Grassroots communal organisations and the tension between popular power and sectors of the government
by Federico Fuentes - Green Left Weekly
May 10th 2019
Within hours of Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó calling for street mobilisations to back his attempted military coup against President Nicolás Maduro on April 30, Guaidó’s supporters had looted and set fire to the headquarters of the Indio Caricuao Commune in south-west Caracas.
The building was used for local residents’ meetings and housed a commune-run textile enterprise, which funds projects in the community.
Atenea Jiménez, from the National Network of Comuneros (commune activists) said: “Once again attacks on the communes by fascist sectors have begun.”
She also noted however that comuneros “are facing persecution by sections of the government”, in reference to the March 23 arrest and 71-day long detention of 10 comuneros who occupied a state-owned rice processing plant in Portuguesa state. The occupation denounced the fact that private management who were hired to run it refused to work with local producers.
“Why is this occurring? Because the commune is the only space that disputes power … it is one of the few, genuine, self-convened spaces for building direct democracy,” she said.
Grassroots power
Venezuela’s communes seek to bring together communal councils that encompass 200–400 families in urban areas and 20–50 families in rural areas, to tackle issues such as housing, health, education and access to basic services in the local community. Decisions about problems to prioritise and how to tackle them are made in citizen’s assemblies.
The idea of the commune is for local communities to take on bigger projects and become self-sustaining through enterprises owned and run by the community.
Former president Hugo Chavez viewed the communes as the fundamental building blocks of a new communal state based on self-management and participatory democracy.
According to the Ministry of Communes, there are currently more than 47,000 registered communal councils and close to 3000 communes, though many of the activists I spoke to on my visit to Venezuela in March said they believed the number of genuine communes and councils was less.
Jimenez explained: “The comunero movement involves communes that have been consolidating themselves over the past 10 years.”
During this time, “new communes have emerged, interesting advances have occurred and, of course, there have been communes that have fallen by the wayside.
“But the communes remain active and have achieved a very interesting level of political and ideological consolidation — and a determination to continue advancing.
“What we have is the consolidation of 10 years of work and a strength based on the knowledge that there are problems, but that together we can resolve them through self-management.”
Self-management
Gsus Garcia, from the Altos de Lidice Socialist Commune, which unites seven communal councils high up on Caracas’ hillside in La Pastora, explained that the commune came about because “local community councils realised they shared the same problems, but on their own they would not be able to resolve them.”
He added that the commune “is not simply about getting together to resolve problems, we want to go beyond that to build genuine self-government.”
While Garcia acknowledges that Chavistas (Chavez supporters) have been at the heart of the creation of the communes, Altos de Lidice Commune also includes residents who oppose Maduro.
“There are many who are discontented, there is a lot of opposition. And yet they involve themselves in the dynamic of the commune; they don't reject it, they accept it and little by little they understand that, together, we can do more.
“They see that if we don't come together, both of us will suffer. So we have to have patience and understand each other.
“I have been surprised by the level of patience. I think that in any other country, with everything that has happened this year and last year, that country would have exploded.”
In the nearby 23 de Enero neighbourhood, the Panal 2021 Commune, involving eight communal councils and about 3600 families, is an example of the kind of local self-government many comuneros envisage.
Cucaracho, an activist with Panal 2021, explained that the commune began with activists raising funds through raffles and activities. The commune passed through a period of co-management, receiving state funds for projects, and was now self-managed.
Panal 2021 has its own bakeries, a textile and sugar packaging plant, and a food storage and distribution centre. Proceeds from these communally-run enterprises are deposited in a communal bank, with citizen’s assemblies deciding how funds are redistributed for community projects.
The ability of Panal 2021 to generate its own revenue, as with most of the communes that exist today, has been key to its ongoing existence. With the onset of the economic crisis, the state has largely stopped handing over funds to local communities.
Julian from the Bolivar and Zamora Revolutionary Current, a radical grassroots current within the PSUV (United Socialist Party of Venezuela), believes this has had an impact on the level of community organising. “When the government funded projects, it created certain expectations and encouraged participation, as people felt their problems could be resolved.
“But given the strong rentier culture that exists, what has happened is that many have said: ‘If we don’t receive anything, then we can’t do anything’. In those cases, community councils largely limit themselves to administering the distribution of government services such as gas bottles in their community.
“The error was that the focus was put on promoting initial participation while less attention was paid to helping build the capacity of communities to self-organise.
“Those communes that are most active today are the ones that don’t have much to do with the government and the [PSUV] doesn't control them.”
Tensions
Producing and distributing food to meet community needs in times of crisis has become a priority for many communes, including in Caracas.
Panal 2021 has linked up with communes in the countryside to bring food to the city and sell it at much cheaper prices than private supermarkets.
Jimenez said many communes are doing the same, “There are systems for the exchange of food and services between communes, which function with different levels of complexity but which have been improving.”
Despite — or perhaps because of — its importance, food production and distribution has been a key point of tension between the state and the comunero movement.
Several years ago, the National Network of Comuneros handed over a proposal to Maduro for the creation of a nationwide communal enterprise for food production and distribution.
The idea was that all the communes and campesinos could distribute their produce via a system controlled by the people rather than private intermediaries, to ensure cheap food reached those who needed it.
Jimenez explained: “Our vision for the enterprise was that everything produced in the countryside needs to be distributed and not lost, and that only after this should we import what we cannot produce — not the reverse.”
Instead, the government initiated the Local Committees for Food Distribution and Production, commonly known by their Spanish acronym, CLAPs.
Jimenez notes that despite “the P — for production — being in its name, those that are producing, the campesinos and comuneros, were not included” in the process of forming the CLAPs. Instead, these committees are largely controlled by local PSUV officials and “everything that is distributed through the CLAPs is imported.”
Jimenez said this meant “putting to one side the organisations that exist because they're more difficult to control, because in a commune a proposal has to be debated in an assembly, whereas with the CLAPs you can simply tell people what to do.”
In practice this has meant that in many communities the CLAPs have surpassed the communes as the focus of community organising, according to Julian. “It's not that the other structures don't exist, it’s that the most dynamic structure is the CLAP because access to food is the most important issue for many.
“In some cases, the CLAPs have weakened the communes and I believe that this has been deliberate because the CLAPs respond to the party, but the communes don't.
“The party has never played a key role in promoting communes and communal councils, with the exception that in a few places; the party has concentrated more on electoral issues, on government.
“There is a conception that the comuneros are in permanent conflict with the party, with the local mayor or governor, due to the very dynamic of the communes, which are based on the idea of self-government.
“Comuneros have proposed the transfer of responsibilities from municipal councils to the commune to allow people to begin to self-govern.
“This has created a tension between the comunero movement, on one hand, and the party and local government officials on the other, who don't want to transfer responsibilities such as rubbish collection in Caracas, because in many cases for them it's a business.
“I believe the conclusion the party came to with the CLAPs was that it had to create and control them. They could not control the communes because of their democratic, contestational, irreverent nature, but they could designate who ran the CLAPs.
“The strong rentier and clientalist culture that exists meant that people gravitated towards the CLAPs, which were being funded and supported by the government, and converted the CLAPs into the centre of organising in many places.”
Love-hate relationship
Summing up the situation, Garcia said: “The state doesn't have the ability to resolve all the problems, given the current mess, but people are trying everywhere to resolve their issues.
“And yet one of the big problems that the government has is that it's difficult for it to cede space, it doesn't want to let go of the reins, so that the people can solve their problems.
“So what exists is a love-hate relationship between the government and the commune.
“Even with all its weaknesses and failures, it's our state, it's our government. At the same time, we have a relationship in which we have to struggle. We're not going to deny that.
“There are things that don’t get to us that we need to produce food, at a time when we are importing almost all the food we need. But instead of helping, the state puts up all these bureaucratic hurdles, when all we're trying to do is to guarantee that people have food and deal with the situation of children with malnutrition.
“We are clear, however, that only with this government can we do what we are doing with the communes. In another government, we would not have this possibility, much less with the type of right-wing government Guaido wants to install with his coup.”
Regardless of what happens next in Venezuela, Julian believes that the strong level of community organisation built up over the past two decades will not go away easily. “There's still a lot of strength, a high level of organisation. Wherever you look, you will find a commune, a cooperative, some kind of committee or organisation.
“If [the government] was to fall, that organisation will still be here; this huge spirit of participation will still exist, and it will be a problem for any government that tries to dismantle it.”
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Venezuelanalysis editorial staff. https://venezuelanalysis.com/YUxz
The U.S. and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change
Dear friends,
The Maduro government: why illegitimate?
By Pasqualina Curcio
25/01/2019
Have those who claim that Nicolas Maduro is a dictator, a usurper and that the 2019-2025 period lacks legitimacy asked themselves this question? Or do they just repeat what they hear?
It was the 12 countries gathered in Lima that began to position this opinion matrix. Their communiqué reads: "...the electoral process carried out in Venezuela on May 20, 2018 lacks legitimacy because it did not include the participation of all Venezuelan political actors, nor the presence of independent international observers, nor the necessary international guarantees and standards for a free, fair and transparent process.”
The leaders of the Venezuelan opposition, we refer to the non-democratic one, tirelessly repeat, and of course without arguments, that Maduro is a usurper.
In an act of desperation, the Vice President of the United States himself, Mike Pence, when forced to personally call out the opposition march for January 23, due to the incompetence of the opposition leadership, insisted and repeated that President Nicolas Maduro is a usurper and illegitimate dictator.
The strategy is clear: to repeat the lie a thousand times in order to turn it into truth.
Let us dismantle the lie:
1. There were presidential elections. They were held on May 20, 2018, that is, before January 10, 2019, when, according to articles 230 and 231 of the Constitution, the presidential term 2013-2019 expires. It would have been a violation of the Constitution if the elections had been held after January 10, 2019, or worse still if they had not been held.
2. It was the Venezuelan opposition that asked for the elections to be brought forward. They were held in May and not in December, as was traditionally the case, because it was the opposition that requested it, within the framework of the dialogue in the Dominican Republic, that took place in the first trimester of 2018.
3. In Venezuela, voting is a right, not a duty. Those who freely decided, although influenced by some non-democratic political organizations that called for abstention, not to go to the polls, are in their full right, but in no way does this make the electoral process illegitimate, even less so when that would imply ignoring and disrespecting the 9,389,056 who decided to vote and democratically exercised their right to suffrage.
4. Sixteen political parties participated in the electoral contest: PSUV, MSV, Tupamaro, UPV, Podemos, PPT, ORA, MPAC, MEP, PCV, AP, MAS, Copei, Esperanza por el Cambio, UPP89. In Venezuela, it is not mandatory for all political parties to participate in electoral processes. They have the full right to decide whether or not to participate. Precisely because our system is democratic. The fact that three parties (AD, VP and PJ) freely decided not to participate does not make the electoral process illegitimate.
5. Six candidates contended for the presidency: Nicolás Maduro, Henri Falcón, Javier Bertucci, Reinaldo Quijada, Francisco Visconti Osorio and Luis Alejandro Ratti (the last two decided to withdraw).
6. Maduro won by a wide margin, obtaining 6,248,864 votes, 67.84%; followed by Henri Falcón with 1,927,958, 20.93%; Javier Bertucci with 1,015,895, 10.82% and Reinaldo Quijada who obtained 36,246 votes, 0.39% of the total. The difference between Maduro and Falcón was 46.91 percentage points.
7. Around 150 people accompanied the electoral process, including 14 electoral commissions from 8 countries; 2 technical electoral missions; 18 journalists from different parts of the world; 1 MEP and 1 technical-electoral delegation from the Russian Electoral Centre.
8. The elections were held using the same electoral system used in the December 2015 parliamentary elections, in which the Venezuelan opposition won. This system is automated and audited before, during and after the elections. This system guarantees the principles of "one elector, one vote" because only with a fingerprint is the voting machine unlocked; it also guarantees the "secrecy of the vote".
9. Eighteen audits of the automated system were carried out. The representatives of the candidate Henri Falcón participated in all 18 and signed the acts in which they express their conformity with the electoral system. The audits are public and televised live on the channel of the National Electoral Council. Once the audits have been carried out, the system is blocked and the only way to access it again is with the simultaneous introduction of the secret codes that each political organization holds.
10. None of the candidates who participated in the electoral process contested the results. There is no evidence of fraud, they did not present any evidence or concrete denunciation of fraud.
The presidential elections of May 20, 2018 were free, transparent, reliable, secure and in accordance with the Constitution and the laws despite the anti-democratic call for abstention on the part of one sector of the opposition.
It is others who seek to usurp the office of President of the Republic with the argument of a supposed power vacuum, a figure that is not contemplated in our Constitution and the establishment of a "transitional government", a figure also not contemplated in the Magna Carta. And as if that were not enough, they intend to exercise power outside our borders in violation of Article 18 of the Constitution, which establishes that Caracas is the seat of public power.
Things being as they are, the usurpers, those who are illegitimate and anti-democratic, are others. It is illegitimate and constitutes an attempted usurpation that some sectors of the opposition are trying to sustain themselves with the support of foreign actors coming from imperialist governments to exercise an authority that neither the people nor the Constitution gives them.
Let us repeat these truths a thousand times.
23/01/2019
(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)
Source: https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/197765
Open Letter by Over 70 Scholars and Experts Condemns US-Backed Coup Attempt in Venezuela
"For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents."
As many American lawmakers, pundits, and advocacy groups remain conspicuously silent in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to formally recognizeVenezuela's opposition leader as the "interim president"—a move that was denounced as open support for an attempted coup d'état—renowned linguist Noam Chomsky, filmmaker Boots Riley, and over 70 other academics and experts issued an open letteron Thursday calling on the Trump administration to "cease interfering in Venezuela's internal politics."
"The U.S. and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change."
—Open Letter
"Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability," the letter reads. "The U.S. and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability."
Highlighting the harm American sanctions have inflicted upon the Venezuelan economy and people, the letter goes on to denounce the White House's "aggressive" actions and rhetoric against Venezuela's government, arguing that peaceful talks are the only way forward.
"In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections," the letter reads. "For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis."
Read the full letter below:
The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.
Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.
Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.
Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.
The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.
Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.
In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.
Signed:
Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona
Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy
Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University
Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College
Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney
Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives
Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years
Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician
John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker
Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University
Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies
Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College
Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University
Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University
Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK
Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies
Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University
Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University
James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle
Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University
Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom
Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK
Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University
Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK
Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington
Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University
Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College
Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University
Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis
The Maduro government: why illegitimate?
By Pasqualina Curcio
25/01/2019
Have those who claim that Nicolas Maduro is a dictator, a usurper and that the 2019-2025 period lacks legitimacy asked themselves this question? Or do they just repeat what they hear?
It was the 12 countries gathered in Lima that began to position this opinion matrix. Their communiqué reads: "...the electoral process carried out in Venezuela on May 20, 2018 lacks legitimacy because it did not include the participation of all Venezuelan political actors, nor the presence of independent international observers, nor the necessary international guarantees and standards for a free, fair and transparent process.”
The leaders of the Venezuelan opposition, we refer to the non-democratic one, tirelessly repeat, and of course without arguments, that Maduro is a usurper.
In an act of desperation, the Vice President of the United States himself, Mike Pence, when forced to personally call out the opposition march for January 23, due to the incompetence of the opposition leadership, insisted and repeated that President Nicolas Maduro is a usurper and illegitimate dictator.
The strategy is clear: to repeat the lie a thousand times in order to turn it into truth.
Let us dismantle the lie:
1. There were presidential elections. They were held on May 20, 2018, that is, before January 10, 2019, when, according to articles 230 and 231 of the Constitution, the presidential term 2013-2019 expires. It would have been a violation of the Constitution if the elections had been held after January 10, 2019, or worse still if they had not been held.
2. It was the Venezuelan opposition that asked for the elections to be brought forward. They were held in May and not in December, as was traditionally the case, because it was the opposition that requested it, within the framework of the dialogue in the Dominican Republic, that took place in the first trimester of 2018.
3. In Venezuela, voting is a right, not a duty. Those who freely decided, although influenced by some non-democratic political organizations that called for abstention, not to go to the polls, are in their full right, but in no way does this make the electoral process illegitimate, even less so when that would imply ignoring and disrespecting the 9,389,056 who decided to vote and democratically exercised their right to suffrage.
4. Sixteen political parties participated in the electoral contest: PSUV, MSV, Tupamaro, UPV, Podemos, PPT, ORA, MPAC, MEP, PCV, AP, MAS, Copei, Esperanza por el Cambio, UPP89. In Venezuela, it is not mandatory for all political parties to participate in electoral processes. They have the full right to decide whether or not to participate. Precisely because our system is democratic. The fact that three parties (AD, VP and PJ) freely decided not to participate does not make the electoral process illegitimate.
5. Six candidates contended for the presidency: Nicolás Maduro, Henri Falcón, Javier Bertucci, Reinaldo Quijada, Francisco Visconti Osorio and Luis Alejandro Ratti (the last two decided to withdraw).
6. Maduro won by a wide margin, obtaining 6,248,864 votes, 67.84%; followed by Henri Falcón with 1,927,958, 20.93%; Javier Bertucci with 1,015,895, 10.82% and Reinaldo Quijada who obtained 36,246 votes, 0.39% of the total. The difference between Maduro and Falcón was 46.91 percentage points.
7. Around 150 people accompanied the electoral process, including 14 electoral commissions from 8 countries; 2 technical electoral missions; 18 journalists from different parts of the world; 1 MEP and 1 technical-electoral delegation from the Russian Electoral Centre.
8. The elections were held using the same electoral system used in the December 2015 parliamentary elections, in which the Venezuelan opposition won. This system is automated and audited before, during and after the elections. This system guarantees the principles of "one elector, one vote" because only with a fingerprint is the voting machine unlocked; it also guarantees the "secrecy of the vote".
9. Eighteen audits of the automated system were carried out. The representatives of the candidate Henri Falcón participated in all 18 and signed the acts in which they express their conformity with the electoral system. The audits are public and televised live on the channel of the National Electoral Council. Once the audits have been carried out, the system is blocked and the only way to access it again is with the simultaneous introduction of the secret codes that each political organization holds.
10. None of the candidates who participated in the electoral process contested the results. There is no evidence of fraud, they did not present any evidence or concrete denunciation of fraud.
The presidential elections of May 20, 2018 were free, transparent, reliable, secure and in accordance with the Constitution and the laws despite the anti-democratic call for abstention on the part of one sector of the opposition.
It is others who seek to usurp the office of President of the Republic with the argument of a supposed power vacuum, a figure that is not contemplated in our Constitution and the establishment of a "transitional government", a figure also not contemplated in the Magna Carta. And as if that were not enough, they intend to exercise power outside our borders in violation of Article 18 of the Constitution, which establishes that Caracas is the seat of public power.
Things being as they are, the usurpers, those who are illegitimate and anti-democratic, are others. It is illegitimate and constitutes an attempted usurpation that some sectors of the opposition are trying to sustain themselves with the support of foreign actors coming from imperialist governments to exercise an authority that neither the people nor the Constitution gives them.
Let us repeat these truths a thousand times.
23/01/2019
(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)
Source: https://www.alainet.org/en/articulo/197765
Open Letter by Over 70 Scholars and Experts Condemns US-Backed Coup Attempt in Venezuela
"For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents."
As many American lawmakers, pundits, and advocacy groups remain conspicuously silent in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to formally recognizeVenezuela's opposition leader as the "interim president"—a move that was denounced as open support for an attempted coup d'état—renowned linguist Noam Chomsky, filmmaker Boots Riley, and over 70 other academics and experts issued an open letteron Thursday calling on the Trump administration to "cease interfering in Venezuela's internal politics."
"The U.S. and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change."
—Open Letter
"Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability," the letter reads. "The U.S. and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability."
Highlighting the harm American sanctions have inflicted upon the Venezuelan economy and people, the letter goes on to denounce the White House's "aggressive" actions and rhetoric against Venezuela's government, arguing that peaceful talks are the only way forward.
"In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections," the letter reads. "For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis."
Read the full letter below:
The United States government must cease interfering in Venezuela’s internal politics, especially for the purpose of overthrowing the country’s government. Actions by the Trump administration and its allies in the hemisphere are almost certain to make the situation in Venezuela worse, leading to unnecessary human suffering, violence, and instability.
Venezuela’s political polarization is not new; the country has long been divided along racial and socioeconomic lines. But the polarization has deepened in recent years. This is partly due to US support for an opposition strategy aimed at removing the government of Nicolás Maduro through extra-electoral means. While the opposition has been divided on this strategy, US support has backed hardline opposition sectors in their goal of ousting the Maduro government through often violent protests, a military coup d’etat, or other avenues that sidestep the ballot box.
Under the Trump administration, aggressive rhetoric against the Venezuelan government has ratcheted up to a more extreme and threatening level, with Trump administration officials talking of “military action” and condemning Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, as part of a “troika of tyranny.” Problems resulting from Venezuelan government policy have been worsened by US economic sanctions, illegal under the Organization of American States and the United Nations ― as well as US law and other international treaties and conventions. These sanctions have cut off the means by which the Venezuelan government could escape from its economic recession, while causing a dramatic falloff in oil production and worsening the economic crisis, and causing many people to die because they can’t get access to life-saving medicines. Meanwhile, the US and other governments continue to blame the Venezuelan government ― solely ― for the economic damage, even that caused by the US sanctions.
Now the US and its allies, including OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro and Brazil’s far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, have pushed Venezuela to the precipice. By recognizing National Assembly President Juan Guaido as the new president of Venezuela ― something illegal under the OAS Charter ― the Trump administration has sharply accelerated Venezuela’s political crisis in the hopes of dividing the Venezuelan military and further polarizing the populace, forcing them to choose sides. The obvious, and sometimes stated goal, is to force Maduro out via a coup d’etat.
The reality is that despite hyperinflation, shortages, and a deep depression, Venezuela remains a politically polarized country. The US and its allies must cease encouraging violence by pushing for violent, extralegal regime change. If the Trump administration and its allies continue to pursue their reckless course in Venezuela, the most likely result will be bloodshed, chaos, and instability. The US should have learned something from its regime change ventures in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and its long, violent history of sponsoring regime change in Latin America.
Neither side in Venezuela can simply vanquish the other. The military, for example, has at least 235,000 frontline members, and there are at least 1.6 million in militias. Many of these people will fight, not only on the basis of a belief in national sovereignty that is widely held in Latin America ― in the face of what increasingly appears to be a US-led intervention ― but also to protect themselves from likely repression if the opposition topples the government by force.
In such situations, the only solution is a negotiated settlement, as has happened in the past in Latin American countries when politically polarized societies were unable to resolve their differences through elections. There have been efforts, such as those led by the Vatican in the fall of 2016, that had potential, but they received no support from Washington and its allies who favored regime change. This strategy must change if there is to be any viable solution to the ongoing crisis in Venezuela.
For the sake of the Venezuelan people, the region, and for the principle of national sovereignty, these international actors should instead support negotiations between the Venezuelan government and its opponents that will allow the country to finally emerge from its political and economic crisis.
Signed:
Noam Chomsky, Professor Emeritus, MIT and Laureate Professor, University of Arizona
Laura Carlsen, Director, Americas Program, Center for International Policy
Greg Grandin, Professor of History, New York University
Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of Latin American History and Chicano/a Latino/a Studies at Pomona College
Sujatha Fernandes, Professor of Political Economy and Sociology, University of Sydney
Steve Ellner, Associate Managing Editor of Latin American Perspectives
Alfred de Zayas, former UN Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order and only UN rapporteur to have visited Venezuela in 21 years
Boots Riley, Writer/Director of Sorry to Bother You, Musician
John Pilger, Journalist & Film-Maker
Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Jared Abbott, PhD Candidate, Department of Government, Harvard University
Dr. Tim Anderson, Director, Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies
Elisabeth Armstrong, Professor of the Study of Women and Gender, Smith College
Alexander Aviña, PhD, Associate Professor of History, Arizona State University
Marc Becker, Professor of History, Truman State University
Medea Benjamin, Cofounder, CODEPINK
Phyllis Bennis, Program Director, New Internationalism, Institute for Policy Studies
Dr. Robert E. Birt, Professor of Philosophy, Bowie State University
Aviva Chomsky, Professor of History, Salem State University
James Cohen, University of Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle
Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, Associate Professor, George Mason University
Benjamin Dangl, PhD, Editor of Toward Freedom
Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Faculty of Professional and Social Sciences, Middlesex University, UK
Alex Dupuy, John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology Emeritus, Wesleyan University
Jodie Evans, Cofounder, CODEPINK
Vanessa Freije, Assistant Professor of International Studies, University of Washington
Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair and Associate Professor in International Development Studies, St. Mary’s University
Evelyn Gonzalez, Counselor, Montgomery College
Jeffrey L. Gould, Rudy Professor of History, Indiana University
Bret Gustafson, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Washington University in St. Louis
2019 will continue the fight against imperialism
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro gave the last National Address of 2018
The Venezuelan worker President Nicolas Maduro gave a speech for his people on the last address to the nation in 2018 and thanked the efforts and firm commitment of the people in defense of sovereignty and peace.
"Thanks for so much solidarity with our country, for your firm commitment with peace, for your democratic vocation," stated President Maduro of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 2018 was the year of the institutionalization of the social programs and consolidation of rights, when the "democracy was armed," and the year when the government of the Bolivarian Revolution "demonstrated that this sacred land filled with history and future has only one owner and it the Venezuelan people."
"In 2018 we managed to reach 4 million, 300 thousand pensioners. We achieved the goal of 100 percent of pensioners. In addition, 5 million families are already included and protected in the Great Mission Homes of the Homeland," said President Nicolas Maduro.
President Nicolás Maduro reiterated the call for a dialogue with the political sectors willing to work for peace and stability in Venezuela. He also thanked his people "because, in the middle of a bloody economic war, we were united in hope and faith to ourselves, we have laid the groundwork to make 2019 a year of stability and economic prosperity." This will continue with the project of the 21st Century Socialism.
Maduro also thanked Venezuelans for the Unity, "as only together will we be able to defend that what was achieved," by the Bolivarian Revolution "as well as change what needs to be changed." It Is the Venezuelan people who need to adjust the things that need to be changed, and interventionist and coup attempts won't be permitted by Venezuela. Maduro rejected any attempts that go against the principle of self-determination of the peoples.
Nicolás Maduro stated that peace is the way for Venezuela, and he agreed to meet with the opposition in new dialogue tables that will allow that peace. But peace dialogues under the rule of law and no coup attempt will be accepted. "2019 will be the year of the fight against imperialism."
The Venezuelan worker President Nicolas Maduro gave a speech for his people on the last address to the nation in 2018 and thanked the efforts and firm commitment of the people in defense of sovereignty and peace.
"Thanks for so much solidarity with our country, for your firm commitment with peace, for your democratic vocation," stated President Maduro of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 2018 was the year of the institutionalization of the social programs and consolidation of rights, when the "democracy was armed," and the year when the government of the Bolivarian Revolution "demonstrated that this sacred land filled with history and future has only one owner and it the Venezuelan people."
"In 2018 we managed to reach 4 million, 300 thousand pensioners. We achieved the goal of 100 percent of pensioners. In addition, 5 million families are already included and protected in the Great Mission Homes of the Homeland," said President Nicolas Maduro.
President Nicolás Maduro reiterated the call for a dialogue with the political sectors willing to work for peace and stability in Venezuela. He also thanked his people "because, in the middle of a bloody economic war, we were united in hope and faith to ourselves, we have laid the groundwork to make 2019 a year of stability and economic prosperity." This will continue with the project of the 21st Century Socialism.
Maduro also thanked Venezuelans for the Unity, "as only together will we be able to defend that what was achieved," by the Bolivarian Revolution "as well as change what needs to be changed." It Is the Venezuelan people who need to adjust the things that need to be changed, and interventionist and coup attempts won't be permitted by Venezuela. Maduro rejected any attempts that go against the principle of self-determination of the peoples.
Nicolás Maduro stated that peace is the way for Venezuela, and he agreed to meet with the opposition in new dialogue tables that will allow that peace. But peace dialogues under the rule of law and no coup attempt will be accepted. "2019 will be the year of the fight against imperialism."
Being Educated is the Only Way to be Free
International Book Fair in Venezuela
by Alicia Jrapko
November 23, 2018
From November 8 to 18, 2018, Venezuela was the vibrant scene of the Fourteenth International Book Fair (FILVEN) that took place in the historic center of the city of Caracas. Bolívar Square, one of the most important and recognized public spaces in Venezuela, was decorated with shelves and displays of books from all over the world. The featured country this year was Turkey. Special tribute was also paid to the Venezuelan poet Ana Enriqueta Terán, as well as to the newspaper Correo del Orinoco which was founded by Simón Bolívar in 1818.
During the fair there were 111 exhibitions with more than 565 activities including book presentations, awards and tributes, a children’s pavilion, forums, conversations and meetings, workshops, poetry recitals and artistic performances.
I had the honor of being invited to participate in FILVEN along with a group of writers, authors, editors and representatives of social movements.
I am not oblivious to what is happening in Venezuela, I read daily what the alternative and corporate media publish. And I communicate with friends who live there through social networks. Having stayed in the country for only four days, I don’t pretend in any way to be an expert on the situation in Venezuela. But I do feel the need to write some personal observations and share what I could see in that short time.
The corporate media brazenly lies about Venezuela. If you let yourself be carried away by what you read or hear in the corporate media you would think that people are starving, that the country is empty because so many people have left, and that violence is prevalent. That’s not what I saw. Let me begin by saying that Venezuela is an extremely hospitable country, and Venezuelans are a cheerful people who enjoy themselves in spite of the difficulties.
On Thursday, November 8, during the inauguration of the Book Fair, President Nicolás Maduro welcomed all ambassadors present and the national and international guests by saying, “this has been 14 continuous years of promoting publishing, the debate of ideas, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, cultural dialogue, free knowledge and free access to information and culture.” For his part, Venezuelan Minister of Culture, Ernesto Villegas, explained that the fair included an exhibition on the waves of migrants that Venezuela has received throughout its history. “Today, when a wave of induced xenophobia seeks to turn Venezuela into a bad word, we are here to vindicate the hospitable nature of Bolivar’s homeland and our indestructible brotherhood with all the peoples of the world.”
I would be lying if I said that I saw a single person sleeping in the streets of Caracas like what I see every single day a few blocks from where I live in the city of Oakland, California. Here there are thousands living under the bridges of the great highways in the richest country in the world. On the contrary, on my way from the Maiquetía Simón Bolívar International Airport to the city I was able to see with my own eyes the big housing projects which are part of the Misión Vivienda. Called repressive by the US media, Venezuela began to emphasize housing of the people with the Hugo Chávez government and continues to do so under President Maduro, with another two million housing units created for low-income people. Venezuela gets the label “repressive” because it is guilty of being a good example.
In addition to speaking in two workshops I participated in several book presentations, all very well attended, where most of the attendees were Venezuelans, who asked questions and expressed their opinions, proud that their country gave them that freedom. I have no doubt that FILVEN is an important people’s event organized by and for the Venezuelan people.
During the weekend the fair was busier with families and especially many children. On Sunday afternoon I witnessed a public cultural event full of people in the Plaza Bolívar that also touched my heart. It was an event to commemorate the life of Alí Primera, who would have been 77 years old this year. Primera was a musician, singer, composer, poet and political activist. He was and continues to be “The Singer of the Venezuelan People.” His nephew Alí Alejandro Primera, current president of the National Music Center (part of the Ministry of Culture) was in charge of the tribute, and there were also Sol Musset, singer and wife and mother of four of his children, and the renowned singer-songwriter Lilia Vera.
In the early 1980s, Alí Primera’s songs caused a sensation among those of us who admired the Nueva Canción movement. In particular I remember Techos de Cartón: “how sadly the children live in the cardboard houses … Children, color of my land, with the same scars, millionaires of worms…”
Many years have passed since Alí Primera’s departure in 1985, but Alí’s songs continue to reflect the uncertain future in which we live, with the advent of new right-wing governments on the continent.
Being part of that cultural event fills me with joy and emotion, especially seeing so many people enjoying themselves, and singing in chorus the songs of this humble man who left his voice and the heartfelt lyrics of his songs to his people.
What was clear to me is that the FILVEN represents the will of a government under attack that despite the adverse conditions is able to organize a book fair, with few resources, so that the entire population could benefit by being able to access all this culture.
Venezuela is the victim of an all-out blockade that began with an executive order from Obama when he declared Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security. The order continues under Trump but he has taken it further by implementing a blockade that affects the daily lives of all Venezuelans. In addition to the blockade, Venezuela is a victim of terrorist acts such as the one that occurred on November 4, when three members of Venezuela’s Bolivarian National Guard died after a confrontation with Colombian paramilitary groups in the border state of Amazonas.
Humanitarian crisis? What could be more humanitarian than the organization of a Book Fair for the enjoyment of a nation? One of Cuban hero José Martí’s most remembered and repeated phrase is precisely, “To be educated is the only way to be free.”
There are governments who lack the will to educate their people and seem to do everything to do just the opposite, content to have a population lacking in critical thinking. Perhaps that is why there is not a Department of Culture in the United States.
If there is one thing I brought back with me besides the hugs, the warmth and hospitality of the Venezuelan people is that VENEZUELA WANTS TO LIVE IN PEACE.
Alicia Jrapko is a co-editor of Resumen Latinoamericano, US bureau, a co-chair of the National Network on Cuba and the US coordinator of the International Committee for Peace, Justice and Dignity.
Article printed from www.counterpunch.org: https://www.counterpunch.org
URL to article: https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/11/23/international-book-fair-in-venezuela-being-educated-is-the-only-way-to-be-free/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)