 Cochabamba conference participants into United Nations recommendations on climate change. However, an almost total media blackout has ensured that few people here -- including on the left -- are aware of the Cochabamba initiative.

The Toronto conference had to explain concepts far removed from the usual media babble about cap-and-trade and carbon offsets -- ideas that are unfamiliar to many on the left.

Ian Angus, editor of Climate and Capitalism, noted that "the Cochabamba resolutions, and the discussions here today, include many references to Pachamama, Mother Earth. Many of us feel uncomfortable with that languageâ€¦. I fully understand that response -- but it is wrong. The Indigenous cosmovision â€¦ is completely compatible with the militant struggle for social justice we all support, and we can all learn from it." (See Responding to the Cochabamba Challenge)

It was thus fitting that the congress began with ceremonial singing and drumming by the Spirit Wind aboriginal women's group and an explanation of the concept of our obligations to Mother Earth by Marcelo Saavedra-Vargas, professor of indigenous studies at the University of Ottawa.

The central ideas of the Cochabamba conference were discussed in presentations by Angus, Teresa Turner of the Ecosocialist International Network, and Judy Deutsch of Science for Peace and in four workshop sessions.

The keynote address by Erika Duenas of the Bolivian Embassy in Washington DC explained her country's achievements in carrying the Cochabamba agenda into the arena of inter-governmental negotiations on climate change. (See ALBA Declaration) She called for support of the people's intervention that will press for this agenda at the governmental conference on climate change to be held in Cancun, Mexico, November 29--December 10.

A second session consisted of five workshops on different social movements related to the climate justice movement. Three were on well-established arenas of work for ecological justice: water rights, mining, and tar sands. The other two reflected ways in which climate justice relates to central issues of social struggle: "Environment and the World Working Class" and "Environment, Migration, and Racism."

The final session included a summation by Judy Rebick of Toronto Bolivia Solidarity, plus presentations on three projects posed for action by the nascent climate justice movement as a whole.

Julien Lalonde and Brett Rhyno explained plans to hold a People's Assembly on Climate Justice in Toronto December 4.(link)

Raul Burbano of Toronto Bolivia Solidarity reported on efforts by a coalition of social movements to organize a popular consultation during 2011, based on a proposal of the Cochabamba conference.

Michel Lambert, director of the Quebec-based social justice organization Alternatives, announced plans for a Canada-wide climate justice conference to be hosted by Alternatives in Montreal in the spring of 2011.

The teach-in was initiated by Toronto Bolivia Solidarity (link) and co-organized by representatives of Community Solidarity Response--Toronto, Council of Canadians--Toronto, KAIROS, People's Assembly for Climate Justice, Science for Peace, the Toronto Climate Campaign, and others.

ALBA Nations: Nature Is Our Home

2010-11-18T10:29:00.002-05:00

ALBA nations declare: Nature has no price!
November 15, 2010
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=3443

Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Venezuela declare: "Nature is our home and is the system of which we form a part, and therefore it has infinite value, but it does not have a price and is not for sale."

Ministers, Authorities of the Ministerial Committee for the Defense of Nature of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Republic of Cuba, Republic of Ecuador, Republic of Nicaragua, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas -- Treaty of Commerce of the People (ALBA-TCP), gathered in the city of La Paz in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, from November 3rd to 5th, 2010.

Considering that:
1. There is within the United Nations is a push to promote the concept of a "green economy" or a "Global Green New Deal"[1] in order to extend capitalism in the economic, social and environmental arenas, in which nature is seen as "capital" for producing tradable environmental goods and services that should then be valued in monetary terms and assigned a price so that they can be commercialized with the purpose of obtaining profits.

2. Studies are being carried out and manipulated, such as the Stern Report on the Economics of Climate Change and the study on the Economy of Ecosystems and Biodiversity,[2] among others, in order to promote the privatization and the mercantilization of nature through the development of markets for environmental services, among other instruments.

3. Those who promote this new form of privatization and mercantilization of nature wish to develop a new kind of property rights which are not exercised over a natural resource in itself, but rather, over the functions offered by particular ecosystems, thus opening up the possibility of commercializing them in the market through certificates, bonds, credits, etc.

4. Under this capitalist conception that seeks only to guarantee benefit for those few who wield economic power: water should be privatized and distributed only to those that can afford to pay for it, forests are only good for capturing emissions and for selling on the carbon market that allows rich countries to avoid reducing emissions within their own territories, and genetic resources must be appropriated and patented for the enjoyment of those who possess modern technology.

Recognizing that:
The right to safe drinking water and sanitation is a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of life, which has been endorsed by the United Nations and can only be guaranteed through the recognition and defense of the rights of Mother Earth.

Convinced that:
States are responsible for guaranteeing the sovereignty of the peoples over their natural patrimony and natural resources.

We declare:
1. That nature is our home and is the system of which we form a part, and that therefore it has infinite value, but does not have a price and is not for sale.

2. Our commitment to preventing capitalism from continuing to expand in the spheres that are essential to life and nature, being that this is one of the greatest challenges confronting humanity.

3. Our absolute rejection of the privatization, monetization and mercantilization of nature, for it leads to a greater imbalance in the environment and goes against our ethical principles.

4. Our condemnation of unsustainable models of economic growth that are created at the expense of our resources and the sovereignty of our peoples.

5. Only a humanity that is conscious of its present and future responsibilities, and states with the political will to carry out their role, can change the course of history and restore equilibrium in nature and life as a whole.

6. That instead of promoting the privatization of goods and services that come from nature, it is essential to recognize that these have a collective character, and, as such, should be conserved as public goods, respecting the sovereignty of states.

7. It is not the invisible hand of the market that will allow for the recuperation of equilibrium on Mother Earth. Only with the conscious intervention of state and society through policies, public regulations, and the strengthening of public services can the equilibrium of nature be restored.

8. Cancun cannot be another Copenhagen; we hope that accords will be reached in which developed countries truly act according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and effectively assume their obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, without making climate change into a business through the promotion and creation of carbon market mechanisms.

9. That, committed to life, the countries present at this meeting agree to include in our permanent agenda, among other actions, the realization of a referendum on climate change and the promotion of the participation of the peoples of the world.
10. That it is urgent to adopt at the United Nations a Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth.
------
[1] Global Green New Deal, 2009
[2] The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

Solidarity Brigade to Venezuela!

2010-11-17T21:49:00.001-05:00

Join the May Day 2011 solidarity brigade to Venezuela!
April 25th -- May 4th, 2011

The Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network invites you to observe first-hand the inspiring Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. The sweeping social changes being carried out by Venezuela's "people's power" movements are radically transforming life for the majority in that country - workers, women, Indigenous people, young people and all those who have suffered the injustices of poverty, exploitation and exclusion that accompany corporate globalisation.

Along the way, this remarkable revolution is showing the rest of the world that a more rational, socially just and sustainable future is possible.

A special feature of the 2011 May Day brigade will be the opportunity it offers to observe the developing workers' participation and workers' control that is a vital part of the Venezuelan revolution, with visits to worker-run factories and cooperatives, and meetings with trade union and community management representatives in a variety of sectors and regions.

The brigadistas will also observe Venezuela's grassroots democracy in action, with visits to the social missions, communal councils and communes. They will meet and speak with grassroots activists in the free, high-quality public health and education services; sustainable development projects; community controlled media; and women's and Indigenous organisations.

Joining the huge May Day rally in Caracas on May 1st will be a another highlight.

This brigade is the 12th solidarity and study tour organised by the AVSN. Participants' reports and photos from previous brigades are available at http://www.venezuelasolidarity.org.

Registration and costs
The deadline for registering for the 2011 May Day solidarity brigade is February 28, 2011.

Participants will need to book their own international airfares, but the AVSN can help with advice (please do not book without contacting us to confirm the dates). The AVSN will organise all accommodation, transport and English-Spanish translation for the brigade.

In addition to international airfares, participants will need to budget for around A$1000 to cover all food, transport and accommodation (on a shared basis) during the brigade and the brigade registration fee ($500 for workers or $300 for full-time students/unemployed/pensioners).

For more information about this or future brigades, please email brigades@venezuelasolidarity.org or phone Lisa Macdonald 0413 031 108, Roberto Jorquera 0425 182 994 or John Cleary 0407 500 839.

Support for Bolivia's Global Climate Justice Campaign

2010-11-02T21:23:00.007-04:00

Dear Friends,

Venezuela We Are With You Coalition (CVEC) support the efforts of Bolivia's President Evo Morales and the Bolivian people to mobilize the world's people for climate justice. Please come to the Saturday, November 13 teach-in conference initiated by Toronto Bolivia Solidarity and organized by over 10 additional organizations. The endorser list grows everyday.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Building a Global Movement for Climate Justice:Lessons from Bolivia

Saturday, November 13, Sidney Smith Hall, 100 St. George St., Room 2118
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Registration 9:30 a.m. (Please pre-register so we may order your lunch; write boliviaclimatejustice@gmail.com

Welcome and introduction by chairpersons 10:00 a.m.

SESSION 1 - The Cochabamba Declaration
Theme: In April 2010, the government of Bolivia convened a conference of social movements on global warming in Cochabamba, Bolivia. More than 30,000 participants charted a path toward climate justice and defending the rights of Mother Earth. Presentations to plenary followed by workshops.

Speakers:
Marcelo Saavedra (Bolivia Action Solidarity Network, Ottawa): Our Obligations to Mother Earth
Ian Angus (Climate and Capitalism: Kemptville) Structural Causes and Climate Debt
Teresa Turner (Eco-Socialist International, Guelph): Cochabamba: A People's Conference
Judy Deutsch (Science for Peace): The Time Factor in Climate Change

12:00 Keynote speaker: Erika Duenas (Bolivian Embassy, Washington DC.
12:45 Lunch (provided)

SESSION 2 - 1:30 p.m.
Environmental (In)Justice in Our Communities
Brief presentations by resource persons for workshops on several areas of current climate justice activities (water, mining, tar sands, anti-racism, workers), followed by workshops on each of these themes.

Speakers:
Tara Seucharan (Council of Canadians): Water rights and climate justice
Megan Kinch (Toronto Community Solidarity Response): Mining, extractive industries
David Vasey and Maryam Adrangi (Environmental Justice Toronto): Tar sands and pipelines
Louise Casselman (Public Service Alliance of Canada, Ottawa): Environment and the world working class
No One Is Illegal: Environment, migration, and racism

SESSION 3 - 3 p.m.
Building a Climate Justice AlternativePresentations by Michel Lambert and Judy Rebick, followed by introductions on the People's Assembly for Climate Justice and the People's Referendum and workshops on each of these two topics.

Speakers:Michel Lambert (Alternatives): Climate justice initiatives in Quebec
Judy Rebick (Toronto Bolivia Solidarity): Solidarity with peoples in struggle for climate justice.
Julien Lalonde and Brett Rhyno (People's Assembly for Climate Justice): Toronto solidarity with the Cancun people's intervention. Brief introduction.
Raul Burbano (Toronto Bolivia Solidarity): Toward a people's referendum. Brief introduction.

Adjournment: 5 p.m.

List of Endorsers (partial): Alternatives (Québec),Barrio Nuevo, Bayan, Bolivia Action Solidarity Network, Center for Social Justice, Climate and Capitalism.com, Common Frontiers, Community Solidarity Response Toronto, Council of Canadians, ecoSanity.org, Educators for Peace and Justice, Greenspiration, Health for All, Independent Jewish Voices, Indigenous Environmental Network, KAIROS, Latin American Trade Union Coalition ,Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Network, Migrante, No One Is Illegal, OPIRG Toronto, NION, Jews Opposing Zionism; Public Service Alliance of Canada, People’s Assembly for Climate Justice, Protest Barrick, Science for Peace, Public Service Alliance of Canada, Solidarity Response, Students for Free Tibet, Toronto & York Region Labour Council, Toronto Bolivia Solidarity, Toronto Climate Campaign, Toronto Haiti Action Committee, Venezuela We Are With You Coalition

Report from Eyewitness from Toronto

2010-11-02T21:20:00.001-04:00

Venezuela's Opposition Suffers Moral Defeat in 2010 Parliamentary Elections

By Raul Burbano
Raul Burbano was an official International Observer in Venezuela's September 26, 2010parliamentary elections. Raul is a member of the Latin American and Caribbean Solidarity Network and the Venezuela We Are With You Coalition.

It was 2:30 a.m. on September 27 when the President of the National Electoral Council (CNE), Tibisay Lucena, walked into the press conference at the head office of the CNE and announced the first official results of the previous day's Parliamentary Elections.

The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) had once again defeated their opposition and obtained a clear majority of seats in Parliament -- 96 of 165. Although this was not the two-thirds majority that some in the PSUV had hoped for, it was a clear sign that the majority of Venezuelans continue to support the process of transformation that President Hugo Chavez has led over the past ten years. By this time, most local media and International Observers had gone home, while others slouched, partially asleep in their chairs.

The rightist opposition, realizing that they had failed to take control of the Parliament, immediately swung into spin mode, trying to massage the results in their favor. The opposition hailed its win of 65 parliamentary seats as a major setback for the Chavista camp. The international mainstream media parroted reports that Venezuelan's had rejected "Chavismo."

Few media pundits asked why the opposition couldn't win a majority. Judging by media reports, you'd think Venezuela is about the worse place in the world to live. Thus the Brookings Institute: "Private investment and oil production are imploding, GDP has fallen 14% since 2008, and inflation runs at 30 percent." (1) And the New York Times reported (August 2010): "Venezuela is more deadly than Iraq."

And yet, despite this supposed national calamity and government incompetence, the opposition failed to win a simple majority in Parliament. Obviously, the majority of the Venezuelan people see past the façade of the oppositions unity speeches. History has taught them that the traditional parties and institutions are merely proxies for those living comfortably in Miami.

Opposition's myth of majority popular vote
Early on as people started to digest the results, the opposition moved to conceal their moral loss. Out of the blue the head of the opposition party declared victory, claiming 52% of the national popular vote. The next morning Chavez, on national TV, with the CNE numbers in one hand and a simple map of Venezuela in the other, walked the nation through a simple arithmetic lesson: the PSUV received 5,422,040 votes and the opposition 5,320,175. This is a 50.5% versus 49.5% in favor of the PSUV.

The opposition boasted that they won more seats in this parliamentary election then in the last one held in 2005. What they neglected to explain was that they had boycotted the previous elections in an effort to delegitimize the electoral process. According to Roy Chaderton, a PSUV member elected to the Latin American Parliament (Parlatino), the opposition actually lost ground by losing 20 seats in the National Assembly when compared to the last elections in which the opposition participated in.

Opposition lacks true base of support
It is not hard to see that opposition lacks credibility or any substantial support. This can be shown by the fact that since 1999 the PSUV has handed the opposition 14 electoral defeats. By simply looking at the total votes that the opposition received nationally, it's hard to fully appreciate their true lack of popular support. The majority of their support lies within the country's small oligarchy that is aligned with foreign multinationals. According to Eva Golinger, "U.S. agencies fund and design their campaigns, train and build their parties, organize their NGOs, develop their messages, select their candidates and feed them with dollars to ensure survival." (2)

What the opposition lacks in popular support they make up in limitless financial support from the U.S., and a sophisticated network of foreign-trained media outlets. A report published in May 2010 by the Spanish Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue revealed that this year alone, US AID and their proxies invested in the neighborhood of $40 million-$50 million to shape the results of these Parliamentary elections. Their plan was simple: unite, train and guide the opposition in Venezuela because alone they would stand little chance of electoral victory. They aimed to retool their message to appeal to the masses by "development of strategies and messages that addressed the aspirations of low-income voters". (3)

Opposition accuses CNE of fraud
In order to try and discredit the process, the opposition tried to call into question the integrity of the CNE and their electoral process. Surely, with such a highly sophisticated and automated electoral system, there must have been fraud -- why else the delay of several hours in providing the results. So went the opposition's logic. One could suppose the opposition suffers from collective amnesia since they had forgotten that it was the same CNE that in the 2008 constitutional vote awarded them their first and only electoral victory against President Chavez. The CNE attributed this brief delay to the fact that results being too close to call and to the need to wait until the results were "irreversible." However, for the opposition this was just the start of their frantic attempt to rationalize and justify their moral defeat.

The National Electoral Council recognized 150 observers from across the globe to witness Venezuela's democratic process. Each party or alliance participating in the elections was permitted to invite up to 30 partisan witnesses from abroad. In addition, thousands of volunteers selected through a national lottery from across the country participated in the electoral process. These volunteers ran the 12,562 voting centers and 36,773 voting tables across the country ensuring massive and diverse civil participation and oversight.

The final report by the International observers was unanimous, and was summarized by the European Union International Electorate team: "The election process has been unique regarding the democratic guarantees and the voters' individual rights, the respect for vote's secrecy, and the transparency of the process." The opposition quickly realized that the very sophistication, transparency and inclusive nature of the electoral process did not lend itself to charges of fraud or manipulation and moved to their next target.

Opposition accuses Chavez of redrawing electoral districts
Venezuela's electoral system is a complicated hybrid system that includes both first-past-the-post (voto nominal) and proportional representation (voto listo). For these elections, 110 representatives were elected nominally and 52 were elected by party or proportion representation, with the final three going to indigenous legislators, for a total of 165.

The opposition accused the government of redrawing electoral districts favoring rural areas, which are strongholds of the PSUV, and under-representing urban centers where, supposedly, the opposition's base is concentrated. The CNE has acknowledged that "the system has the potential for a degree of disproportional representation" but the reality is that all political parties benefit from it from time to time and in these elections it seems that the opposition benefited the most.(4)
A case in point is the fact that the PSUV received at least 40% of the votes in the states of Zulia, Anzoategui, Nueva Esparta, and Tachira, yet they only received 7 parliamentary seats while the opposition obtained 27 seats. In Zulia, with its heavy populated urban centers, PSUV received only 156,376 votes fewer than the opposition. Yet the PUSV only received 3 seats in parliament, as against the opposition's 12 seats.

By looking at the results for each party individually and their representation in parliament, the picture becomes clear; the PSUV is only party that has massive support. On its own the PSUV won 58% of the seats in parliament with their closest rival, the Democratic Action (AD), taking merely 13% of the seats. No one party has anywhere close to the level of popular support at the national level that the PSUV has. In addition, the PSUV won the majority of the seats in 16 of Venezuela's 23 states.

With such a close margin between the PSUV and the opposition, can Chavez really claim victory? To answer this we need to put it into context and analyze the forces behind the opposition. For these elections, the opposition ("MUD" as they are known by their Spanish acronym) did a great job of combining all the forces of the right into one. Together this right-wing coalition is made up of more than 50 parties with various ideological allegiances. Some parties are only regional and others emerged simply for the elections. One can say the opposition employed the strategy of splitting votes across multiple opposition forces presenting the appearance of popular support. It's hard to envision how this opposition is going to function as a unified block in parliament, let alone present a real opposition to the PSUV.

Even "united," this massive block of opposition failed to achieve an electoral victory. There platform was not solution-based but rather focused on anti-"Chavismo." Their key weapon, as always, was fear, and for that voters punished them.

Biased media coverage
Another baseless claim from the opposition during the election was that the media is controlled and dominated by Chavez. These elections once again showed these claims to be without foundation. The CNE looked at the coverage of both parties on TV and their results were revealing. In paid television advertising slots between July 12 and September 21, 53% were placed by the opposition, while 39% were pro-PSUV, and the rest went to other political parties. In a second study of the two major state-owned television stations and the four private stations, 60.3% of political television advertising was pro-opposition.(5)

PSUV lacks a two-thirds majority in Parliament
Many claim that the PSUV failure to obtain a two-thirds majority in parliament is a major obstacle to Chavez in continuing the process of socialist transformation. In fact, the two-thirds margin is significant for presidential decrees, but its importance as a tool for deepening reform has been greatly exaggerated. Ninety-nine percent of laws are passed by simple majority. The major challenge to internal reform comes from within the party and society itself. If we look at the pace at which reforms have been adopted over the past few years, we see they are limited more by administrative capacity and bureaucracy than legislative. The Financial Times recently added up the value of industries nationalized by the Chavez government over the five years. Outside oil, it came to less than 8% of GDP.(6)

Challenges before the PSUV
Venezuela still has a long way to go before the state is in control of the economy. However, the immediate challenge lies in consolidating what has already been nationalized. Examples of this can be seen in Puerto Ordaz, in state of Bolivar, were this year NorPro, the bauxite processing plant de Venezuela was nationalization.

This factory is a great example of "co-management" -- a "socialist enterprise where workers have taken control and are in the process of transforming the company. However after six months under workers' control the plant struggles to start any production and its machines sit idle.

CVG Aluminio del Caroni,S.A. (ALCASA), an aluminum producing company in the state of Bolivar that was nationalized back 2005. Here workers have been running the plant for several years. Today the plant is losing significant amounts of revenue a year, due to the challenges facing the aluminum industry in the face of global recession. The challenge for them is how to retool the company so they are not just producing raw material for export to feed the capitalist market but rather producing products for their local market. The development of their downstream industry is hampered more by state bureaucracy than by legislative barriers.

The real struggle for participatory democracy in Venezuela does not lie with the traditional establishments of power, but rather lies at the grassroots level where many sectors of society are taking control of their communities. But it's precisely on the streets of Caracas that one is starting to hear dissatisfaction with aspects of nepotism and bureaucracy taking root in the PSUV. Corrupt professional politicians seeping into the ranks of the Bolivarian movement arouse indignation in the PSUV ranks.

The PSUV needs to guard against this and continue to focus on building popular power in the streets, barrios, and rural communities, which has taken form as communal councils and people's cooperatives. Under Chavez these forms of participatory democracy have flourished across the country. Only by energizing and nourishing popular power will Venezuelans see a true transformation of their society to a more egalitarian one based on socialist values.
_____________________________________
(1) http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0923_venezuela_elections_cardenas.aspx
(2) http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/09/us-interference-in-venezuelan-elections.html
(3) http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5623
(4) http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5674
(5) http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61215.shtml
(6) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/27/venezuela-election-opposition-politics

Good News for Venezuela's Socialist and Pro-Chavez Forces

2010-10-04T09:37:00.003-04:00

A New Opportunity for Venezuela's Socialists
by Gregory Wilpert
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5683

The good news for Venezuela's socialist and pro-Chavez forces is that while the September 26 National Assembly election might seem to be a disappointing result, because Chavez's party won only about 50% of the popular vote, it is actually quite impressive. That is, after nearly 12 years in government and after two particularly bad years, in which the economy shrank, in which there were numerous blackouts due to a severe drought and a lack of hydroelectric power, in which crime seemed to reach new highs, and in which government mismanagement caused tens of thousands of tons of food to rot, it is actually rather impressive that about 50% of the population would vote for Chavez's party. This represents a new opportunity for the governing socialists to learn from past errors and to move forward in their program to construct 21st century socialism.

On a district-by-district basis, this result translated into giving Venezuela's governing party, the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), 98 seats in the National Assembly (AN), to the 65 seats of the opposition coalition MUD (Table of Democratic Unity) (with two going to the independent party PPT). The opposition thus achieved its goal of preventing a two-thirds majority for the PSUV. Thus, given their near complete absence in the previous AN, this result also represents a comeback for the once moribund opposition.

Why "only" 49% of the vote and 59% of the legislators?
Chavez's critics now argue that the PSUV's new 59% majority in the National Assembly, which is 9 points higher than its popular vote, is proof of an unfair electoral system. In particular, they point to a new electoral suffrage law that was passed in 2009, which weakened the previously existing proportional representation system. The change is a bit complicated, but given that this has become a major issue in the international media, it is worth explaining.

First of all, Venezuela has a mixed voting system, which gives 30% or 52 out of 165 seats in the National Assembly to statewide proportional party representation and the other 113 seats to directly elected electoral district representatives. Voters thus have two types of votes, one for a state party list of candidates and another for one to three individual electoral district representatives (the number of district representatives depends on the size of the district). For the 2000 and 2005 national assembly elections the electoral law stipulated that the statewide party list vote (Venezuela has 26 federal states) should be considered in conjunction with the direct candidate votes, so that if a party wins a direct representative in that state, it would receive one less representative via the party list.[1] This system, which is modeled on Germany's, guarantees that small parties could be represented in the legislature even if they did not win any directly elected district representatives, as long as they got over a certain percentage of the statewide party list vote.

However, already in 2000, an opposition governor of Yaracuy state discovered that if you set up two different parties that are in alliance and have one of the parties run only on the direct vote part of the ballot and the other only on the proportional vote of the ballot, then this alliance can significantly increase its number of representatives, if these parties are likely to receive a larger proportion of the vote than any other party.[2] In effect, a way was found to game the system that favors a dominant party or alliance. In 2005 Chavez's governing party, the MVR picked up this trick and created a new allied party, the UVE, which ran only on the proportional part of the ballot, while the MVR ran only on the direct part. Subsequently, the Supreme Court denied a constitutional challenge to the practice, saying that since the constitution does not specify the method for proportional representation, parties cannot be prohibited from forming this type of alliance.[3] In the end, the opposition boycotted the 2005 National Assembly election and the issue became moot, since Chavez's supporters won 100% of the National Assembly representatives.

In 2009 the National Assembly passed a new electoral suffrage law, which eliminated the provision that previously had caused direct representatives to count against the proportional representatives a party could have won.[4] In short, the direct vote and the proportional vote would be counted separately and the winning candidates adjudicated separately. This made the trick of running two allied parties unnecessary. Also, the new law lowered the number of proportional representatives from 40% of the National Assembly to 30%. As a result, proportional representation in the National Assembly was reduced significantly and now mainly guarantees that an opposition party that does not win candidates via the direct representative vote, may at least win a few proportional representatives.

In the case of the Sept 26 vote, if it were not for the proportional part of the ballot, the opposition would have won 33% of the Assembly, instead of 39%. However, if the old electoral suffrage law had been in effect on Sept. 26, the opposition would have won 45% of the seats, 6 percentage points or 10 seats more. Given that this would not have changed the PSUV's absolute majority in the Assembly, this would not have made a significant difference.

Perhaps more importantly, though, is the implication that Venezuela's electoral system is somehow "rigged" against the opposition. The fact is, Venezuela's legislature (even before the 1999 constitution) has always slightly over-represented rural areas, so as to ensure that these areas would not be completely dominated by the more populous urban interests. It just happens to be the case that Chavez is far more popular in rural electoral districts than in urban ones. It is perfectly legitimate to debate whether such an overrepresentation is wrong, but one must keep in mind that this is not an invention of the Chavez government.

Also, it is quite possible that if party A has particularly many voters in a few districts and party B has its voters more evenly divided throughout the country, but always outnumbering its rival party, then B will end up winning far more districts than A, even though their national level of support is more or less the same. For example, this is what happens quite often in Britain, where the Labour Party won 55% of the seats in 2005 with only 37% of the vote. In such a system it is even theoretically possible to have a minority of the popular vote and still win a majority of the seats.

As for the accusation that electoral districts have been changed to give the PSUV more votes, even opposition supporters argue that these changes have been minimal.[5] Certainly they have not come even close to the gerrymandering seen in some congressional districts in the U.S.[6]

Unfair Media Advantage?
Another common accusation against the Chavez government has been that it has an unfair media advantage because the government controls more and more media outlets. Indeed, many new state-run or state-funded media outlets have been created in the past few years, such as Telesur, National Assembly TV (ANTV), Avila TV, Vive, and Tves. However, even combined, their audience share does not come close to that of the private TV stations. For example, in the battle for news and politics viewers, the private hard-line opposition-oriented Globovision usually reaches twice the audience share as the state-run VTV during prime time.[7]

Also, judging from the persistent slew of insults and vitriol that Teodoro Petkoff and Marta Colomina (perhaps the two most prominent opposition commentators, in print and in radio, respectively), among many others, continue to launch against Chavez every day, it would seem that none of the recent high-profile corruption accusations against opposition-oriented business people had an effect on freedom of speech in Venezuela.

The Power of the National Assembly
It should thus come as no surprise that in a year in which the government was facing multiple crises (economic, electric, crime, and mismanagement of state food distribution) that the oppositional media would be able to run with these issues and make important inroads into Chavez's popularity. Polls in early 2010 showed Chavez's popularity dropping from a high of nearly 70% in May, 2008,[8] to perhaps just under 50% in early 2010. However, as the economy gradually recovered in the in mid 2010, Chavez's popularity recovered too. Another reason for this increase in popularity was that Chavez went into full campaign mode and started inaugurating new industrial centers, health centers, and new social programs (such as a new credit card called, "Buen Vivir" -- good living).

The reason that Chavez made such an all-out effort is that Venezuela's National Assembly is more important and powerful than most people realize, since most see in Venezuela a very presidentialist political system. The fact is, though, Venezuela's National Assembly is arguably more powerful than the U.S. Congress. Not only does the President not have the right to veto legislation, but the AN appoints all members to three of the other four branches of government: the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, the Comptroller General, the Human Rights Ombudsperson, and the National Electoral Council. Also, the AN has the power to dismiss Ministers and the Vice-President.

To complicate matters further, many laws (laws that set the framework for state institutions and for other laws, so-called "organic" laws) require a two-thirds majority, including many of the appointments to the other branches of government. This means that losing a two-thirds majority in the AN will cause a serious problem for the Chavez government, since it either cannot pass organic laws and make key appointments, or it will have to negotiate with the opposition. The more likely result, though, will be paralysis in such cases, which is what happened frequently during the 2000-2005 legislative period, when opposition and Chavista forces were nearly evenly matched in the AN.

Castro-Communism Versus Fascist Capitalism
The September 26 election cements the comeback of the opposition and reflects a temporary weakening of the Chavez government. Following a failed coup (2002), an oil industry shutdown (2003), and the boycott of the last AN elections (2005), the opposition is gradually reintegrating itself into Venezuelan political life, with its participation in the 2006 presidential election, in the 2008 regional election, and in this AN election. Also, with the formation of a new unified alliance (the MUD), the opposition appears to be more united than in the past. However, it still has to overcome some key obstacles if it is to become more effective in combating Chavez. For one, it would have to abstain from accepting money from foreign sources. According to a recent report opposition-affiliated groups have received tens of millions of dollars in the past year.[9]

Second, the opposition would have to become more democratic by holding primary elections for its candidates as well as elections for its party leaders. For the recent AN election the opposition held primaries in only 18% of the electoral districts, while the PSUV held primaries in all electoral districts.

As long as the Bolivarian Revolution is beginning to show signs of wearing out (such as in poorly executed social programs) and difficulties in overcoming key problems of the past year (particularly the economic crisis and crime), the opposition will have it easier. Still, in Venezuela's barrios and in the countryside people continue to feel loyalty to their "Commandante" Chavez. The land reform, the communal councils that give citizens more power in their communities, and the many social programs are highly valued in these sectors. Although many are frustrated that many day-to-day problems remain unresolved, by and large they do not turn to the opposition, which still largely consists of the country's tired old elite. They simply do not believe the opposition when it claims that Chavez is taking the country towards "Castro-Communism." On the other hand, it is doubtful that they believe Chavez's warning that the opposition represents capitalist fascism.

In other words, Venezuela is a country in which politics is extremely polarized but in which the population is not. According to opinion surveys a little over a third of the population consists of die-hard Chavez supporters and a little under a third consists of die-hard Chavez opponents. The third third tends to be undecided and is often considered to consist of "ni-nis" (neither with Chavez nor against Chavez). This is the part of the population that Chavez and the opposition must try to win over.

One party has now finally tried to capitalize on this segment of the population by rejecting both Chavez and the opposition. This party, the PPT (Fatherland for All), which for a long time supported Chavez, split from the pro-Chavez coalition earlier this year and attempted, with the help of the popular governor of Lara state, Henri Falcon, to constitute a third force in the country. In a surprise to many analysts, this effort appears to have ended in failure now, since the PPT picked up only two AN representatives and none in Lara. Apparently the PPT took votes mostly from the opposition, which would suggest that voter loyalty to Chavez is stronger than to the opposition. In effect, it seems that the public's non-polarization still does not carry over to the political sphere, especially since the winner-take-all voting system makes it more difficult for third parties.

Prospects
Despite the relatively equal vote count for the two remaining sides, the opposition is now claiming that this is the beginning of the end of Chavez. Indeed, this would seem plausible if one considers that Chavez enjoyed a high point of popularity in 2006, shortly after his reelection with 63% of the vote. On the other hand, Chavez has been declared politically dead before only to reemerge stronger, such as after 2002/2003, after the coup attempt and the oil industry shutdown. Much can still happen in the next two years until the next presidential election in 2012, for which Chavez has already announced his candidacy.

Chavez's main program for the time until the next election is to continue the effort to establish "21st century socialism" in Venezuela. Exactly what this means is still not entirely clear, but there are a few indications. Towards the top of the agenda is a new labor law, which could democratize not only state-owned enterprises, but private enterprises too, via workers' councils. Also, the role of communal councils is to be strengthened, particularly on the citywide and perhaps even statewide and national levels. With regard to the economy the government intends to expand its industrial planning effort and to support strategic private industries so that the country becomes less dependent on oil export earnings.

These efforts, however, will be complicated due to the PSUV's loss of its two-thirds majority in the AN. The real danger, though, is that Chavez and his supporters will interpret their 59% AN majority as an undisputed triumph and that they will forget, as a result, that barely 50% of Venezuelans voted for the PSUV. The governing party might thereby fail to reflect on the reasons for this rather narrow victory and miss a crucial opportunity to address these reasons.

Many in Venezuela, both in the opposition and in the more moderate wing of the PSUV are trying to convince Chavez that the reason for the narrow loss is due to his too radical approach and that he needs to "slow down" and "moderate". There is little indication, though, that this is the reason Chavez's popularity has suffered in the past year.

Rather, the reasons are to be found with basic problems, such as unemployment, insecurity, and poor government services. This is what most surveys and casual conversations in the barrios indicate. Also, given that most Venezuelans (especially the poor) have so far reacted positively to Chavez's larger program of deepening the democratization of the economy, of the media, and of the polity, there is every reason to believe that they will continue to support him if he follows this program. If Chavez and his supporters decisively address the basic issues as well as the strategic programmatic ones, then[10] Chavez has an excellent chance of being reelected in 2012 and thereby reversing the opposition's recent comeback.

Notes
______________________________________
[1] For example, if a state has 10 direct representatives and 3 party list representatives and party A wins 6 of the direct representatives and 60% of the party list vote, then it would get no party list candidates for that state because its direct representatives count against the 2 party list representatives it could have in the proportional vote. The 3 party list representatives would then go to the next party that did not win a sufficient number of direct representatives to fill its quota of proportional representatives.
[2] The reason for this is that if one of those parties wins a representative on the direct portion of the ballot, there are no representatives on the proportional part of the ballot that it could lose due to this win. Instead, the proportional representatives of the allied party get all of the seats that they are due to receive since they have no direct candidates.
[3] See: "Venezuela's Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to December Vote" by Gregory Wilpert, October 29, 2005 in Venezuelanalysis.com (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/1441 [4])
[4] See: "Venezuela Passes New Electoral Law," by Tamara Pearson, August 3, 2009 in Venezuelanalysis.com (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/4681 [5])
[5] For example, the opposition blogger Francisco Toro of Caracas Chronicles wrote back in February 2010, "To my mind, what's interesting is that CNE wasn't really as aggressive as they might have been. If they'd really put their minds to it - if, say, they'd carved up crazy circuits that cross state lines or split parroquias in two - they could've done much better...by which I mean much, much worse."

(http://www.caracaschronicles.com/node/2302 [6])
[6] See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering [7]
[7] In March, 2010, at 9pm, Globovision had 1.29 audience share and VTV had 0.68. See: http://profanoymundano.obolog.com/rating-venezuela-ultimas-mediciones-in... [8]
[8] "Chavez Approval Rating 68.8%, Recent Venezuelan Poll Shows," by James Suggett, May 13, 2008, Venezuelanalysis.com (http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/3438 [9])
[9] See: "U.S. Interference in Venezuelan Elections," by Eva Golinger, September 10, 2010 (http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/09/us-interference-in-venezuelan-election... [10])

Media News best from Web

2010-09-15T00:25:00.003-04:00

Dear Friends,

Here's a very good, compact analysis of world media lies regarding Venezuela's economy. As Mark says, for accurate information, look on the web. Mark's own website is www.cepr.org. Also, be sure to check out www.venezuelanalysis.com.

Misreporting Venezuela's economywww.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/sep/10/venezuela-economics
By Mark Weisbrot

If you want a perfect illustration of media toeing the official line, look no further than the forecasts of Venezuela's economic doom

Subsidised markets that provide cheap staples, such as milk, rice, corn and sugar are now reported to have shortages. Photograph: Juan Barreto/AFP
The bulk of the media often gets pulled along for the ride when the United States government has a serious political and public relations campaign around foreign policy. But almost nowhere is it so monolithic as with Venezuela. Even in the runup to the Iraq war, there were a significant number of reporters and editorial writers who didn't buy the official story. But on Venezuela, the media is more like a jury that has 12 people but only one brain.

Since the Venezuelan opposition decided to campaign for the September elections on the issue of Venezuela's high homicide rate, the international press has been flooded with stories on this theme – some of them highly exaggerated. This is actually quite an amazing public relations achievement for the Venezuelan opposition. Although most of the Venezuelan media, as measured by audience, is still owned by the political opposition there, the international press is not. Normally, it takes some kind of news hook, even if only a milestone such as the 10,000th murder, or a political statement from the White House, for a media campaign of this magnitude to take off. But in this case, all it took was a decision by the Venezuelan political opposition that homicide would be its main campaign issue, and the international press was all over it.

The "all bad news, all the time" theme was overwhelmingly dominant even during Venezuela's record economic expansion, from 2003 to 2008. The economy grew as never before, poverty was cut by more than half, and there were large gains in employment. Real social spending per person more than tripled, and free healthcare was expanded to millions of people. You will have to search very hard to find these basic facts presented in a mainstream media article, although the numbers are hardly in dispute among economists in international organisations that deal with statistics.

For example, in May, the UN Commission on Latin America (ECLAC) found that Venezuela had reduced inequality by more than any other country in Latin America from 2002 to 2008, ending up with the most equal income distribution in the region. This has yet to be mentioned by the major international press.

Venezuela went into recession in 2009, and you can imagine how much more press attention has since been paid to GDP growth there than when Venezuela was growing faster than any economy in the hemisphere. Then, in January, the government devalued its currency, and the press was forecasting a big upsurge in inflation, to as much as 60 percent for this year. "stagflation" – recession plus rising inflation – became the new buzzword.

The "out-of-control" inflation didn't happen – in fact, inflation over the last three months, which is 21% at annualised rate, is considerably lower than before the devaluation. This is yet another indicator that the economists relied upon by major media as sources have limited understanding of the actual functioning of Venezuela's economy.

Now, it looks as though Venezuela may have emerged from its recession in the second quarter of this year. On a seasonally adjusted annualised basis, the economy grew by 5.2% in the second quarter. In June, Morgan Stanley projected that the economy would shrink by 6.2% this year and by 1.2% next year. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is projecting long-term gloom and doom for Venezuela: negative per capita GDP growth over the next five years. It is worth noting that the IMF gave the authors of "Dow 36,000" some competition for creative forecasting, with their repeated, wildly off-the-mark underestimates of the Venezuelan economy during the expansion.

All this may seem like par for the course if we compare it with coverage of the world's largest economy, the United States, where the vast majority of the media somehow missed the two biggest asset bubbles in world history – the stockmarket and then the housing bubble. But there were important exceptions here (for example,. the New York Times in 2006). With Venezuela – well, you get the picture.

Of course, Venezuela's continued growth is not assured; it will depend on the government making a commitment to maintaining high levels of aggregate demand, and keeping it. In that sense, its immediate situation is similar to that of the United States, the Eurozone and many other more developed economies, whose economic recovery is sluggish and uncertain right now.

Venezuela has adequate foreign exchange reserves, is running a trade and current account surplus, has low levels of foreign public debt and quite a bit of foreign borrowing capacity, if needed. This was demonstrated most recently in April with a $20bn (about 6% of Venezuela's GDP) credit from China. As such, it is extremely unlikely to run up against a foreign exchange shortage. It can therefore use public spending and investment as much as necessary to make sure that the economy grows sufficiently to increase employment and living standards, as it did before the 2009 recession. (Our government in the United States could do the same, even more easily –but that does not appear to be in the cards right now.) This can go on for many years.

Whatever happens, we can expect complete coverage of one side of the story from the media. So keep it in mind: even when you are reading the New York Times or listening to NPR on Venezuela, you are getting Fox News. If you want something more balanced, you will have to look for it on the web.

Good for Venezuela, Australia, Canada

2010-09-02T15:13:00.003-04:00

Venezuela: Land Reform, Food Sovereignty and Agro-Ecology
Urban food garden, Caracas.

By Alan Broughton
http://links.org.au/node/1855

August 20, 2010 -- A massive transformation of agriculture is occurring in Venezuela, a transformation that has lessons for every other country in the world. The Law of the Land and Agrarian Development, the Law of Food Sovereignty and Security and the Law of Integrated Agricultural Health set out the agenda (they can be found on www.mat.gob.ve, in Spanish). The policies are based on the premises that farmers should have control of their land and product, that the country should produce its own food, and that chemical fertilisers and pesticides should not be part of agriculture.

Land in Venezuela has been in the hands of about 500 families and corporations since the 1800s and worked by an impoverished peasantry. Much of the land was under utilised as cattle ranching, pulpwood plantations, export crops such as sugar cane, or left idle. Most food was imported. This land is gradually being taken over by the government and handed to local communities who have been fighting for it for two centuries.

Food sovereignty is a key government policy, guaranteed in the constitution: "Food sovereignty is the inalienable right of a nation to define and develop priorities and foods appropriate to its specific conditions, in local and national production, conserving agricultural and cultural diversity and self sufficiency and guaranteeing food supply to all the population." Food imports are only allowed if there is a shortfall of production in the country, and exports occur only after domestic demand is met.

Control over production is in the hands of farmers' cooperatives on the newly distributed lands. Assistance is provided by the government for cooperative management and to establish processing plants so the farmers are no longer victim to the power to set prices of the processors and distributors. Agriculture is planned, at three levels: the National Agrarian Assembly, the regional agrarian assemblies and the local peasants and producers councils. The regional assemblies are elected by the peasants and producers councils.

One goal is the elimination of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Venezuela has had a long experience in their use and the change will be gradual. Agro-ecology colleges have been set up with the assistance of Cuban advisors, as Cuba went through this process 20 years ago and is now almost fully organic. Agro-ecology is promoted in all agricultural development projects, to producers and institutes.

I had the opportunity in July 2010 to visit Venezuela and see the changes that are taking place. Here are my impressions.

Urban agriculture -- Caracas
Venezuela is emulating the remarkable achievements of Cuba, where more than half of the fruit and vegetable needs of the urban population are produced within the cities. As in Cuba, the city food gardens are all organic, providing non-toxic safe fresh food to communities. The benefits of urban agriculture are seen as contributing to food security and sovereignty, improving the urban environment, supplementing the income of families, communities and schools, and fostering learning and recreational activities. The gardens are set up on unused land, at schools and, using raised beds, on concrete and balconies.

Community centres have established these gardens wherever possible. Some are in the very early stages and need more time and increased soil fertility to fully develop. One that I saw, on a former industrial site, was built on subsoil only six months ago, and was suffering the consequences, showing patchy growth and pest damage; a worm farm has been set up on that land to produce fertiliser to improve the hard soil. The community centres include a free health centre, usually a subsidised shop, a computer centre, adult education facilities and some even run a community radio.

An excellent example has been created in the median strip of a busy highway in Caracas by homeless people, former drug addicts, and is producing excellent crops. Marigolds are planted in each raised bed to provide habitat for beneficial insects, so that pests are no problem. Fertility is provided by a mixture of mountain soil and manure. When asked why the garden was unfenced, the spokesperson said that the usual local suspects for vandalism were already working on the project, so it needed no extra protection.

Cacao production and processing -- Barlovento region, Miranda State
Cacao growers, mostly descendents of former slaves brought from Africa, were until recently among the most impoverished people in the country, in a highly profitable industry. The cocoa beans were bought up cheaply by international corporations like Nestle by various means of price manipulation, and processed overseas. Now the producers are organised into cooperatives that have, with government assistance, set up factories for the primary processing into cocoa powder then into chocolate. The factories are managed by the producer's cooperative and the factory workers, who are from cacao growing families; decisions are made collectively. The price they receive has gone from 1 bolivar per kilo (about 15 cents) to 14 bolivares in three years and now provides them with a good standard of living. Still a large proportion of the beans are sold on the open market, but the government has set and enforces a minimum price that the commercial processors have to pay.

Fishing -- Chuao, Aragua State
Venezuela has the strongest fishing regulations in the world, and they are supported by the fishing people. Trawling has been phased out, fishing near reefs is prohibited, stunning devices like dynamite and poisons are not allowed, and nets cannot be left in the water -- they are just thrown out and hauled in. The size of the nets allows small fish to escape to breed or provide food for the larger fish. Sardine fishing is not done, as these are near the bottom of the food chain and needed for other fish. All fishers are organised into a local Fisher People's Council, and the National Council makes policy. The regulations are enforced by the government and the fishing people themselves, in order to provide long-term sustainable harvests. The fishing families now have education, health care, decent housing and retirement pensions, benefits they have never had before. National fish production has actually increased under these policies. The cooperatives run the cool stores and market the catch.

Field crops -- the plains states of Cojedes, Portuguesa and Yaracuy states
The central plain of Venezuela is the main food producing area, a region formerly totally dominated by huge estates. The land is gradually being redistributed to the communities that have worked the land for generations. Most of the people are Indigenous and were growing corn and beans long before the Spanish colonists arrived.

The communities that have gained control of the land have different methods of land ownership and organisation. Some communities chose to own individual plots and work together for machinery and knowledge sharing and marketing. Others form cooperatives of from seven to more than 100 members to hold title of the land in common and work the land together. Other land remains as state farms with day to day decision making determined by the farm workers. I saw several of these farms, with sizes ranging from several hundred hectares to several thousand.

The main crop is corn, the staple food eaten by most people every day, as arepas (corn flour cakes) and cachapas (ground up fresh corn cooked as a pancake). Other crops include cassava, beans, sweet potatoes, squash and rice. Fruits such as guavas, mangos, bananas, pawpaws, avocados and citrus are commonly grown.

The farming process is mechanised, with harvesting machinery provided by Argentina and tractors by Iran, Byelorussia and China. In one area, San Carlos in Cojedes State, a huge state-owned agricultural support centre has been set up, to hire out machinery to the cooperatives surrounding it. Urea was also stocked -- on questioning we were told that while agro-ecology is the policy it will be some time before some farms develop the skill and motivation to stop using chemical fertilisers and pesticides.

One farm was experimenting with organic techniques, quite successfully. Some fields were mulched with crop residue and treated with biological controls, while others were still managed chemically. The organic fields had far fewer weeds but obviously lacked some fertility. The biological controls were successful.

Biological control and biofertiliser labs are being set up across the country to produce beneficial insects and fungi, and soil inoculants. Several species of predatory wasps and lacewings are used to control caterpillars and aphids respectively; they are bred in large numbers in the laboratory and released onto the crops at the right time. Metarrhizium and Beauvaria fungi are produced to control other insect pests -- corn grubs and coffee beetles. Trichoderma fungi are used to keep root rotting diseases under control.

Biofertilisers are microbes that release nutrients out of the soil. The well-known Rhizobium is produced to assist nitrogen availability for legume crops, and Azotobacter, another nitrogen provider, and Bacillus megaterium, which releases phosphorus are also part of the lab's work. Currently the organisms are provided to farmers at no cost in order to encourage agroecology, as a temporary measure. The labs are planning to produce other microbes including mycorrhizae, another phosphorus releaser.

Seed banks and seed treatment plants have been established to provide the range of agricultural genetics suited to the various regions. The aim is to completely bypass the international corporations that supply seed around the world, and preserve the genetic diversity that has been built up in Venezuela for thousands of years. Genetically modified (GM) seeds are not allowed, though this is not ruled out in future if some are found to be safe. The precautionary principle is used. Seeds are treated with the beneficial fungus Trichoderma instead of fungicides for storage and sowing.

Agro-Ecology College -- Barinas State
We visited the Paulo Freire Latin American School of Agro-ecology, an institute set up to provide education for future advisors and teachers from around Latin America. Students are nominated by either the Via Campesina network or the Brazilian Landless Peasants' Movement. The aim is to reclaim agriculture from the neoliberal model, especially for Indigenous and Afro farmers. The stated philosophy of the school is social transformation in defence of Mother Earth, and its motto: Estudio, trabajo, organisacion con agroecologia, en la revolucion (Study, work, organisation with agro-ecology, in the revolution).

The students spend the morning in class and the afternoon in the fields doing practical work. One student was working on a pig-breeding project, mating domestic pigs with wild pigs to create hardiness, and distributing the offspring to a network of participating farmers. On weekends and for a month each year the students go out to the farming communities to live with the farmers in order to both teach and learn. The school has its own farm, producing cattle, pigs, cheese, grains and vegetables on 50 hectares. Permaculture is integrated into the education process. There are no fees to attend the school.

What does it mean for Australia?
Australia went through land reform several times in history -- the selection acts of the 1860s and 1870s, the closer settlement acts of the 1890s and the soldier settlement programs following the first and second world wars. These reforms have created a nation of family farmers. While there have been inroads by corporate farming, the majority of farmland is owned and managed by the farmers themselves. This is what people in Venezuela have been fighting for and are now achieving. In Australia we do need legislation to prevent the spread of corporate farming and protect the family farm, as several states of the USA have.

While Australian farmers do control their land, they do not have influence over the prices they receive. The Venezuelan experience shows that farmers can cooperate to obtain fair prices, and can bypass the power of the huge corporations that control food processing and distribution. This is what Australian farmers need to do, and can do. An excellent example is the Organic Dairy Farmers of Australia cooperative that sets the price of milk for its members.

The other important lesson is that governments can pursue genuinely sustainable policies. Governments can assist farmers in organising themselves, can facilitate the phase-out of chemical agriculture, and can act independently of the World Trade Organization. Supermarket chains can be broken up or nationalised to prevent them from constantly reducing the prices they pay farmers. Processors can be stopped from using the threat of cheap imports to screw producers. We need governments committed to genuine sustainability. The changes in Venezuela have enormous significance globally as they show what governments and people are capable of doing.

The significance inside Venezuela is immeasurable. A farmer on a newly founded cooperative farm at San Jose told us: "Ahora tenemos dignidad" (Now we have dignity). A few years ago that land was part of a huge estate on which the man was a labourer living in extreme poverty. When asked what will happen if the opposition wins government and tries to give the land back to the big landlords he said: "There will be civil war. We are not going to let them take our land away again".

[Alan Broughton, a member of the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network and the Socialist Alliance in Australlia, participated in the food sovereignty study tour to Venezuela in July 2010. AVSN organises regular solidarity brigades to Venezuela. Find out more http://venezuelasolidarity.org/?q=node/159

Terrorists and Assassins Take Refuge in U.S.A.

2010-08-29T13:16:00.002-04:00

Bolivia: CIA Knew About Terrorist Plans Against Cuban and Venezuelan Brigades Jean-Guy Allard
http://tinyurl.com/25ftxap

CIA agent Istvan Belovai, advisor of the Eduardo Rosza's paramilitary conspiracy to assassinate Evo Morales, in April, 2009, also knew about murderous plans against humanitarian brigades of Cuban and Venezuelan doctors and engineers developing communitarian works in the poorest communities the eastern part of Bolivia.

Proof of this are electronic messages between Rosza and Belovai, which are being carefully studied since they were discovered by the Bolivian Data and Analysis Research Center in Cochabamba, chaired by the well-known anthropologist and communicator Wilson Garcia Merida.

"Rosza proposed that Belovai to attack specific targets, which had been planned through these emails," said the researcher.

"They talked about the exploitation of the Pailon bridge --the largest in Bolivia, over a mile long, opened by Evo Morales in a sugar plantation area in Santa Cruz--, as well as those points carefully identified through Google maps. In the latter are brigades of Venezuelan military engineers of the binational groups, who are supporting with communitarian actions the poorest municipalities of Bolivia, along with Cuban doctors."

Former Hungarian intelligence officer, Istvan Belovai, who worked as a liaison officer between the Hungarian-Croatian Eduardo Rosza Flores, head of the paramilitary group responsible for assassination, and the US intelligence, died on December 6 in Denver, U.S., where he lived since he hurriedly left his homeland in 1990.

The circumstances of Belovai's death are still unknown.

In the mid eighties, the then Lieutenant Colonel Istvan Belovai (the "Scorpion-B" agent) of the Hungarian military intelligence services hit the headlines when he informed the CIA about the names of U.S. officials informing the Hungarian intelligence. By the 90's, Belovai immigrated to the U.S. and joined the main U.S. spy agency.

Belovai's death took place just when the content of one of Rosza Flores' computer-laptops was being carefully revised. In a folder called Bel-Norte, Bolivian experts came across several emails Rosza Flores exchanges with agent Belovai.

Terrorist Valladares Involved
In these emails between the terrorist and the Hungarian spy, the name of the representative of the Human Rights Foundation in Bolivia Hugo Acha Melgar is mentioned. Acha is currently a fugitive in the U.S. after having been denounced as one of the main financiers of the terrorist war plotted against Bolivia.

Acha Melgar was then in permanent contact with Cuban-American terrorist Armando Valladares, who ran the activities of this foundation used by the CIA as a facade from New York.

The relation between Hugo Acha Melgar and Valladares is direct, since this lawyer boasted about it in public -- he was a co-conductor of a TV program with a high audience in Santa Cruz, where he used to refer to Valladares as his "dear personal friend." In fact, from the direct link between Acha Melgar and Valladares, the arrival of "international observers" (anti Castro agents) to Santa Cruz took place, during the January 2009 referendum, among these observers was Belovai," said Wilson Garcia Merida.

Valladares -- the terrorist of Cuban origin was arrested in Havana City with Carlos Alberto Montaner on December 1960, while they were directing terrorist attacks in stores and movies of the Cuban capital, sponsored by the CIA-- led his subversive organization from the very Empire State Building of New York, without the interference of the FBI. A while after the events of Santa Cruz, Valladares resigned the presidency of that organization, a facade already known due to his interfering campaigns against Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela.

Between October and November 2008, when the cited correspondence took place, Rosza Flores "had started to distance himself from his separatist godfathers of the Santa Cruz oligarchy, since they refused to give him the financing resources they demanded to buy weapons of mass destruction like missiles and tanks," and looked then for the direct contact with the CIA and its financial support via Belovai and Valladares.

The aim of the plot, thwarted in April 2009 in the Hotel las Americas in Santa Cruz, was to assassinate President Evo Morales, his vice president Alvaro Garcia Linera and the minister of Government, Juan Ramon Quintana.

They All Took Refuge In the United States
Among the leaders of the Supreme Council, who directed the conspiracy to assassinate Evo Morales, was an influential businessman from Santa Cruz, Branko Marinkovic, Croatian by origin.

Marinkovic escaped from Bolivia after being denounced by the district's attorney and found refugee in the United States.

After the disarticulation of the command, the head of Arbitration and Conciliation of Santa Cruz, Alejandro Melgar Pereira, a participant in the plot, fled from Bolivia to the U.S.

They also proved that Rosza Flores was in contact with UnoAmerica, a Latin American fascist organization headed by Alejandro Pena Esclusa, who then appeared at the side of the Honduran coup attackers.

Pena Esclusa has multiple links with the Cuban American mafia in Miami and runs two anti Chavez groups affiliated to his organization.

He was detained on July 5 by officials of the Bolivarian Service of National Intelligence (SEBIN), after an operation undertaken in his residency in Caracas. One kilogram of C4 explosives and 100 detonators were then confiscated.

Republished from Granma
Posted by BoliviaRising.blogspot.com

Chavez and Santos Sign Peace Agreement

2010-08-12T19:29:00.000-04:00

Chavez-Santos Summit in Colombia: UNASUR-brokered Peace Breaks Out
by Francisco Dominguez / August 12th, 2010
http://tinyurl.com/28nz6zf

The already bad relations between Venezuela and Colombia took a turn for the worse after the accusations made by the outgoing Uribe government's OAS representative, Luis Hoyos, who charged the Venezuelan government with harbouring Colombian guerrillas (1,500) and allowing guerrilla camps (85) inside its territory. The "evidence" -- which has been pretty discredited -- for this batch of accusations, as with previous ones, also came from the eight 'magical laptops' seized by Colombian military forces in an illegal military attack in March 1, 2009.

Chavez reacted by breaking off relations with Colombia, leading to a further worsening of the relations between the two nations, but sent his foreign minister to attend Santos' inauguration anyway. Uribe's response was to announce that his government was lodging a formal accusation against Venezuela in the Inter-American Committee of Human Rights and another formal charge against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court, one day before Juan Manuel Santos inauguration. Furthermore, Uribe, reportedly, announced he would be prepared to testify to the ICC against Hugo Chavez.

However, after intense diplomatic activity undertaken by [Union of South American Nations] UNASUR, Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's Foreign Relations Minister, Nestor Kirchner, UNASUR's President, and Brazils' President, Lula, the latter two very publicly meeting with both Hugo Chavez and Juan Manuel Santos at various separate meetings, managed, in a matter of few days, to turn what looked like an inexorable slide to disaster, into one of the most extraordinary political turnarounds from the brink in recent Latin American history.

At his inauguration, Juan Manuel Santos stunned the world by announcing that his administration would be seeking to repair and normalise Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador as a matter of priority. And in stark contrast to the prevailing attitude under Uribe, Santos declared "The word war is not in my dictionary when I think about Colombia's relations with its neighbours" (a far cry from Uribe's warmongering). Furthermore, Santos had previously indicated his willingness, under certain conditions, to even talk to the Colombian guerrillas. More surprises were to follow: Santos ordered the handing over of Raul Reyes' 'magical laptops' to the government of Ecuador.

Some in the British media such as the Guardian, the Economist, the BBC and, of course, the ubiquitous Human Rights Watch, enthusiastically accepted the evidence publicised by the Colombian authorities at the time. The attitude of the US corporate media was significantly worse. As is well known, but not widely publicised by the corporate media, Ronald Coy, Head of Colombia's technical police, admitted to an official investigation both that the data in the laptops had been manipulated before it was subjected to judicial review and that no emails had been found in them (this did not prevent the Guardian's Latin American correspondent, Rory Carroll, from reading several emails from the magical laptops, as he reported at the time).

We shall very soon see how much of Mr Hoyos' "evidence" to the OAS is left standing after Ecuador's expert analysis of the 'magical laptops' takes place. The Venezuelan government has consistently denied any such charges and to this day, apart from regular media repetition of Uribista "false positives," no serious evidence of any kind has been produced to substantiate the allegations that Venezuela harbours guerrillas and guerrilla camps in its territory or that it gives them resources and weapons.

Venezuela and Colombia share 1,375 miles of very porous border. Colombia's internal conflict has the unfortunate dynamic of spilling over into other countries in the form of guerrillas, paramilitaries, drug traffickers, refugees, and immigrants escaping from the conflict (about 5 million Colombians reside permanently in Venezuela). It is estimated that overall, Colombia's military have over 300,000 soldiers -- proportionately one of the largest in the region, and seven times larger than the armed forces of Venezuela -- and have benefited from US$7 bn in military aid -- the second largest in the world -- which are nevertheless incapable to controlling their own domestic terrain in which there are about 8,000 armed guerrilla fighters, many thousands of active illegal paramilitary forces and a great deal of drug trafficking.

Most of the cocaine in the world is produced in Colombia, and most of cocaine production takes place in Colombia, according to UNODOC about 50%. Furthermore, Venezuela finds itself geographically sandwiched between the largest producer and the largest consumer of cocaine in the world, Colombia and the United States respectively.

After Santos' inauguration, events have developed at neck-breaking speed. Assisted by Nestor Kirchner, the Foreign Ministers of Colombia and Venezuela met last Sunday in Bogota, and they announced that Presidents Santos and Chavez would be meeting at a special summit on Tuesday 10 August in Colombia. Chavez immediately seized the opportunity offered by his Colombian counterpart and called upon the guerrillas to seek a political solution: "The Colombian guerrillas do not have a future by way of arms… moreover, they have become an excuse for the [US] empire to intervene in Colombia and threaten Venezuela from there," he said on Sunday. He also called upon them to show their commitment to a peace accord through "decisive demonstrations, for example, that they liberate all those they have kidnapped."

It is clear that Santos wanted to repair relations with Venezuela and Ecuador and that he was willing to accept UNASUR's good offices to facilitate his meeting with President Chavez. However, the most significant aspects of this development is that Santos was determined to seek the improvement of Colombia's relations with Venezuela and Ecuador, partly because it wanted to end Colombia's regional isolation, but also because the almost complete cessation of trade with Venezuela was making Colombia's economy scream (their mutual trade had declined by 73.7%). It is also clear that Uribe knew this and all his last-minute rabid attacks on Venezuela seemed to have been aimed more at Santos than Chavez. Uribe desperately tried to torpedo the Colombo-Venezuelan rapprochement because he knew it was in the offing.

Uribe's desperate efforts mirror the actions of powerful forces in Washington which have been vigorously lobbying to declare Venezuela a "state that sponsors terrorism," "a narco-state" (view which is specially strong in SOUTHCOM and the U.S. Congress -- and which, therefore, seem to favour a 'military' solution to the U.S. 'Venezuelan problem'. SOUTHCOM has been busily installing US military bases everywhere in the region and has even resuscitated the IV Fleet (which was decommissioned in 1950). The U.S. has deployed 20,000 soldiers in Haiti after the earthquake and has also stationed massive military forces in Costa Rica (7,000 soldiers, 200 helicopters and 46 warships until the end of December 2010). Thus, labeling Venezuela a 'sponsor of terrorism' is not just right-wing rhetoric, it may have very serious military consequences. Regional leaders are very alarmed about these developments and have expressed serious concern.

A normally omitted dimension of Colombo-Venezuelan relations is the attitude of Venezuela's right wing. In every Venezuela-Colombia spat under Uribe's two presidential mandates, they have sided enthusiastically with Uribe. They did so again this time but were unwittingly wrong-footed by Santos' announcement. When it comes to opposing President Chavez, Venezuela's right wing seem to have no sense of proportion, thus, for instance, the governor of the state of Tachira, Cesar Perez Vivas, a member of COPEI, went as far as to appeal to Chavez not to make the U.S. military bases in that country a precondition for the normalisation of relations with Colombia. Venezuelan TV broadcaster, Alberto Nolla, suggested that during the crisis unleashed by the Uribe's actions, the Venezuelan right wing media was more strident in their support for Uribe than the Colombian media had been during the same period. Any cursory look at the main right-wing newspapers such as El Universal and El Nacional and TV channels such as Globovision confirm this conclusively.

What is totally unprecedented is the fact that the U.S. administration was de facto reduced to the role of spectator (specialists confirm this). The U.S. were supportive of the accusations against Chavez at the OAS (…"our concerns about the links between Venezuela and the FARC that we have not certified Venezuela in recent years as fully cooperating with the United States and others in terms of these antiterrorism efforts," stated U.S. ambassador to OAS) but were clearly sidelined by UNASUR's brinkmanship which managed to bring the rapprochement between Colombia and Venezuela. It is Santos, Chavez, and UNASUR (especially Brazil) who have been doing the running ("Brazil's government has made it clear that it would like the matter to be taken up within UNASUR, without the influence of the United States. It proclaimed South America a "region of peace" and affirmed that problems between countries should be first dealt with bilaterally.)

This reality shows first the growing assertiveness and independence of the region from U.S. influence, but secondly, it shows that underlying this political reality there is the growing independence of the region from traditional economic centres and a steady distancing from the U.S. The Tectonic plates have dramatically shifted and most Latin American leaders feel they have averted an almost certain Uribe-U.S. driven war.

It remains to be seen how far this summit takes the two countries. They have decided to fully restore their relations in every field and the two presidents have established five commissions within the framework of a statement of principles signed by them. They include a commission for debt; another for the economic collaboration between the two countries; one for the development of a plan of investment in their common border; another for the joint undertaking of infrastructural works; and a security commission. Both heads of state undertook a commitment to collaborate in the struggle against drug trafficking, paramilitary and illegal armed activity. Colombia has sent the President of Colombia's Congress, Armando Benedetti, to assist the process of full restoration of relations between the two countries.

The OAS reacted by applauding the diplomacy of Santos and Chavez. There has been popular rejoice in both countries. Not all the issues pending between the two nations were, however, addressed, such as the U.S. military bases in Colombia, the urgent need for a peace process in Colombia, and the charges leveled by Uribe against Venezuela to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and against President Chavez personally to the International Criminal Court.

The dogs of war have been kept at bay, at least temporarily. Peace has broken out. The full restoration of relations between Venezuela and Colombia is indeed very positive. However, the array of forces set against the implementation of such a broad peaceful agenda is also pretty formidable. For start it is led by the U.S. and it also involves powerful economic groups in most countries in the region, such as the separatists in the Eastern of Bolivia, that nearly overthrew Morales' government in 2009; the Venezuelan right which managed to actually oust Chavez in 2002 -but who the people returned to power-; the Colombian oligarchy itself; the extremely wealthy and powerful Chilean Pinochetista bourgeoisie; the right in Argentina; the very wealthy Guayaquil entrepreneurs; and so forth. All of whom in one way or another favour the U.S. militarisation of the region as a solution of last resort in the face of radical social movements and progressive governments in the continent. In the meantime the U.S. militarisation of the region continues apace.

It is in the interest of Latin America, very well represented on this historic occasion by UNASUR, to help the Colombian oligarchy to loosen the too uncomfortable U.S. embrace in which Uribe got them into. On the other hand there are the U.S. hegemonic interests in the region and its growing oil dependency from fiercely nationalist governments which are asserting their independence collectively. Washington's political and military strategists must be stunned by the extraordinary rapprochement between Santos and Chavez.

Uribe's insane efforts to bring about a war with Venezuela, underscores the 'predicament' the U.S. finds itself in: faced with the rebellion of its Southern neighbours, unable to win politically, and incapable of offering anything such as development, progress, investment or even the American Way of life (which is crushingly coming to an end in the United States itself), has decided to resort to war to maintain its backyard under subjection. Latin America has opted for democracy, social progress, national sovereignty and peace. On this occasion even the staunchest pro U.S. Colombian oligarchy have sided with the South, not the North. We shall see who beats the other in the historic arm-wrestling underway.

Francisco Dominguez is a member of Executive Committee, Venezuela Information Centre. Read other articles by Francisco, or visit Francisco's website.

Venezuela Seeks Peace with Colombia

2010-08-10T17:57:00.002-04:00

Chavez to Meet with Santos to Renew Venezuela-Colombia Relations
By James Suggett
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5557

Mérida, August 9th 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced on Sunday he will meet with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in Colombia tomorrow with the intention of renewing diplomatic relations and promoting a peace accord to end the decades-old war between the Colombian government and leftist insurgents.

“On Tuesday we will be with the president of Colombia. We are going to initiate a new relationship for the good of both countries, each with their particularities, but with respect,” said Chavez on his weekly Sunday talk show Aló Presidente. “With my two hands extended and with my heart, I show my desire to start over again.”

President Santos, who was sworn-in to his first term as president on Saturday, said he was looking forward to talking one-on-one with Chavez and that he hoped “to arrive at conclusions that help us to normalize relations between the two countries.”

To lay the groundwork for the presidential meeting, Foreign Relations Minister Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and Chancellor María Holguín of Colombia, met for three hours in Bogotá after Maduro attended Santos’s swearing in ceremony on Saturday. Former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, who is the secretary general of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), was also present at the meeting.

After the meeting, Maduro stated Venezuela’s willingness to “extend our brotherly hand and give our love to Colombia,” and “to act transparently to increase our capacities for frank and direct dialogue.” He added, “What is coming for Colombia and Venezuela are positive things.”

Similarly, Holguín said, “Today I think Maduro and I have taken the first step with a frank and direct dialogue with the objective of re-establishing relations, relations marked by transparency and frankness.” Presidents Santos and Chavez will take the second step on Tuesday, she added.

Kirchner congratulated the two foreign ministers for a meeting that was “exemplary, clear, and democratic.” He said, “As someone from Latin America, I am gratified by this example of responsibility by both governments.”

Potential Peace Accord with Insurgents
Also during his Sunday talk show, Chavez reiterated his call for the armed insurgent groups in Colombia to free all of their hostages and pursue a peace accord with the government. He had previously called for this in 2008.

“The Colombian guerrillas do not have a future by way of arms... moreover, they have become an excuse for the [US] empire to intervene in Colombia and threaten Venezuela from there,” Chavez declared on Sunday. He demanded that the guerrillas show their commitment to a peace accord through “decisive demonstrations, for example, that they liberate all those they have kidnapped.”

Santos also indicated an openness to talk with the insurgents. “To the illegally armed groups... I say to them that my government will be open to any talks that seek the end of violence and the building of a more prosperous, equal and just society,” he said.

These declarations followed a pledge on August 4th by the National Liberation Army, one of the principal Colombian rebel groups, to hold multilateral peace talks. “We are willing to talk with the Venezuelan government and other governments on the continent to explore the pathways that may make peace in Colombia and our America possible,” said a statement published on the internet and signed by the group’s first and second in command.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, more than 20,000 people attended a “peace chain” demonstration convoked by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela in Caracas (PSUV). The activists linked arms in a line across western and central Caracas. They called for a peaceful solution to the Colombian civil war and expressed their rejection of US-Colombian military collaboration, which they said is being used as a form of aggression against Venezuela, motivated by Venezuela’s rejection of US militarism and free trade policies in the region.

The Ongoing Bilateral Conflict
The goodwill expressed by the two presidents over the weekend contrasted sharply with the animosity that intensified in recent weeks between Chavez and outgoing Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Chavez severed diplomatic ties on July 22nd after the Uribe administration presented accusations before the Organization of American States (OAS) that Colombian guerrilla groups take shelter and build training camps in Venezuela. The Uribe administration also brought charges against Venezuela in the International Criminal Court, and called for a multi-national team to visit Venezuela to investigate whether or not there were guerrilla insurgents present.

Venezuela said the accusations were aimed at establishing the basis for a future US-backed military intervention in Venezuela. Minister Maduro convened an emergency meeting of foreign ministers of UNASUR, which in contrast to the OAS does not include the US, to help diffuse the conflict.

Now, it is unclear whether Santos, who served as defense minister under Uribe for three years, will continue to pursue Uribe’s strategy, and speculation abounds as to whether the apparent difference in policy between Uribe and Santos in recent weeks was real or orchestrated.

According to José Vicente Rangel, an investigative journalist and former vice president of Venezuela, Santos and his political allies had to struggle to prevent Uribe from attacking an alleged insurgent camp in Venezuelan territory. Rangel presented the report on his weekly political talk show “Los Confidenciales” and cited intelligence reports from within the Venezuelan Armed Forces.

Venezuela Forced to Break Relations with Colombia

2010-07-24T20:29:00.001-04:00

Dear Friends,

In a desperate attempt to destroy all relations with Venezuela before vacating his position as Colombia's President, Alvaro Uribe made false and libelous accusations of the Chavez government of assisting terrorist training camps, drug trafficking, etc. In response to this aggressive act before the U.S.-supported Organization of American States (OAS), Chavez has broken all diplomatic relations with Colombia, and has requested that provisional president of UNASUR call a meeting to mediate the Venezuelan-Colombian conflict.

______________________________________________
Venezuela Severs Diplomatic Relations with Colombia
By Tamara Pearson
http://venezuelanalysis.com/news/5520

Merida, July 23rd, 2010 -- Following Colombian accusations before the Organisation of American States (OAS) yesterday that Venezuela is "protecting" its guerrillas, Chavez announced that Venezuela would break off diplomatic relations with Colombia and withdraw its ambassador. Venezuelan institutions and international social organisations have expressed their support for Venezuela, while the U.S has supported Colombia's proposal to the OAS.

President Hugo Chavez and various other government leaders have justified the move as defending Venezuela's "dignity" in the face of "constant aggressions and false accusations" by Colombia against Venezuela.

"This government of Mr [Alvaro] Uribe has spent eight years attacking and lying and creating 'false positives' against Venezuela in order to justify the unjustifiable," Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro said. Uribe will be replaced by President-elect Juan Manuel Santos on 7 August.

Yesterday afternoon the Venezuelan executive gave its ambassador in Colombia, Gustavo Marquez, and his staff 72 hours to return to Caracas.

Chavez also requested an extraordinary meeting of the political council of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in order to denounce the Colombian government's "aggression".

Maduro supported the call, saying a "South American response to the aggression" was necessary.

In response to Venezuela's request, early this morning Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa who is also provisional president of UNASUR, announced he would call a meeting of the regional organisation in order to mediate the Venezuelan-Colombian conflict.

"The Venezuelan government is concentrating its efforts in the union of South America, in creating ...trade, social, economic and defence based unity of South America," Vice president Elias Jaua said to the press this morning.

Jaua called on the Venezuelan people to "strengthen the union with the Colombian people in order to keep struggling for peace and unity of the continent."

The freezing of relations wouldn't affect food supply in Venezuela, said Jorge Perez, professor of political economy at the Central University of Venezuela (UCV), He said that food to be imported for the state food markets of Mercal and Pdval is already being processed to come from other Latin American countries.

Perez explained that ever since the freezing of commercial relations between Venezuela and Colombia last year following Colombia's agreement to install seven U.S bases in its territory, the government has been progressively substituting its imports from Colombian transnationals by signing agreements with countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and China, to import products like meat, milk, cheese, and rice.

Also, both Reuters and the Venezuelan government owned AVN, reported that the situation on the main Venezuela/Colombia border crossings was "normal", with the crossings remaining open and vehicles and people passing through as usual.

Support for the Venezuelan government's actions
YVKE Mundial and AVN report that some Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA) workers protested this morning in Caracas in order to show their support for the decision of the government to break diplomatic relations with Colombia.

One of the protestors, Karina Soler, told press, "We're not enemies of the Colombian people, but we declare ourselves fierce enemies of the narco-government of Uribe."

Jaua said the governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) was organising a series of mobilisations along the border with Colombia for this weekend. On Saturday afternoon it is planning a mobilisation in Apure, towards the centre of the border, then in Tachira, where the main border crossing is, on Sunday, and on 31 July, heading towards the south, in Amazonas.

Also yesterday a coalition of U.S based human rights, social justice, civil society organisations and the TransAfrica Forum published two letters criticising the outgoing government of Colombia for "continuing a pattern of falsely accusing Venezuela of having links to the insurgent groups FARC and ELN".

The letters were addressed to Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the OAS and the coalition said it will continue collecting signatures and will also submit the letter to UNASUR and to incoming president-elect Santos on the day of his inauguration, 7 August.

Various other Venezuelan public institutions and organisations have also expressed their support for the measures taking by the Venezuelan executive, including the heads of; the National Assembly, the Supreme Court, the National Bolivarian Armed Forces, the Attorney General, the National Electoral Council, the PSUV youth, the National Union of Workers (Unete), the Socialist Front of Petroleum Workers (FSTP), the Electoral Movement of the People (MEP), and the Unionists of Latin American and the Caribbean, who are currently in Venezuela for a continent wide union conference.

Marcela Maspero, national coordinator of Unete, said, "In the face of any attempt by Colombia or any other country, to obstruct the revolution [in Venezuela], the working class will come out bravely to defend the process and the country."

Likewise, Victor Mendibil, from the Unionists of Latin America and the Caribbean and also the Workers Central of Argentina (CTA), said, "Once again the Colombian government is attacking the progressive government of Venezuela and accusing it internationally of having and protecting...Colombian guerrillas. That's not possible, because the government here is a proper one that always acts according to the law."

Further, according to Alfonso Velasquez of the Unified Central of Workers of Colombia (CUT), the Colombian government needs to leave the Venezuelan government alone and "dedicate" itself to providing security for Colombians. "Just last year, over 2,940 union and social leaders in Colombia were killed due to the inefficiency of the government in relation to security," he said.

U.S support for Colombia
Meanwhile, El Universal reports that the U.S has announced that it would support the creation of an international mission to verify if the FARC do have camps in Venezuelan territory, something Colombia requested when it went to the OAS yesterday.

U.S. State department spokesperson Phillip Crowley said he supported Colombia's proposal and such a mission should visit and examine the supposed camps within a month.

"There should be an investigation. We think Venezuela has the responsibility to respond swiftly to the important information presented yesterday by Colombia," he said.

OAS norms state that such a commission can only be formed with the permission of the country involved.

Maduro concluded that the only way diplomatic relations between Venezuela and Colombia could be restored was with "absolute respect and when they cease the political and media aggressions against [Venezuela]."

Venezuela had already suspended bilateral trade ties mid last year to protest the agreement between the U.S and Colombia to install seven U.S military bases in Colombian territory.

Then last week the outgoing Colombian government accused Venezuela of purposefully tolerating the presence of Colombian guerrilla "terrorists" in its territory. Venezuela's initial response was that such accusations were part of a media "defamation" campaign.

ALBA Opposes U.S.- Israeli Threats Against Iran

2010-07-14T22:23:00.001-04:00

Dear Friends,

At a time of increased U.S.-lead of sanctions and threats of military attacks against the people of Iran, diplomatic representatives of five member states of the Bolivarian Alliance of the People of Our America (ALBA) in Tehran have condemned these measures and reaffirmed their support for Iran's right to develop the peaceful use of nuclear energy. The following report on this statement is from the Tehran Times (http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=222984) _________________________________________
ALBA Opposes U.S.- Israeli Threats Against Iran
By Hamid Golpira and Amir Mirzaattari

TEHRAN - The countries of the ALBA alliance have expressed their support for Iran's right to use nuclear energy meant for peaceful purposes and have condemned the imposition of sanctions on the country.

Ambassadors and heads of missions of five member states of the Bolivarian Alliance of the People of Our America (ALBA) signed a declaration in Tehran on Wednesday expressing support for Iran's right to continue its peaceful nuclear activities.

The signing of the declaration was announced during a press conference held at the Venezuelan Embassy in Tehran on Wednesday July 14.

Jorge Miranda, the ambassador of the Multinational State of Bolivia, William Carbo Ricardo, the ambassador of the Republic of Cuba, Daniel Alvarez, the charge d'affaires of the Republic of Ecuador, Mario Barquero, the ambassador of the Republic of Nicaragua, and David Velasquez, the ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, attended the press conference.

Following is the full text of the declaration:

Combined Declaration of the Ambassadors and Heads of Missions of the Member States of ALBA accredited to the Islamic Republic of Iran

We, Ambassadors and Heads of Mission of the Member States of the Bolivarian Alliance of the people of our America -- ALBA -- in the Islamic Republic of Iran condemn the destabilizing and militaristic aspirations of the United States Government and its allies, specially the Zionist government of Israel, whose acts lead to a conflict scene against Iran which will be extended to all the Middle East.

We ratify the support of our governments to the sovereign right of the Islamic Republic of Iran to generate atomic energy and use it with peaceful aims, the right of all the nations laid down in the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty).

The civilized way of dialogue for giving solution to controversies never should be stopped because it is the main form of the relations between sovereign nations in the 21st century. A military aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran will just bring dreadful consequences to all of humanity.

All the people and governments of the Bolivarian Alliance of the People of Our America -- ALBA -- believe that frank dialogue for finding solutions and agreement should prevail over roaring cannons.

During the press conference, Ambassador Barquero said, "We have gathered to condemn imperialism and express our opposition to this (the Zionist) regime's acts and highlight the (need for) peace and peaceful concord."

The Cuban ambassador noted, "We have always said that threatening Iran should be condemned, and we have expressed our readiness to support Iran at this point in time, and we believe that the Iranian nation can give a crushing response to the threats."

Velasquez said, "We have gathered to express the common concerns of Latin American countries about any measures taken against Iran and to warn against hostile acts toward Iran."

He added that Iran and Venezuela have signed agreements on gasoline and petrochemicals, which are also subject to sanctions, but explained that Venezuela will continue its cooperation with Iran in this area.

Ambassador Miranda said that Bolivian President Evo Morales will pay an official visit to Iran after the month of Ramadan, which occurs from approximately August 12 to September 11 this year, depending on the sighting of the new moon.

The ambassadors also said that ALBA member states will continue their economic cooperation with Iran despite the economic sanctions imposed on the country.

Commenting on the efforts to increase the economic integration of ALBA, Ambassador Barquero said ALBA members have agreed to adopt a single currency called the Sucre, and stated that Ecuador, Venezuela, and Cuba use this currency in their trade exchanges.

Ambassador Miranda explained that the sucre is still at a point somewhat similar to the stage when the euro was still the European Currency Unit, but added that one day it may enter circulation.

Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines are the members of ALBA.

Smear Campaign Against Cuban Five Revealed

2010-06-06T22:52:00.008-04:00

United States secretly paid media to spin news against Cuban Five
Edited 06 June, 2010,
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-06-03/us-secret-media-cuba.html

Five Cuban men convicted on charges of espionage over ten years ago and put in prison may have been the victims of a smear campaign by the US government.

The National Committee to Free the Cuban Five claim to have evidence that proves the US paid tens of thousands of dollars to Miami journalists to spin stories against the five men to convince the jury to convict them.

The five men, Gerardo Hernandez, Antonio Guerrero, Ramon Labanino, Fernando Gonzalez and Rene Gonzalez were arrested in 1998. They said they were conducting a service to the Cuban government by monitoring terrorist groups in Miami and that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was aware of their presence and task. The men are serving sentences varying from 15 years to two life terms.

The apparent new evidence highlights this case again and also brings up the topic of US-Cuba relations generally.

The evidence the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five has found was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made 18 months ago.

"Fourteen names came back of journalists who it turns out were receiving covertly monies from the US government," said Gloria La Riva, the coordinator of the National Committee to Free the Cuban Five.
http://www.freethefive.org

June 5 Marks the 43rd anniversary of the Israeli occupation of Gaza

2010-06-04T10:31:00.001-04:00

On Saturday, June 5, human rights and community organizations will mobilize to join an emergency Global Boycott Divestments Sanctions (BDS) Day of Action called by the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC). In Toronto, join us to protest the fatal attacks by apartheid Israel on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the occupied and besieged Gaza Strip (please see full BNC call-out below).

RALLY and MARCH
Date: Saturday, June 5
Time: 1:00 p.m.
Location: Israeli Consulate, 180 Bloor Street West, Toronto

June 5 also marks the 43rd anniversary of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Our action aims to draw the world’s attention to Israel’s continuing illegal occupation, its refusal to abide by international law, and its massacre of innocent humanitarian workers.

Please join us, and stand with Palestine!
Tell your friends and family. Bring Palestinian flags.

Organized by:

Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid
Palestine House Community Centre
Canadian Arab Federation
Toronto Coalition to Stop the War
Canadian Peace Alliance
Not In Our Name (NION): Jewish Voices Opposing Zionism
Venezuela We Are With You Coalition (CVEC)

To endorse, please email endapartheid@ riseup.net.
------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
Call for Action by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC)
1 June 2010

Palestinian civil society calls for intensifying boycott and sanctions as Israel massacres humanitarian relief workers and international solidarity activists

Occupied Palestine, 1 June 2010 - The Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC) strongly condemns last night’s fatal attack by the Israeli navy on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to the occupied and besieged Gaza Strip. The BNC conveys Palestinian civil society’s condolences to the families and friends of those killed by the Israeli assault and warmly salutes the principled solidarity and moral commitment of all those involved in the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.

In response, the BNC calls on international civil society to:

* Mobilize for an emergency Global BDS Day of Action on Saturday 5 June 2010 -- the 43rd anniversary of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

* Pressure governments to start implementing trade sanctions and arms embargoes.

We call specifically on transport and dock workers and unions around the globe to:
* Refuse to load/offload Israeli ships and airplanes, following the historic example set by the South African Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU) in Durban in February 2009 and endorsed by the Maritime Union of Australia (Western Australia).

The Flotilla, which was attacked in international waters in violation of international law, was carrying relief supplies that Israel has persistently prevented from entering Gaza, including medical supplies, cement and food. Israel’s siege is considered a form of collective punishment, a war crime under Article 33 of the Geneva Convention. All of the relief workers and activists on board the Gaza Flotilla ships were unarmed.

In legal terms, Israel’s military assault against the Flotilla is an act of aggression against the countries whose flags the ships were carrying; politically, it is an assault against human decency and all people of conscience around the world who support freedom and justice.

Israel’s impunity is the direct result of the international community’s failure to hold it accountable for its ongoing occupation, colonization and apartheid against the Palestinian people. Israel’s most recent war crimes committed in Gaza and documented in the Goldstone Report as well as crimes committed in 2006 against the Lebanese people did not trigger any UN or official sanctions, entrenching Israel’s feeling of being above the law.

In fact, Israel’s grave violation of international law was recently rewarded when the OECD voted unanimously to accept its membership. The BNC urges international civil society to end this deep and fatal complicity.

The BNC also welcomes and affirms the call of the UN expert on human rights Prof. Richard Falk who stated, “It is time to insist on the end of the blockade of Gaza. The worldwide campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel is now a moral and political imperative, and needs to be supported and strengthened everywhere.”[1]

The UN Security Council has, unsurprisingly, failed to hold Israel accountable for its aggression against the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.[2] The BNC calls upon the UN General Assembly, the European Union, the Arab League and their member states to undertake practical measures which will end Israel’s impunity for its massive and systematic violation of international law, including by:

* Immediately ending all collusion with Israel’s unlawful blockade of the Gaza Strip and pressuring Israel’s to guarantee unrestricted humanitarian access and freedom of movement of people and products into and out of the Gaza Strip.

* Bringing to justice all Israeli officials and military personnel who took the decision and/or implemented this latest massacre as well as earlier war crimes.

* Pressuring your government to immediately suspend arms trade with Israel, and to implement trade sanctions and arms embargos against Israel.

* In particular, we call on the EU to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, the Mercosur to suspend the FTA, India to reverse the decision to hold negotiations around an India-Israel FTA and to stop arms deals with Israel, and Turkey to impose an arms embargo on Israel.

The BNC also calls on people of conscience and citizen groups all over the world to intensify BDS campaigns against Israel as the most effective means of holding it accountable to international law and ending its fatal impunity.

Venezuela's Unbreakable Commitment with the Palestinian

2010-05-31T22:23:00.002-04:00

Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Ministry of People's Power for Foreign Affairs
Statement
May 31, 2010

The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Commander Hugo
Chavez, emphatically condemns the brutal massacre perpetrated by the
State of Israel against the members of the Liberty Flotilla, as a
result of the war action started by the Israeli Army against
defenseless civilians, who tried to carry humanitarian aid supplies to
the Palestine people of the Gaza Strip, who are victim of the criminal
blockage imposed by the State of Israel.

President Hugo Chavez, on behalf of his government and the Venezuelan
people, expresses his deepest regret and sends his deepest condolences
to the families and relatives of the heroes who have been victim of
this state crime, and commit to honor their memory and to give the
necessary help so that the responsible of this murderers are severely
punished.

The revolutionary government of Venezuela will continue denouncing the
terrorist and criminal nature of Israel, and it reaffirms, today more
than ever, its unbreakable commitment with the fight of the
Palestinian people for freedom, the sovereignty and the dignity.

Caracas, May 31, 2010

Venezuela Coalition Defends Venezuela Against Ottawa's attempted Smear

2010-05-25T22:12:00.001-04:00

Dear Friends,

In the past weeks, the House of Commons subcommittee on Human Rights initiated an investigation of the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela, whose apparent purpose was to smear the government of Hugo Chavez as "anti-democratic" and thus to draw attention away from the very real and gross violations of human rights in Colombia.

The Venezuela We Are With You Coalition (CVEC) as well as Hands Off Venezuela/Louis Riel Bolivian Circle joined in making two coordinated submissions to the parliamentary committee defending the Bolivarian Republic.

Below is the submission of the Venezuela We Are With You Coalition, prepared by Paul Kellogg.
_______________________
May 13, 2010

To: Julie Lalande Prud'homme
Greffière/ Clerk
Sous-comite des droits internationaux de la personne (SDIR) /
Subcommittee on International Human Rights (SDIR)
Direction des comites / Committees Directorate
Chambre des communes / House of Commons

131 rue Queen, pièce 6-10
Ottawa (ON) , K1A 0A6
Tel: 613-995-8983
Telec. : 613-947-9670
SDIR@parl.gc.ca www.parl.gc.ca

Brief to the subcommittee:

Thank you for the invitation to my organization (Coalition Venezuela We Are With You / Coalicion Venezuela Estamos Contigo) and to myself to present a brief to your committee. I will not be able to be present in person. I have been in touch with others from the solidarity movement in Toronto who will be making presentations, and am confident that they will make a very thorough presentation of the key issues. What follows are some brief written remarks as a modest supplement to your deliberations.

I am trained as a political scientist (Ph.D. Queen's University). For the last several years I have had a keen interest in events in Latin America and the Caribbean making it one of my research areas. For the last two years, I have been an assistant professor in the Department of International Development Studies at Trent University, in Peterborough, Ontario. So with that background, I have developed somewhat of an appreciation for the situation in Latin America and the Caribbean.

However, it does not take an extensive academic background to know that there are issues of human rights to be studied in Latin America and the Caribbean. Many of my first year students in the large introductory development studies class at Trent University -- who at the age of 18 do not, of course, have an extensive academic background -- are quite aware of human rights issues in Latin America and the Caribbean. What is surprising to me, and would be surprising to them, is your choice of country. Surely the issue in 2010 in terms of human rights in Latin America and the Caribbean is not the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, but rather its neighbour, Colombia.

I urge you to study the 2009 edition of the "Annual survey of violations of trade union rights." What you will read in the section on Colombia should give you chills. In 2008 alone, 49 trade unionists were assassinated "of whom 16 were trade union leaders, 45 were men and four were women. Attacks, disappearances and death threats continued."

Imagine the outcry in Canada if even one trade union leader had been assassinated in 2008. It would dominate the pages of the press. Were there to be 16 union leaders assassinated and 33 others, that outcry would be massive indeed. The truly horrifying aspect of this, however, is that this is by no means a one-year phenomenon. In 2007, there were 39 such assassinations so that "Colombia remained the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists." In 2006 there were "78 trade unionists murdered during the year." This is in fact a very old story -- a long-standing, and quite well-documented story about a terrible situation confronting one of the most basic of all human rights -- the right of workers to freely associate and collectively organize.

There is another reason why, in 2010, it is surprising to focus a human rights lens on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela rather than on Colombia. The Government of Canada is embarking on bilateral trade negotiations with a number of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. There is no indication that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela has been selected as one of these countries. However, as is also well known to my first year students at Trent University, Colombia is one such country. I read from a Government of Canada web site that on March 10, 2010, "the Government of Canada tabled legislation to implement the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Labour Cooperation and Environment Agreements." Surely the name itself -- given the facts outlined above -- should demand an urgent investigation into the human rights situation in Colombia. This is not just being called a trade agreement but a "Labour Cooperation" agreement. The Government of Canada is entering into a cooperative relationship with a country, on the issue of labour, when that country is widely seen as having the most anti-labour environment in the entire world.

In a certain sense, my brief to your committee should end here. My one point to you is that you have the wrong area of inquiry, that given Canada's policy orientation towards Colombia, the focus in terms of human rights needs to be Colombia and not the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and that were you to spend any time engaging in such an inquiry, it would immediately call into question the ethical, moral, and political problems in intensifying collaboration with the Government of Colombia.

However, as a political scientist, it is incumbent on me to open up one more issue for you to consider. You will all be well aware that no political action takes place in a vacuum. Understanding the context is something that I urge all of my students to attempt, no matter what their choice of essay topic. A reasonable thesis for one such student essay might be to suggest that it is precisely the context outlined above -- the push for a bilateral trade, labour and environmental agreement with a government widely known for its terrible human rights record -- that might impel a Canadian government to focus on another country, any other country, in order to "change the channel." If we announce to the people of Canada that in 2010 human rights in Latin America and the Caribbean is to be our subject, and that in this year, the key country to study is the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, then it might have the political effect of focusing attention away from what is really going on -- an intensification of Canadian involvement with a very suspect regime in Colombia.

There might, however, be one benefit from such an exercise. An intensive focus on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is long overdue. The situation in that country, as in the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, is exceedingly difficult. President Hugo Chavez Frias inherited an economy and society, severely damaged by long years of interference by International Financial Institutions (IFIs), institiutions in which Canada plays a leading role. Undoing the damage caused, in part, by the irresponsible Structural Adjustment Programmes of the IMF and the World Bank has been an enormous challenge, not just for President Chavez, but for political leaders all through Latin America and the Caribbean. The societal disruption caused by years of structural adjustment throughout Latin America, has contributed to an environment where human rights abuses do intensify. There is no more fertile ground for human rights abuses than the chaos created by economic decline and societal instability.

What needs to be soberly confronted by policy makers in Canada, is that the antidote to this economic decline and societal instability is -- not to give legitimacy to regressive regimes such as the one in Colombia -- but to do as has been done in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in the little country of Bolivia, and elsewhere -- and resist the policy prescriptions of the IFIs, and to insist that the way forward in Latin America and the Caribbean is for sovereign development, controlled by the peoples of the region, not by distant institutions based in the Global North.

Your investigation of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will surely lead you to encounter the interesting alternatives being developed to the Global North IFIs -- including but not restricted to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). The establishment of these organizations has accelerated the assertion of sovereignty in the region as a whole -- an assertion of sovereignty which is the precondition for any and all improvement in the conditions of the people of the region, including an improvement in human rights.

Sincerely

Dr. Paul Kellogg
Dept. of International Development Studies
Trent University
Peterborough, ON K9J 7B8

_______________________________
Footnotes:
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), “2009 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights: Colombia” – Accessed May 13, 2010.
2 ITUC, “2008 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights: Colombia” > – Accessed May 13, 2010.
3 ITUC, “2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights: Colombia” > – Accessed May 13, 2010.
4 Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement” > – Accessed May 13, 2010.

Discussion on Venezuela's Economy

2010-05-12T16:40:00.000-04:00

Venezuela is not Greece
by Mark Weisbrot
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 6 May 2010
http://tinyurl.com/2dj5duu

Given the Venezuelan government's low public and foreign debt, the idea the country is facing an 'economic crisis' is plain wrong. The country is not facing a crisis, but rather a policy choice.

With Venezuela's economy having contracted last year (as did the vast majority of economies in the Western Hemisphere), the economy suffering from electricity shortages, and the value of domestic currency having recently fallen sharply in the parallel market, stories of Venezuela's economic ruin are again making headlines.

The Washington Post, in a news article that reads more like an editorial, reports that Venezuela is "gripped by an economic crisis," and that "years of state interventions in the economy are taking a brutal toll on private business."

There is one important fact that is almost never mentioned in news articles about Venezuela, because it does not fit in with the narrative of a country that has spent wildly throughout the boom years, and will soon, like Greece, face its day of reckoning. That is the government's debt level: currently about 20% of GDP. In other words, even as it was tripling real social spending per person, increasing access to healthcare and education, and loaning or giving billions of dollars to other Latin American countries, Venezuela was reducing its debt burden during the oil price run-up. Venezuela's public debt fell from 47.5% of GDP in 2003 to 13.8% in 2008. In 2009, as the economy shrank, public debt picked up to 19.9% of GDP. Even if we include the debt of the state oil company, PDVSA, Venezuela's public debt is 26% of GDP. The foreign part of this debt is less than half of the total.

Compare this to Greece, where public debt is 115% of GDP and currently projected to rise to 149% in 2013. (The European Union average is about 79%.)

Given the Venezuelan government's very low public and foreign debt, the idea the country is facing an "economic crisis" is simply wrong. With oil at about $80 a barrel, Venezuela is running a sizeable current account surplus, and has a healthy level of reserves. Furthermore, the government can borrow internationally as necessary – last month China agreed to loan Venezuela $20bn in an advance payment for future oil deliveries.

Nonetheless, the country still faces significant economic challenges, some of which have been worsened by mistaken macroeconomic policy choices. The economy shrank by 3.3% last year. The international press has trouble understanding this, but the problem was that the government's fiscal policy was too conservative – cutting spending as the economy slipped into recession. This was a mistake, but hopefully the government will reverse this quickly with its planned expansion of public investment this year, including $6bn for electricity generation.

The government's biggest long-term economic mistake has been the maintenance of a fixed, overvalued exchange rate. Although the government devalued the currency in January, from 2.15 to 4.3 to the dollar for most official foreign exchange transactions, the currency is still overvalued. The parallel or black market rate is at more than seven to the dollar.

An overvalued currency – by making imports artificially cheap and the country's exports more expensive – hurts Venezuela's non-oil tradable goods' sectors and prevents the economy from diversifying away from oil. Worse still, the country's high inflation rate (28% over the last year, and averaging 21% annually over the last seven years) makes the currency more overvalued in real terms each year. (The press has misunderstood this problem, too – the inflation itself is too high, but the main damage it does to the economy is not from the price increases themselves but from causing an increasing overvaluation of the real exchange rate.)

But Venezuela is not in the situation of Greece – or even Portugal, Ireland, or Spain. Or Latvia or Estonia. The first four countries are stuck with an overvalued currency – for them, the euro – and implementing pro-cyclical fiscal policies (eg deficit reduction) that are deepening their recessions and/or slowing their recovery. They do not have any control over monetary policy, which rests with the European Central Bank. The latter two countries are in a similar situation for as long as they keep their currencies pegged to the euro, and have lost output six to eight times that of Venezuela over the last two years.

By contrast, Venezuela controls its own foreign exchange, monetary, and fiscal policies. It can use expansionary fiscal and monetary policy to stimulate the economy, and also exchange rate policy – by letting the currency float. A managed, or "dirty" float – in which the government does not set a target exchange rate but intervenes when necessary to preserve exchange rate stability – would suit the Venezuelan economy much better than the current fixed rate. The government could manage the exchange rate at a competitive level, and not have to waste so many dollars, as it does currently, trying to narrow the gap between the parallel and the official rate. Although there were (as usual, exaggerated) predictions that inflation would skyrocket with the most recent devaluation, it did not – possibly because most foreign exchange transactions take place through the parallel market anyway.

Venezuela is well situated to resolve its current macroeconomic problems and pursue a robust economic expansion, as it had from 2003-2008. The country is not facing a crisis, but rather a policy choice.
________________________

Anti-Imperialism is the Common Element in the New International

2010-04-28T23:22:00.000-04:00

The First Socialist International of the 21st Century
by Kiraz Janicke, Federico Fuentes, and Julio Chavez

During the recently concluded five-month extraordinary congress] of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, Kiraz Janicke & Federico Fuentes had the opportunity to discuss President Hugo Chavez's proposal to form a Fifth Socialist International, with Julio Chavez, a delegate to the PSUV congress and a member of the congress's international committee, which is charged with drafting a specific plan of action to form a new socialist international.

The proposal that President Hugo Chavez made regarding the formation of a Fifth Socialist International has attracted a lot of attention at a global level. I'm interested in your point of view, as a delegate and member of the International Committee of the Congress of the PSUV, why propose a 5th International and what is the importance of this proposal?

I believe that the proposal launched by the President Hugo Chavez, to raise at this time a global debate on historical relevance of the need to call on all parties, movements and leftist and anti-imperialist currents of the world to have a full discussion, is based on the characterization and in-depth analysis of the crisis of global capitalism. This leads unquestionably to the conclusion that the only way to overcome the cyclical crisis of world capitalism is, in fact, by proposing a model or a path that is completely different from the neo-liberal model, the predatory model, of capitalism. There is no other alternative than the path of transition to socialism.

We believe that discussion of a transitional program, a great debate, should be happen this year in Caracas due to the role that Venezuela is playing as the epicentre of the great transformations that have occurred since the beginning of this century, which have motivated and enthused the peoples of our America, and also for the leading role that Venezuela and President Hugo Chavez are playing at the global level. We think it is necessary for all these features and for all the situations that have been presented in terms of the aggressive policy of U.S. imperialism against Venezuela, installing military bases, reactivating the Fourth Fleet and generating a media campaign of attacks and insults, both against the revolutionary process and against the leader of this process. For all these reasons, we believe it is appropriate to the call for an organization, which should have Caracas as the epicentre of a great global debate about the need to advance on a proposal to overcome the contradiction between capital and labour, where the only option, the only alternative we see as viable, feasible as a historical project of life, is precisely the path towards socialism.

We believe therefore, that drawing on the experiences and balances generated by the four previous internationals, which had Europe as their epicentre precisely because of the industrial revolution and the great contradictions that were expressed in the context of rapidly growing capitalism that led to its highest stage, imperialism, that all these contradictions have been transferred to Latin America, and have created in Venezuela the conditions, the features, to make a call of this nature. I repeat, it must become an organization that is permanent in nature, that is able to summon all the parties of the Left, social movements, prominent individuals and historical currents of thought, and not just specifically those raising the historical project of socialism, but that anti-imperialism should be the common element that brings us all together.

Of course we don't just want one more event, one more conference. We're not just making this call to open a discussion, a debate, to produce a document, but to actually set minimum agreements, a minimum transition program, a policy of developing in all the five continents, based on the analysis of the current situation, a characterization of each particular region, to consider expeditiously the transition towards a model that overcomes the contradictions of capital and labour.

Why is anti-imperialism being proposed as the common element and not just socialism?

We say that this call has to have a broad character, and it is possible that in some countries, such as in the Middle East, there are organizations and movements fighting against some expressions of imperialism and international Zionism as such, but that are not socialist in essence, in the programmatic sense. But, undoubtedly, they are fighting imperialism. That's why we say that it could be that in some Islamic countries that do not have socialism as an ideological element, for example the case of the Islamic Revolution of Iran, which is anti-imperialist, that this element will be an element that will convoke as many parties, organizations, movements of the world to raise the battle, the confrontation with imperialism. As well as all those who defend a model based on the worldview of indigenous people, and also the principles and approaches of scientific socialism, elements of regional and Bolivarian thought, the ideas of Mariategui, of Marti, the tree of the three roots in Venezuela [1], and all those who are part of a historical, philosophical current that defends the claims accumulated through many years of struggle by the peoples of this part of the world.

From this perspective of an anti-imperialist character, from the vision that has been nurtured by the experience of the historical struggles of indigenous peoples, it is possible to call as many parties, movements, and currents in the world, let us repeat, for a wide-ranging debate, that is full of discussion, in order to agree on a plan, a minimum transition program, to move concretely towards a socialist project at a world level. An anti-imperialist project is the only way at this juncture, faced with the cyclical crisis of capitalism, in which capitalism is not going to collapse by itself, but is in a process of readjustment, of realignment, of looking for the possibility of a second wind; we believe that at this juncture is possible to consider an alternative, but that it must be global and anti-imperialist.
There is a core document that we have been discussing within the Congress, in the international committee of the party congress. A document in which we have assessed and taken stock of what the four previous socialist internationals signified, the context in which they were called, of the proposals, the achievements that they made, and in view of the historical relevance and the a policy of aggression against the Bolivarian revolution and the processes of transformation that have been raised in other countries, we believe that it is possible to produce a document that contains all those elements.

We have even talked about the definition of the historical subject, those who are making the call and who are the social movements, currents and parties in different continents and different countries and who are engaged in a common struggle with us, which is the struggle against imperialism.

Therefore, we believe that through this approach and, of course, discussing what the objectives of this call for a 5th International are -- or as we also call it, the First Socialist International of the 21st Century, because there are some discussions with the Communist Party comrades who do not recognize the Fourth International, but we say it is not a question of numbers, but in any case, it would be the first Socialist International of this century -- and under these assumptions, by seeking to broaden the programmatic base, the doctrinal principles, with an agenda of topics to discuss, a program to develop, it will be possible to go beyond simply producing a document, but rather to produce an agreement that is expressed in very concrete policies, recognizing the reality of each continent, of each country, and where this effort should lead to the articulation of a powerful global movement to allow us to move forward.

We can move forward on a debate, a discussion about what things we can agree on, opening the possibility that within the meeting there will also be a debate on the whole mechanism of coordination, of integration, beyond governments, because this is not a government event, we are talking about parties, movements, to develop an international policy which has internationalism as a spearhead of counter-hegemonic confrontation.

I think it is possible to discuss all these aspects in Venezuela, and we can then come out of it with a minimum program, a minimum plan of work, again, respecting differences, allowing us to develop a policy around different continents that would have a permanent basis, so that we have the possibility of regular meetings at a continental or regional level, to evaluate the progress of things, but it should also be binding for all organizations, movements and parties that make this call.

Here you touched on a subject that historically has always been complicated, that is, the difference between diplomatic relations of governments and the relations of parties, particularly when some of these parties are also in government, like the PSUV, which was created following the call made by a head of state. This issue has been raised, for example, about other governments with which Venezuela maintains good diplomatic relations but that are far from being a socialist, where one understands that the State should have diplomatic relations, but where left-wing forces who may be interested in participating [in the 5th International] are part of the opposition to these governments.

I think that right now we are having a very interesting debate in the ideological congress of the party. Remember that, three years ago, we had a founding congress and this is the first ideological congress. Coincidentally, we are right now finishing the discussion and debate about the programmatic basis for a party which is conceived for the transition to socialism. We are discussing the values, principles, statutes, and clearly we have been discussing and distinguishing that one thing is the government's foreign policy and another thing is the international politics of PSUV.

I think we're making a clear conceptualization of these two positions where, undoubtedly, there are levels of convergence because we believe that the PSUV should be a space, a scenario where policy is discussed to be executed precisely at the level of government, in this case in ministries to which international issues apply, of course with the participation, the approval of President Chavez, who is leading the State's foreign policy and is at the same time, the party president.
There are things the government and our embassies cannot say, but the PSUV is more likely to express positions from an ideological point of view and this has been a large part of the discussion that has occurred in the national Congress.
So I think we're making good progress in differentiating the foreign policy of the government and the party, understanding the peculiarity that in this case the president is the president of the nation and at the same time, the party president.
We have been careful not to get involved in discussions within other countries, to not take positions on issues which correspond to the peoples of those countries and their governments to take.

But in any case, the PSUV is proposing to design, to elaborate a policy, an offensive that allows us to establish contacts at the global level with those organizations and social movements that have been doing solidarity work with Venezuela, which have been supportive of the efforts and initiatives taken by the Bolivarian revolution, with the achievements of the Bolivarian Revolution, and this is giving us a chance to come together and network with many movements with many parties and organizations in the world that share the historical project of socialism, the historical project to overcome the contradiction between capital and labour.

We believe we have made great strides in this need to differentiate what is the government's foreign policy and what is the party's international politics. Internationalism is enshrined in the statutes in the values and principles, because this is not a party that is thinking only about the transition that is happening in Venezuela. We are talking about a party that has to assume internationalism, solidarity and to develop the necessary initiatives in terms of confronting imperialism and strengthening policy coordination with those parties, movements and organizations that defend anti-imperialist struggle.

I think we have made significant progress there. We do not believe that at this moment, just as we are finishing the first ideological congress of the party, that we have the party that we want, but undoubtedly, we have advanced, we have taken very strong steps towards building this powerful instrument within which we can discuss and debate the major issues, major policies, major decisions to advance the transition to socialism.

Has the document drafted by the commission been approved already or is it still under discussion?

The international commission was charged with the responsibility of drawing up a document. The document is circulating internally at the party; it is in the hands of the national leadership and, of course, has been raised for the consideration of the president of the party.

The document is circulating and there have been some comments, and when the president authorizes it, that is the basic document that will be released to encourage and motivate the discussion on the historical relevance and the need to convene all the parties and movements across the world that struggle against imperialism and for the construction of a socialist project.

Obviously, in a revolutionary situation, things cannot simply be determined by a calendar, particularly in the context of the offensive that imperialism has launched in recent months, but is there an idea, at least, of when the founding of the 5th International will be?

Indeed there is a whole plan of different phases that has been submitted for consideration, where it has been proposed to convoke meetings at a regional or continental level, to create promotional teams, with a strategy for disseminating information so that it can be built from the bottom up. It is anticipated that all these elements, the creation of an information system, making all the communicational elements that the revolution has been using, all these tools, all these resources, available to the revolution and parties worldwide, will be part of this plan by phases.

There is also the idea of holding various meetings, where there is even the possibility that our delegations will travel to other continents, other countries to discuss, to motivate, to create the conditions for starting to debate the issue.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/5308

President Chavez Highlights Importance of Cochabamba Climate Conference

2010-04-22T20:44:00.003-04:00

Dear Friends,

This poster announces a Report Back From Cochabamba, Friday evening, May 7 at Steeworkers Hall, Toronto. See more details below this article.

Cochabamba Summit: Chavez accuses US of blackmail vs ALBA countries
by Patrick J. O'Donoghue
http://vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=90818

President Chavez has declared that the US government continues to blackmail countries that refused to sign the Copenhagen climate change agreement. He made the statement after a private meeting in Caracas with Cuban President Raul Castro to review agreements and relations.

Before leaving for Cochabamba, Bolivia, President Chavez highlighted the importance of the alternative climate summit convoked by Bolivian President Evo Morales. Chavez said he is satisfied by the response of social movements throughout the world to the call for the defense of Mother Earth ... "only peoples can save the planet from imperialism."

Ecuador has confirmed that the US had threatened to withdraw $2.5 million aid towards environmental issues for not signing the Copenhagen agreement. Bolivia has made a similar complaint.

Meanwhile, the Cochabamba summit has got underway with an official opening on Tuesday night. One of the first reports is that the UN representative, Alicia Barcena was booed when she started reading a message from UN general secretary, Ban Ki-moon.

The representative seemed taken aback by the massive rejection and insisted that the UN had come to listen and respect ... "if you don't want us here, then we will withdraw ... we also represent peoples."

On opening the summit, President Morales argued that the dilemma threatening humankind was a choice between imperialism and Mother Earth and said he hoped the UN would take into account and respect the summit's conclusions.

If the conclusions are not heeded, he declared, an alternative organization of peoples in defense of the earth would be created called Unity of Aboriginal Peoples and Workers (UNO)
________________________
Report-back from:
World People's Conference on Climate Change and the
Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba, Bolivia April 19-22

FRIDAY, MAY 7, AT 7 P.M. - 11 P.M.
STEELWORKERS HALL
25 CECIL STREET (BETWEEN DUNDAS AND COLLEGE)

Featuring:** Robert Lovelace, a leader of Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, who served a prison term for his role in peacefully resisting uranium exploration near Sharbot Lake, and other delegates to the Cochabamba People's Conference.
** Ben Powless, 22 year old Mohawk from Six Nations in Ontario.
** Kimia Ghomeshi, Campaign Director, Canadian Youth Climate Change
** Danny Beaton: 2010 recipient of the National Aboriginal Achievement Award (NAAA) for Environment and Natural Resources
** Toronto Bolivia Solidarity delegation
** Representatives from sponsoring organizations

* Bolivian dance troupe and First Nations indigenous drumming.
* Bolivian food and beverages. Donation $5 or pay what you can.

More than 20,000 social-movement and government representatives have confirmed attendance in Cochabamba to plan building a people's movement to save the planet and us all. Join us on May 7 to learn of and be part of this initiative.

Sponsoring Organizations include Toronto Bolivia Solidarity, Latin American Solidarity Network, CAW-Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson, Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG); Common Frontiers; KAIROS Toronto Center, Canadian Youth Climate Coalition, Climate and Capitalism; Toronto Haiti Action Committee, Toronto Forum on Cuba, Toronto Climate Campaign; ecosanity.org; Rabble.ca; Krittibas Literary Group of Toronto. Let us know if your organization wishes to join the Sponsorship list: torontoboliviasolidarity @gmail.com

Criticism Is Good and Should Help the Process

2010-04-04T17:43:00.004-04:00

Dear Friends

This is an important interview with Marta Harnecker which discusses the responsibility of those who support the Venezuelan revolution to objectively assess and discuss its challenges. Should the threatened U.S. intervention in Venezuela prevent discussion of the problems facing the revolution within?
_________________________________________________

"We Must Take Public Criticism into Account. Criticism Is Good and Should Help the Process"
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/harnecker310310.html
Marta Harnecker Interviewed by Edwin Herrera Salinas

What is the characteristic of the Latin American Left today?
20 years ago, when the Berlin Wall fell, there was no revolution foreseeable on the horizon. However, it didn't take long before a process began to emerge in Latin America with Hugo Chavez. We have gone on to form governments with anti-neoliberal programs, though not all of them are putting an anti-neoliberal economics in practice.

We have created a new Left. A majority of victories are not due to political parties, except in the case of Brazil with the Workers' Party. In general, it's been due to either charismatic figures who reflect the popular sentiment that rejects the system or, in many cases, social movements that have emerged from resistance to neo liberalism and that have been the base of these new governments.

The governments that have done most to guarantee that there be a real process of change to an alternative society are the ones that are supported by organized peoples, for the correlation of forces is not idyllic. We have a very important enemy who is far from dead. It is preoccupied by the war in Iraq, but the power of the empire is very strong and is seeking to hold back this seemingly unstoppable process.

And what is happening to political thought?
What's happening is a renovation of left-wing thought. The ideas of revolutions that we used to defend in the 70s and 80s, in practice, have not materialized. So, left-wing thought has had to open itself up to new realities and search for new interpretations. It has had to develop more flexibility in order to understand that revolutionary processes, for example, can begin by simply winning administrative power.

The transitions that we are making are not classical ones, where revolutionaries seize state power and make and unmake everything from there. Today we are first conquering the administration and making advances from there.

Would you say that we are riding a revolutionary wave?
I believe that, yes, we are in a process of that kind. That there will be ebbs and flows, too, is true. It's interesting to look at the situation in Chile. Here we lost, but it was one of the least advanced processes. Chile always privileged its relation with the United States; the socialist Left was not capable of understanding the necessary links that we have to have in this region and betted on bilateral treaties.

During the era of Augusto Pinochet national industry was dismantled, and the Left didn't know how to work with people. The Left went about getting itself into the leadership, political spaces, the political class, while the Right went to work among people.

What role do you assign to Bolivia in this context?
I was in Bolivia a year and half ago. The situation was completely different then: people were in struggle and there were regional battles. Now I think you have made an enormous advance, when it comes to conquering the spaces of administrative power.

The correlation of forces in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, the forces of separatism that were defeated, and the success of moderate and intelligent economic policy have demonstrated to the people that, with the nationalization of basic resources, it is possible to build social programs and help the most defenseless sectors.

There is also something cultural, moral. The Bolivian people has what often doesn't show up in statistics: a people achieving dignity. Here, it's like Cuba, where many journalists were expecting to see the fall of Cuban socialism through the domino effect, which didn't happen because dignity matters to the Cuban people more than food.

I heard of improvements in Bolivia, but there still remain large pockets of poverty. Nevertheless, even the poorest citizens feel dignified thanks to the type of government that has had to understand, given Evo Morales' style, that its strength lies in organized people.

For me, it's like a symbol of what our governments ought to be in the face of difficulties. Instead of compromising and turning the process into top-down decision-making, the government receives support from the organized power of people who give it the strength to continue advancing. We must understand that popular pressures are necessary to transform the states, which means we mustn't be afraid of popular pressures, we mustn't be afraid just because there sometimes are strikes against the bureaucratic deviations of the state.
Lenin, before his death, said that the bureaucratic deviations of the state were such that the popular movement had the right to go on strike against it, to perfect the proletarian state. This type of pressure is different from destructive strikes. Social movements must understand their constructive role and, if they choose to apply pressure, do so to build, not to destroy.

Do you believe that the Bolivians can conquer power, not just the administration?
I believe that they will, as they are gaining ground and, well, power is also in the hands of organized people. The socialism we want, which can be called socialism, communitarianism, full humanity, whatever, is a search for a fully democratic society, where individuals can develop themselves, where differences are respected, where, through the practice of struggle, through transformation, the culture of thought will change.

One of the greatest problems is that we are trying to build an alternative society with an inherited individualistic and clientelistic culture. . . . Even our best cadres are influenced by this culture. So, it's a process of cultural transformation. Human beings change themselves through practice, not by decrees.
It is necessary to create spaces, or recognize already existing spaces, of participation, because the big problem of failed socialism was that people didn't feel themselves to be builders of a new society. They received grants, education, health care from the state, but they didn't feel that they were themselves building such a society.

What weaknesses do you see in the Bolivian process?
One of the problems is reflected in the leadership of cadres, accustomed as they are to thinking: when we take office, we change. We are democratic while working in a movement, but when we take office, we become authoritarian. We don't understand that, in the society we want to build, the state has to promote protagonism of people, rather than supplant their decision-making. It happens in some left-wing governments: government officials think that it's up to them to solve problems for people, rather than understand that they must solve problems together with people.

If our government officials are to be wise, they must be pushed by popular initiatives so that the people can feel they are doing it themselves. The state's paternalism, in building socialism, may help at first, but we must create popular protagonism.

Can this weakness derive from not having cadres?
Of course it can. In my latest book, this idea is developed in the last chapter, called "El instrumento politico que necesitamos para el siglo XXI" (The Political Instrument We Need for the 21st Century). The idea behind the term "political instrument" always seemed interesting to me. I insisted in 1999 that we use the term "political instrument" because the party, in some cases, is a worn-out term. We were interested in creating an agency that is in accordance with the needs of the new society, rather than copying the schemas of already obsolete parties.
The party, classically, has been a group of cadres who, at bottom, are seeking to prepare themselves for taking political offices, winning elections, with methods of work that we copied from the Bolshevik party, which were democratic, not clandestine. We mechanically translated that structure.

The results of renovation of what used to be our political parties, or rather social movements that participate in this political construction, are now instruments that belong to social movements, like MAS or Pachakutik in Ecuador, which are instruments created by social movements themselves.

The leading instrument is not a party -- varied as situations are -- but a popular national front. It mustn't be forgotten that we come from the processes in which the Left was in opposition, not in government, and one of the things that we are learning, with each local or national electoral victory, is that it's one thing to be the Left in opposition and it's another thing to be the Left in government.
Therefore we think that political instruments, whether they are fronts or whatever, must be the critical consciousness of the process. What happens often, or almost always, is that there arises a fusion of cadres in the government and cadres of the party. This is due to the shortage of cadres. We, as a group, are advocating in Venezuela for the necessity of public criticism which serves as a warning. If there are deviations, we have to have a chance to criticize them.

What, in your opinion, does public criticism consist of?
Even a little while ago, the Left, including myself, thought that we should just wash our dirty laundry at home. In Cuba, for example, that was always the case, and when we talked to the press, it was said: "Listen, be careful, don't say things that give ammunitions to the enemy." What happened in reality is that political education was greatly endangered, even in Cuba. In other words, the state, the political authority, corrupts if there is no control over it.

For Continued reading: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/harnecker310310.html

2010-04-04T17:43:00.001-04:00

Dear Friends,

You are invited to a planning meeting of the Venezuela Coalition:

Sunday, April 11, 4 p.m.
OISE, 6th floor. (252 Bloor Street West) at St. George Station 1. Educational: Report on trip to El Salvador - Ryan
2. Progress report on public event: Report Back from Climate Conference in Cochabamba
3. Future public event on imperialist threats to Latin America
4. Education subcommittee report on next series of study sessions
5. Discussion of Marta Harnecker article
6. Announcements

Event scheduled for April 27: In the Eye of the Storm -- is cancelled

Obama Administration Preparing to Destabilize Venezuela

2010-04-01T21:57:00.006-04:00

Dear Friends,

The article below explains how the Obama administration is preparing to destabilize the countries of Bolivia and Venezuela and finance an overthrow of the progress these countries have made in reducing poverty, eliminating ignorance through education, and advancing medical services. These advances are a threat to the U.S. and its allies because they pose an alternative to capitalism. Redoubling our defense and solidarity with Chavez and Morales is our duty.

The author, Mark Weisbrot, is co-director of the Centre for Policy and Economic Research, an influential left-wing Washington-based research institute.
_________________________________________
The anti-Venezuela election campaign

Venezuela's election is not until September, but the international campaign to delegitimise the government has already begun
by Mark Weisbrot
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 March 2010

Venezuela has an election for its national assembly in September, and the campaign has begun in earnest. I am referring to the international campaign. This is carried out largely through the international media, although some will spill over into the Venezuelan media. It involves many public officials, especially in the US. The goal will be to generate as much bad press as possible about Venezuela, to discredit the government, and to delegitimise the September elections -- in case the opposition should choose to boycott, as they did in the last legislative elections, or refuse to recognise the results if they lose.

There's no need for conspiracy, since the principal actors all know what to do. Occasionally some will be off-message due to lack of co-ordination. A fascinating example of this occurred last week when Senator John McCain tried to get General Doug Fraser of the US Southern Command to back his accusations that Venezuela supports terrorist activities. Testifying before the Senate armed services committee on March 11, General Fraser contradicted McCain:
"We have continued to watch very closely … We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection."

Oops! Apparently Fraser didn't get the memo that the Obama team, not just McCain, is in full campaign mode against Venezuela. The next day, he issued a statement recanting his testimony:

"Assistant Secretary Valenzuela [the state department's top Latin America official] and I spoke this morning on the topic of linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc. There is zero daylight between our two positions and we are in complete agreement.

"There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc … we are in direct alignment with our partners at the state department and the intelligence community."

Well it's good to know that the United States still has civilian control over the military, at least in the western hemisphere. On the other hand, it would be even better if the truth counted for anything in these Congressional hearings or in Washington foreign policy circles generally. The general's awkward and seemingly forced reversal went unnoticed by the media.

The "documented and historical and ongoing evidence" mentioned by General Fraser refers to material alleged to come from laptops and hard drives allegedly found by the Colombian military in a cross-border raid into Ecuador in 2008. Never mind that this is the same military that has been found to have killed hundreds of innocent teenagers and dressed them up in guerrilla clothing. These laptops and hard drives will continue to be tapped for previously undisclosed "evidence", which will then be deployed in the campaign against the Venezuelan government. We will be asked to assume that the "captured documents" are authentic, and most of the media will do so.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's attacks on Venezuela during her trip to South America were one of the opening salvos of this campaign. Most of what will follow is predictable. There will be hate-filled editorials in the major newspapers, led by the neocon editorial board of the Washington Post (aka Fox on 15th Street). Chavez will be accused of repressing the media, even though most of the Venezuelan media -- as measured by audience -- is still controlled by the opposition. In fact, the media in Venezuela is still far more in opposition to the government than is our own media in the United States, or for that matter in most of the world. But the international press will be trying to convey the image that Venezuela is Burma or North Korea.

In Washington DC, if I try to broadcast on an FM radio frequency without a legal broadcast licence, I will be shut down. When this happens in Venezuela, it is reported as censorship. No one here will bother to look at the legalities or the details, least of all the pundits and editorial writers, or even many of the reporters.

The Venezuelan economy was in recession in 2009, but will likely begin to grow again this year. The business press will ignore the economic growth and hype the inflation, as they have done for the past six years, when the country's record economic growth cut the poverty rate by half and extreme poverty by 70% (which was also ignored). Resolutions will be introduced into the US Congress condemning Venezuela for whatever.

The US government will continue to pour millions of dollars into Venezuela through USAid, and will refuse to disclose the recipients. This is the non-covert part of their funding for the campaign inside Venezuela.

The only part of this story that is not predictable is what the ultimate result of the international campaign will be. In Venezuela's last legislative elections of 2005,the opposition boycotted the national elections, with at least tacit support from the Bush administration. In an attempt to delegitimise the government, they gave up winning probably at least 30% of the legislature.

At the time, most of the media -- and also the Organisation of American States -- rejected the idea that the election was illegitimate simply because the opposition boycotted. But that was under the Bush administration, which had lost some credibility on Venezuela due to its support for the 2002 coup, and for other reasons. It could be different under an Obama administration.

That is why it is so ominous to see this administration mounting an unprovoked, transparently obvious campaign to delegitimise the Venezuelan government prior to a national election. This looks like a signal to the opposition: "We will support you if you decide to return to an insurrectionary strategy," either before or after the election.

Attend Peoples Assembly on Climate Change April 19-22

2010-03-28T19:33:00.002-04:00

The most important world conference being organized today will take place in Cochabamba, Bolivia, on April 19-22.

This assembly will be discussing the most crucial battle for the survival of Mother Earth and all its forms of life -- humans, animals, plants. We urge anyone who has the time and funds to participate. Toronto Bolivia Solidarity is sending several people, and assisting the attendance of Robert Lovelace, a leader of Ardoch Lake Algonquin First Nation, who served a jail sentence for peacefully resisting uranium exploration near Sharbot Lake in 2008..

The article below invites all to participate in countering the Brokenhagen debacle which has led to no changes in the emergency situation we face as a planet. To register and find out more information about Bolivia's World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth check out: http://pwccc.wordpress.com/

For more info on this project and other activities of Toronto Bolivia Solidarity, write: torontoboliviasolidarity[@]gmail.com
_______________________
BOLIVIA: Activists from across the globe to attend Peoples Conference on Climate Change
http://tinyurl.com/yb6rj9z

Renowned human rights activists, scientists, academics, and social organisations from various parts of the world have confirmed their participation in the Global Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, which will be held in Cochabamba, April 19-22.

Among those who will be present are Naomi Klein, author of No Logo; Eduardo Galeano, author of The Open Veins of Latin America; Danny Glover, actor in films such as Lethal Weapon and 2012; Nobel Peace prize winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel; Jim Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies and NASA climate expert; Bill McKibben, director of 350.org; the philosophy Samir Amin, North American Jerry Mander and others.

Moveover, eight "undeveloped" countries, as the UN refers to them, have confirmed their presence, among them Franck Armel, foreign minister of the Republic of Benin; Idi Nadhoim, vice-president and agriculture minister of the Union of the Comoros; Thant Kyaw, director of foreign relations of Myanmar; Konte Cheikh Abdel Kader, international expert on environment of Senegal; Brima Munda Sowa, general administrator of environmental issues for Sierra Leon; Abdullah Ali Fadhel Al-Saadi, Minister Plenipotentiary of Yemen; and Khampadith Khammounheuang Ang, director general of Laos, as well as a representative from Nepal.

Bolivia has invited the 192 member nations of the United Nations to participate in the summit that was convoked by president Evo Morales following the failure of the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen.

International social movements who felt defrauded by the document signed in Copenhagen have also confirmed their presence. Representatives from countries such as Belgium, France, Mexico, Malaysia and the US will attend the summit in Cochabamba.

There will be various working groups. In the working group "Reestablish harmony with nature" will be Frei Betto, one of the maximum exponents of Liberation Theology; Bolivian Foreign Minister, David Choquehuanca; and Nobel Peace prize winner Rigoberta Menchu.

In the working group "Rights of Mother Earth" will be Leonardo Boff, one of the main promoters of the rights of the Earth; Corman Cullinan, who in his Wild Law proposes not only changing jurisprudence in the world, but also creating a jurisprudence of the Earth.

As panelists in the working group "Climate Justice Tribunal" will be present the South African bishop Desmond Tuto; the ex-president of the General Assembly of the US, Miguel d'Escoto; and writer Adolfo Perez Ezquivel.

In the working group "Climate debt" will be the writer Eduardo Galeano; Michael Meacher, research on the social impact of the exploitation of oil; and Andrew Sims, among others.

In the working group "Climate migrants" will be the author of No Logo, Naomi Klein; and John Davidson.

In the working group "Forests, food and water under climate change" will be present Pat Money, Alberto Gomez, Hildebrando Velez, Timothy Byakola and others.

In the working group "Do we need a referendum on climate change?" will be present Amy Goodman, journalist Ignacio Ramonet, Joao Pedro Stedile and Antonio Hill.

Moreover, ten presidents have confirmed their participation in the summit, who will debate some alternatives to confront climate change.

For Venezuela, There Is No Going Back

2010-03-23T11:35:00.010-04:00

Dear Friends,

This is a comprehensive and interesting interview by Ali Mustafa with Federico Fuentes and Kiraz Janicke, conducted in Toronto during their Canadian tour in defense of Venezuela. It discusses the positive accomplishments of the government but also warns of the threats the revolution posed by U.S. imperialism and counterrevolutionary forces within Venezuela, as well as the challenges the revolution faces in continuing its forward march. We are serialising the article to compensate for its length. This is the first installment.
_________________________________________
'For Venezuela, There is No Going Back': A Discussion with Federico Fuentes and Kiraz Janicke
http://frombeyondthemargins.blogspot.com/
By Ali Mustafa

As Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution enters a new decade of struggle and defiantly advances towards its goal of '21st Century Socialism,' serious challenges to the future of the process emerging from both inside and outside the country still abound. As a result, key questions surrounding Venezuela's mounting tensions with the West, the role played by its fiery and outspoken leader Hugo Chavez, and the future of the process itself remain as relevant today as ever before. Australian-based journalists and long-time Venezuela solidarity activists Federico Fuentes and Kiraz Janicke have been carefully following Venezuela's ongoing political transformation for several years now, countering mainstream media Spin and providing invaluable on-the-ground coverage and analysis about the process as it unfolds. I had the fortunate opportunity to sit down and speak with them both in Toronto before they were set to return to Caracas, following a 10-day Canadian solidarity tour.

Ali Mustafa: Over a decade now has passed since the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. Can you provide an overview of the type of gains that have been made since President Hugo Chavez has come to power and what Venezuela looks like today?

Federico Fuentes: Well, I think the first thing to note in regards to the gains that have been made in the 10 years of the Venezuelan Revolution is the huge improvement that has occurred in peoples' daily lives. The fact that the previously excluded majority of people now have access to free health care, free education, unemployment has fallen by more than half of what is was before, the level of poverty has decreased, and many other statistics and social indicators that show that general Venezuelan living standards have improved dramatically. But also extremely important has been the active political participation of people in daily life; we are talking about a country where, literally, something like 80 percent of the nation were excluded and felt that they were not represented at all by the sort of representative democracy and two party system that had existed.

It's the collapse of that system and the important movement for change that erupted -- prior to Chavez's election but, of course, which then has been stimulated even further by Chavez's election -- in the re-writing of the new constitution that's brought about these important gains that Venezuelans have been able to achieve... This reflected itself in important mobilizations that occurred particularly in 2001, 2002, 2003 that defeated a military coup and an attempt by the capitalist class to strangle the economy, which of course meant that the government basically was unable to carry out a lot of the 'missions' that it first set out for itself, but through that struggle was able to move into a position where it could begin to carry out a lot of these social programs, and as always places emphasis on the people involved in them. I think one of the most exciting things is, for instance, the health care social missions -- it's not just that free health care is now being provided but that this health care is being carried out by the people, for the people.

So, I think the Venezuela that exists today is fundamentally different from what it was like 10, 11 years ago in the social aspect, in the political aspect -- and I think it's a Venezuela that today, in its large bulk, refuses to go back to what existed before. That's one of the most common things that you'll find amongst Venezuelan people: that no matter what problems, or whatever they may be encountering, they strongly feel that there is no going back to what Venezuela was like before and they are willing to die to defend what they've won.

Kiraz Janicke: Yeah, I think that for the first time the Venezuelan people have a government that's actually truly independent of US imperialism. But of course in addition to all of the social gains, one of the most fundamental changes is this kind of mass political awakening of the Venezuelan people and the amount of participation of the Venezuelan people in political life through many instances of grassroots participatory democracy. For instance, the communal councils that since the end of 2005 have developed and spread all around the country. You have now approximately 35,000 of these communal councils...where the highest decision making body is the General Assembly of the local community, and importantly they have the ability to recall elected officials or elected spokespeople. This is something that was also another major democratic gain of the 1999 Constitution...which was the first constitution that the Venezuelan people were ever able to democratically decide upon themselves. They democratically voted on that constitution in a popular referendum, and that in many ways has provided a legal framework for further changes. But the real driving force behind the change has been the mobilization of the people.

Initially when the Chavez government came to power, Chavez said he thought that there was a third way between Capitalism and Socialism and that it was possible to create Capitalism with a human face. For every time that the government attempted to implement reforms in the interest of the poor majority of Venezuelans, they were met with extremely violent resistance by the traditional ruling elite; for instance, the carrying out of the coup in 2002, the bosses lockout of the oil industry, and so on. It's actually been through this process that Chavez himself came out and said that, 'I've come to the conclusion that it's not simply possible to reform the system but it's necessary to change the system entirely,' and he came out and made his famous speech at the Porto Alegre World Social Forum in 2005, where he called for 'Socialism of the 21st century'. And that really has sparked a huge debate in Venezuela... People are very politically aware, people are participating and debating and discussing an alternative to the capitalist system, which is currently in crisis.

AM: Can you further elaborate on the formation of these communal councils and how they fit into the notion of participatory democracy currently taking root in Venezuela?

FF: Well, when Chavez was elected he said that the only way to get rid of poverty was to give power to the people, and I think that the communal councils are probably the most concrete example of that. The background to the communal councils is that throughout the 90's there was an explosion of community organizing -- particularly in the poor areas in Caracas, but also in some of the other large cities -- and what you saw was the emergence of a lot of small, localized committees dealing with a lot of issues: health, education, housing, roads, water, but all campaigning around local issues. The communal councils emerge out of that necessity to bring together all of these committees, so that rather than being just simply campaigning groups to demand that the government or state do things, it's actually organizing those communities so that they themselves can take control over these issues.

The communal councils today represent 200-400 families in an urban area, 20-50 families in a rural area (given that they are more spread out), and it's essentially the community getting together to discuss what are their most urgent needs and, within those needs, which are the ones that they as a community...can collectively come up with a plan for how to combat those problems... The emphasis is, again, not on asking someone else to do it, but doing it themselves -- of course with the help of the government -- but really empowering the people through that process.

KJ: And there's a vision that is being presented now -- and it's a very new development in Venezuela -- that is, the formation of what they call communes. These are more than just an aggregate number of communal councils but also other organizations such as cooperatives in a particular geographical area that will coordinate grassroots decision-making on a larger scale than what a communal council can do. For instance, a communal council can make a decision over a smaller project in their local community but they can't necessarily make a decision to build a new school because that's something that affects a much larger area. But the important aspect of these communes is the idea that they have communally owned property or control over the means of production in their local area. So, the idea is not only that communities can get together and make decisions about how resources are distributed; they can also own the means of production that benefit these communities and collectively control them...

This fits into the idea that Chavez has spoken of many times and was part of his proposed reform referendum in 2007 of what he refers to as 'creating a new geometry of power in Venezuela,' and essentially this is a vision of creating a new superstructure that's different to the old superstructure of the traditional Venezuelan state. So, in addition to creating the communal councils and the communes, there's a vision of coordinating the activities of communes on a broader scale; so, for instance, creating communal towns or communal cities and then ultimately what they call communal territories. And just before we left Venezuela, there was a new law passed called the 'Law of the Federal Government Council', and the idea is that it will create a space where these representatives or spokespeople for these grassroots institutions -- as well as representatives of the traditional structures such as governors and mayors and the national executive -- can participate...This is one key example where you see an attempt to decentralize power from the traditional structures of the capitalist state...

AM: Typically, media coverage surrounding Venezuela tends to represent one of two extremes: uncritical praise and acclamation from supporters on one hand, and of course, especially in the Western mainstream media, a sort of reflexive, de-contextualized vilification of Chavez on the other. As two individuals who have spent much time covering Venezuela both inside and outside the country, what is the main misconception about the Bolivarian Revolution that you would like to dispel?

KJ: Well, for me, I think the main misconception or lie that is often repeated in the media is the idea that this is an undemocratic government -- that Chavez is a dictator. Most of the international media overwhelmingly focuses on Chavez, but they always ignore the fact that the Bolivarian movement, which is led by Chavez, is a movement that's made up by millions of people that support Chavez: the workers, the urban poor, campesinos, students, sectors from right across Venezuelan society... They feel that the Chavez government is implementing policies that are in their interests. If you look at all the opinion polls over the years, they will show that Chavez has consistently higher levels of support within Venezuelan society, and it's always hovering around 60% support. And it's not only that people are just passive supporters of Chavez, they are active supporters as well, and active participants in the Bolivarian Revolution.

FF: Yeah, I think that definitely one of the main myths of the media is this idea of Venezuela drifting towards an undemocratic dictatorship -- which is ironic because I think there is possibly no other country in the world that has more electoral processes than Venezuela. Almost every year there is an election, and there has been at least one example of an election that the government has lost, and that was the Constitutional reform vote in 2007, which generally under a dictatorship doesn't happen... The other major lie is this idea of the restriction of the freedom of the press; I think it's an important issue, particularly in the case of RCTV [Radio Caracas Television Internacional]...It's worth just quickly explaining that no TV station has ever been shut down in Venezuela. What we have is RCTV, which in 2007 -- after having actively participated in provoking and carrying out a coup that, by law, would have easily justified them being taken off air in any country -- was not taken off air; instead, their license was up for renewal...and the government, or the broadcasting authority, decided that at this time it was not in its best interests to continue to give a license to a company that would use it to destabilize the country.
TO BE CONTINUED...

Postcards from the Revolution

2010-03-17T17:53:00.004-04:00

PERMANENT AGGRESSION: War on the horizon in Latin America

Thursday, March 11, 2010
http://www.chavezcode.com/2010/03/permanent-aggression-war-on-horizon-in.html

The Empire will stop at nothing to find mechanisms and techniques to achieve its final objective, and we cannot disregard the possibility of a military conflict in the near future. If the US places Venezuela on the "terrorist list" this year, we could be on the verge of a regional war.

Latin America has suffered constant aggressions executed by Washington during the past two hundred years. Strategies and tactics of covert and overt warfare have been applied against different nations in the region, ranging from coup d'etats, assassinations, disappearances, torture, brutal dictatorships, atrocities, political persecution, economic sabotage, psychological operations, media warfare, biological warfare, subversion, counterinsurgency, paramiliary infiltration, diplomatic terrorism, blockades, electoral intervention to military invasions. Regardless of who's in the White House -- democrat or republican -- when it comes to Latin America, the Empire's policies remain the same.

In the twenty-first century, Venezuela has been one of the principle targets of these constant aggressions. Since the April 2002 coup, there has been a dangerous escalation in attacks and destabilization attempts against the Bolivarian Revolution. Although many fell beneath the seductive smile and poetic words of Barack Obama, it's not necessary to look beyond the past year to see the intensification of Washington's aggressions against Venezuela. The largest military expansion in history in the region -- through the US occupation of Colombia -- the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet of the US Navy, as well as an increased US military presence in the Caribbean, Panama and Central America throughout the past year, can be interpreted as preparation for a conflict scenario in the region.

ESCALATION IN AGGRESSIONS
The hostile declarations from various Washington representatives during the past few weeks, accusing Venezuela of failure to combat narcotics operations, violating human rights, "not contributing to democracy and regional stability", and of being the "regional anti-US leader", form part of a coordinated campaign that seeks to justify a direct aggression against Venezuela. Soon, Washington will publish its annual list of "state sponsors of terrorism", and if Venezuela is placed on the list this year, the region could be on the brink of an unprecedented military conflict.

Evidence seems to indicate a move in that direction. A US Air Force document justifying the need to increase military presence in Colombia affirmed that Washington is preparing for "expeditionary warfare" in South America.

The 2009 Air Force document, sent to Congress last May (but later modified in November after it was used to demonstrate the true intentions behind the military agreement between the US and Colombia), explained, ""Development of this CSL (Cooperative Security Location) will further the strategic partnership forged between the US and Colombia and is in the interest of both nations…A presence will also increase our capability to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach, support logistics requirements, improve partnerships, improve theater security cooperation and expand expeditionary warfare capability".

ON THE VERGE OF WAR
The first official report outlining the defense and intelligence priorities of the Obama administration dedicated substantial attention to Venezuela. The Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community -- which has mentioned Venezuela in years past, but not nearly with the same emphasis and extension -- particularly signaled out President Chavez as a major "threat" to US interests. "Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has established himself as one of the US's foremost international detractors, denouncing liberal democracy and market capitalism and opposing US policies and interests in the region", said the intelligence document, placing Venezuela in the same category as Iran, North Korea and Al Qa'ida.

Days after the report was published, the State Department presented its 2011 budget to Congress. In addition to an increase in financing through USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) to fund opposition groups in Venezuela -- more than $15million USD -- there was also a $48 million USD request for the Organization of American States (OAS) to "deploy special 'democracy promoter' teams to countries where democracy is under threat from the growing presence of alternative concepts such as the 'participatory democracy' promoted by Venezuela and Bolivia".

One week later, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission of the OAS -- funded by Washington -- emitted a whopping 322-page report slamming Venezuela for human rights violations, repression of the press and undermining democracy. Despite the fact that it was a report -- and a Commission -- dedicated to the topic of human rights, the detailed study barely mentioned the immense achievements of the Chavez government in advancing human rights; advances which have been recognized and applauded over the past five years by the Unted Nations. The evidence used by the OAS to elaborate the report came from opposition testimonies and biased media outlets, a clear demonstration of dangerous subjectivity.

Simultaneous to these accusations, a Spanish court accused the Venezuelan government last week of supporting and collaborating with the FARC and ETA -- organizations considered terrorist by both the US and Spain -- provoking an international scandal. President Chavez reiterated that his government has absolutely no ties with any terrorist group in the world. "This is a government of peace", declared Chavez, after explaining that the presence of ETA members in Venezuela is due to an agreement made over 20 years ago by the government of Carlos Andres Perez in order to aid Spain in a peace treaty with the Basque separatist group.

THE EMPIRE HAS NO COLOR
Last week, on tour in Latin America, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton couldn't stop attacking Venezuela during her different declarations made before international media. She expressed her "great concern" for democracy and human rights in Venezuela, accusing President Chavez of not "contributing in a constructive manner" to regional progress. In a cynical tone, Clinton advised President Chavez to "look further south" for inspiration, instead of towards Cuba.

Clinton's regional trip was part of a strategy announced by the Obama administration last year, to create a divide between the so-called "progressive left" and the "radical left" in Latin America. It's no coincidence that her first tour of the region coincided with the announcement of a new Latin American and Caribbean Community of States, which excludes the presence of the US and Canada.

THE COMING CONFLICT
A military conflict is not initiated from one day to the next. It's a process that involves first influencing public perception and opinion -- demonizing the target leader or government in order to justify aggression. Subsequently, armed forces are strategically deployed in the region in order to guarantee an effective military action. Tactics, such as subversion and counterinsurgency, are utilized in order to debilitate and destabilize the target nation from within, increasing its vulnerability and weakening its defenses.

This plan has been active against Venezuela for several years. The consolidation of regional unity and Latin American integration threatens US possibilities of regaining domination and control in the hemisphere. And the advances of the Bolivarian Revolution have impeded its "self-destruction", provoked by internal subversion funded and directed by US agencies. However, the Empire will not cease its attempts to achieve its final objective, and a potential military conflict in the region remains on the horizon.

About Eva Golinger
Eva Golinger, winner of the International Award for Journalism in Mexico (2009), named “La Novia de Venezuela” by President Hugo Chávez, is a Venezuelan-American attorney from New York, living in Caracas, Venezuela since 2005 and author of the best-selling books, “The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela” (2006 Olive Branch Press), “Bush vs. Chávez: Washington’s War on Venezuela” (2007, Monthly Review Press), “The Empire’s Web: Encyclopedia of Interventionism and Subversion”, “La Mirada del Imperio sobre el 4F: Los Documentos Desclasificados de Washington sobre la rebelión militar del 4 de febrero de 1992” and "La Agresión Permanente: USAID, NED y CIA". Since 2003, Eva, a graduate of Sarah Lawrence College and CUNY Law School in New York, has been investigating, analyzing and writing about US intervention in Venezuela using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain information about the US Government’s efforts to destabilize progressive movements in Latin America. Her first book, The Chávez Code, has been translated and published in six languages (English, Spanish, French, German, Italian & Russian) and is presently being made into a feature film.