DN: A Debate on the Closing of RCTV

Chavez Shuts Down Venezuelan TV Station as Supporters, Opponents Rally: A Debate on the Closing of RCTV

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3

Thousands of people have taken to the streets in Venezuela in four days of protests and counter-protests over the closing of TV network Radio Caracas Television. President Hugo Chavez decided not to renew the station's TV license over its support for the coup that temporarily removed him from power five years ago. We host a debate on the issue.

---

In Venezuela, thousands of people have taken to the streets in four days of protests and counter-protests over the closing of TV network Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV. The Venezuelan government decided not to renew RCTV's television license earlier this year. Police, protesters and government supporters have clashed violently in Caracas since Sunday, and scores of people have been arrested.

President Hugo Chavez's decision to close RCTV - Venezuela's oldest private television network - has received international condemnation, including from the European Union, press freedom groups, Chile and the United States.

The Venezuelan government says it cancelled RCTV over its support for the coup that briefly overthrew Chavez five years ago. At the time, RCTV and other opposition TV channels openly supported the coup. In a national address on Monday, Chavez defended his decision to close RCTV, denouncing it as a "permanent attack on public morals."

He also called news network Globovision an enemy of the state, and criticized its coverage of the protests against RCTV's closure.

• Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan president: "What Globovision did last night was an open and clear indication that they would kill me. Well, people of Globovision, I am going to alert you in front of the country on the national chain of radio and television, I recommend that you take a tranquilizer, because if not I am going to do what is necessary."

On Monday, Venezuela's government announced it was suing Globovision for allegedly broadcasting material to incite a possible assassination of Chavez. It also accused US news network CNN of linking him to al-Qaeda. Globovision and CNN have both denied the claims.

RCTV's general manager Marcel Granier has described the closure as "abusive" and "arbitrary". The Venezuelan government refused to renew its license on the grounds that it conspired against Chavez during the 2002 coup, including broadcasting footage falsely blaming Chavez supporters for violence, applauding coup leaders as they overthrew the government and then refusing to report that Chavez had returned to power following mass protests.

In a moment we'll have a debate on this issue, but first let's turn to a documentary made by two filmmakers who were in Caracas during the 2002 coup. The film is called "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised."

• "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" - excerpt of documentary produced by Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain.

That clip featured an interview with Andres Izarra, a news manager with RCTV during the 2002 coup. He later quit the station in protest over its coverage. Andres Izarra joins us now from a studio in Caracas. He later served as Venezuela's communications minister under President Chavez and is now president of TeleSUR. And joining us on the telephone from Connecticut is Francisco Rodríguez, an assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University He is a a former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

• Andres Izarra, former news manager at RCTV. He served as Venezuela's former communications minister under President Chavez. He is now president of TeleSUR, a multinational satellite network.
• Francisco Rodríguez, assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University, and former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

---

JUAN GONZALEZ: In Venezuela, thousands of people have taken to the streets in four days of protest and counter-protest over the closing of TV network Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV. The Venezuelan government decided not to renew RCTV’s television license earlier this year. Police, protesters and government supporters have clashed violently in Caracas since Sunday, and scores of people have been arrested.

President Hugo Chavez’s decision to close RCTV, Venezuela’s oldest private television network, has received international condemnation, including from the European Union, press freedom groups, Chile and the United States.

The Venezuelan government says it canceled RCTV over its support for the coup that briefly overthrew President Chavez five years ago. At the time, RCTV and other opposition TV channels openly supported the coup. In a national address on Monday, Chavez defended his decision to close RCTV, denouncing it as “a permanent attack on public morals.” He also called news network Globovision an enemy of the state and criticized its coverage of the protest against RCTV's closure.

PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ: [translated] What Globovision did last night was an open and clear indication that they would kill me. Well, people of Globovision, I’m going to alert you in front of the country on the national chain of radio and television: I recommend that you take a tranquilizer, because, if not, I am going to do what is necessary.

JUAN GONZALEZ: On Monday, Venezuela’s government announced it was suing Globovision for allegedly broadcasting material to incite a possible assassination of Chavez. It also accused US news network CNN of linking him to al-Qaeda. Globovision and CNN have both denied the claims.

AMY GOODMAN: RCTV’s general manager, Marcel Granier, has described the closure as “abusive” and “arbitrary.” The Venezuelan government refused to renew its license on the grounds it conspired against Chavez during the 2002 coup, including broadcasting footage falsely blaming Chavez supporters for violence, applauding coup leaders as they overthrew the government, and then refusing to report that Chavez had returned to power following mass protest.

In a moment, we'll have a debate on this issue. But first, let's turn to an excerpt of a documentary made by two filmmakers who were in Caracas during the 2002 coup. The film is called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.

NARRATOR: One in four Venezuelans carry handguns, and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from.

ANDRES IZARRA: [translated] One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace. They captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they’re shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see they, themselves, are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.

PRIVATE TV CHANNEL COVERAGE: [translated] Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on unarmed peaceful protesters below, peaceful protesters who are totally unarmed.

NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn't broadcast was this camera angle, which clearly shows that the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez.

AMY GOODMAN: An excerpt of the documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, by filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O’Briain. That clip featured an interview with Andres Izarra, a news manager with RCTV during the 2002 coup. He later quit the station in protest over its coverage. After break, he will join us in debate with a Wesleyan professor over the closing of RCTV, the Wesleyan Professor Francisco Rodriguez, professor of Latin American studies in Connecticut. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Joining us from Caracas, Venezuela, is Andres Izarra, who quit RCTV, later served as Venezuela's communications minister under President Chavez and is now president of TeleSUR, the multinational satellite network launched by Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Cuba. And on the phone with us from Connecticut, Francisco Rodriguez, an assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at Wesleyan University, former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

Let’s begin with Andres Izarra in Venezuela. Why did President Chavez shut down RCTV?

ANDRES IZARRA: President Chavez hasn't shut down any TV station. The concession has expired after fifty-three years, and the government decided not to renew the concession, because it needed to develop a national public service television. There is no shutdown at all.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And could you talk a little bit about the time that you were news director at RCTV at the time of the coup and the reason for your initial resignation and your concerns about RCTV’s news coverage?

ANDRES IZARRA: RCTV, during the 2002 coup d’etat in Venezuela, was a factor aligned with the interests of the dictatorship that was installed in our country for forty-eight hours. It is no secret, not just with RCTV, but all the other private media, radio and television, were aligned in promoting the protests and the whole process that led to the incarceration of President Chavez during this brief period of time. And the censorship that was imposed on all of us journalists during those days in the effort of the private TV and radio stations to legitimize the dictatorship in Venezuela, it was a censorship that was imposed on us in an effort to try to legitimize this dictatorship. We could not broadcast any of the people's reaction to the decree and to the dictator Carmona. And we could not cover anything that was happening in Venezuela, because instead of spreading the news of what was going on, the broadcast stations were broadcasting telenovelas, soap operas and cartoons.

AMY GOODMAN: We want to bring in Francisco Rodriguez, assistant professor at Wesleyan University, former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly. Your response to RCTV's closing?

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ: Yes, well, I think that I am actually quite surprised that Mr. Izarra says that RCTV is not being closed down. It’s the nation's oldest private TV station. It’s been operating since the ’50s. It’s the nation’s most widely viewed TV station. And it’s very clear that the government is going against it because it doesn't follow the government line, it has a very much of a pro-opposition stance.

Now, the government, as Mr. Izarra said, has charged it with supporting the coup. Now, in a democracy, usually it is not sufficient for somebody to be accused of committing a crime in order for the government to be able to take action against them. In a democracy, when somebody is believed to have conspired against the government, they have the right to defend themselves in court. They’re taken to a court of law. And only after a court has said they are guilty is it that the executive power can actually take some measure against them. So, effectively, if Mr. Izarra or Mr. Chavez have proof that RCTV conspired against the government in the coup, well, why haven’t they taken it to court? No Venezuelan court has decided that RCTV has violated any law.

And it’s actually very striking that Mr. Izarra just said that all other private media also were not transmitting the story in a view -- during the April 2002 coup, were not transmitting the views of the Chavez supporters. Now, that’s very interesting, and I think that that, by and large, is true. Now, what’s interesting is that some of those media, which Mr. Izarra has just said, were doing the same thing as RCTV, have just had their concessions renewed. So, for example, Venevision has just had its concession renewed. Why, if there’s no difference between what Venevision did and what RCTV did, is RCTV's concession revoked and Venevision’s concession renewed? Well, the reason is that Venevision now has an editorial line which is very favorable to the government. Venezuelans joke at Venevision, calling it “Venezolana de Venevision,” which is a play on words that makes its name almost indistinguishable from that of the government TV station.

So, effectively, what the government is doing is that it’s using licenses and it’s using a set of other economic means, such as foreign exchange allegations, blacklisting of government opponents -- the government has published a list of 3.5 million people who signed the recall referendum against them, against the government, to intimidate them -- and it’s using all of these means to try to quash out dissent in Venezuela. I think that’s what’s happening. And basically, I think we’re looking at the breakdown of democracy in Venezuela.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Rodriquez, when you mention about how democracy functions, my understanding is that in Venezuela there really is no -- and this predates the Chavez government -- that there is really no process by which a television company can appeal the revocation of their license, that basically it is an executive decision of the government whether you have the privilege of holding a license, very similar to -- at least here in the United States, there’s an FCC that fines stations quite often and can take away a license for failure to serve in the public interest, although clearly there’s a court procedure here in the United States, but that the Venezuelan legal system does not provide that kind of appeal process for television stations. Is that accurate?

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ: Sure, but there are a set of international agreements also, which have been signed by the Venezuelan government, which specify that these mechanisms, such as the renewal of licenses, such as the use of taxation or the allocation of foreign exchange, cannot be used in a way in which they are geared towards trying to change the opinion or the messages that are being transmitted by these TV stations. So they can't be used to interfere with the freedom of speech.

So what is effectively and obviously happening here in Venezuela and is transparent in the declarations of Mr. Izarra and all of the government supporters is that RCTV is being punished for its editorial line. And there, we get into an issue where there’s a violation of the freedom of speech and where effectively the government is using its force not to regulate the broadcasting system, but actually to make it have an opinion and voice opinions which are favorable to it. And that, I think, is where we see the breakdown of democracy occurring.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. Izarra, your response to the position of the professor that you’re, in essence, punishing one network, whereas other networks also supposedly participated or supported the coup attempt?

ANDRES IZARRA: Well, I cannot speak on behalf of Venevision and where their editorial line is. I can only speak about TeleSUR. And we have been covering all sides of the events during all these days. Even the head of now the opposition, which is Globovision, the head of Globovision was on our air just yesterday exposing what their views were. I don't know what Venevision is doing. I cannot speak on their behalf. But I can really say that this is a matter of sovereignty, and this is just an administrative procedure. In the past, we’ve seen in France, for example, the French government revoked the license for Berlusconi, when he was operating Tele 5, and gave it to another operator. Well, the same thing is happening here, just that in this case we’re not renewing a license.

There is no political -- how do you say that? -- punishment being imposed on RCTV because of their editorial line. In fact, 78% of the concessions in VHF in Venezuela are in private hands, most of them aligned with the opposition. 82% of the concessions in the UHF spectrum are also in private hands, also most of them aligned with the opposition. So what we have here, again, is just an administrative procedure that is being used with political purpose to advance another coup d’etat. There’s another coup d’etat effort on the way in Venezuela, just like we had in the past.

I must remind you, the sixty-four days of oil sabotage that happened in our country, where the oil elite stopped oil production in Venezuela, supported by this private media. I must remind you that RCTV broadcast during sixty-four days thousands and thousands of TV spots, not commercials, only political messages, to take out of the government a legitimate and democratically elected government. If you have such an irresponsible operator doing what RCTV has been doing in our country for over five years, that license would be revoked immediately. If you have a private media being involved in the coup d’etat, like you had it happening in Venezuela, you would see, for sure, that channel taken off the air in the United States and its owners being put in jail.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Andres Izarra. He’s in Caracas, Venezuela, our first live national broadcast, video and audio, directly from Caracas. I apologize a bit for the sound. It sounds like there’s a bit of a rainstorm there, but it doesn’t look like that, though it looks maybe a little overcast. He is the president of TeleSUR. We’re also joined by Professor Rodriguez from Wesleyan University.

Andres Izarra, just looking at thestar.com, the latest piece out of Reuters, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calling opposition news channel Globovision an enemy of the state, saying he would do what’s needed to stop it from inciting violence only days after he shut another opposition broadcaster. It quotes Hugo Chavez saying that. Going on to say, “Tens of thousands of Venezuelans marched in Caracas in a fourth consecutive day of protests over Chavez’s closure of [the] RCTV [network].” State TV “showed hundreds of government supporters marching in downtown Caracas celebrating Chavez’s decision. ‘Enemies of the homeland, particularly those behind the scenes, I will give you a name: Globovision. Greetings, gentlemen of Globovision, you should watch where you are going,’ Chavez said in a broadcast all channels had to show.” He said, “‘I recommend you take a tranquillizer and get into gear, because if not, I am going to do what is necessary.’ He accused Globovision of trying to incite his assassination and of misreporting protests over the closure of RCTV that could whip up a situation similar to the coup attempt [against him] in 2002.” Andres Izarra, your response to that Reuters report.

ANDRES IZARRA: Well, we have seen Globovision inciting the death of the president. I would like to see what would happen if NBC or CBS would broadcast what Globovision shows here, not just openly calling the people to rebel. In this very small opposition protest led by different, especially middle class and upper class students from private universities in Caracas and in the east of Caracas, which is the wealthiest part of the city, I would like to see how the FCC response would be for a broadcaster like Globovision that is constantly promoting rebellion and destabilization and has been supporting all anti-democratic processes and pronouncements here in Venezuela. The latest thing we've had is a clear, open call for the assassination of the president during one of their most vitriolic anti-Chavez shows called Alo Ciudadano.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Rodriguez, I’d like to ask you, looking at it from our perspective here in this country, if some networks here in this country, NBC or ABC, fomented the kind of public opposition that RCTV or Globovision have against the current administration, do you think that the government would be justified in acting against them?

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ: Well, I think it’s very important to talk about exactly what it is that they’re doing. And as I -- first of all, as I started out saying at the beginning, I think that there has to be a judicial review, there has to be presentation of the proof against these networks that shows that they have indeed fomented opposition.

Now, let's talk about, Mr. Izarra just mentioned, openly calling for the overthrow of the government, Globovision, during the Alo Ciudadano program. Let's see what they did. Globovision transmitted a set of images from the history of Venezuela and the world, basically which were -- it was indeed a review, after more than fifty years of transmitting, what RCTV -- all of the events that they had been present in. And one of the images -- and this was in a set of different historical images that they presented -- was an image of the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II. And according to Minister of Communications William Lara, a group of expert semioticians -- I’m not joking; this was as it was reported in the New York Times -- a group of expert semioticians working in the Ministry of Communications actually have identified that the transmission of the historical video of the assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II was indeed a call to carry out an assassination attempt against Mr. Chavez. Now, anybody who believes that in a profoundly Catholic country, such as Venezuela, you are going to actually incite people to go out and kill Mr. Chavez by presenting an image of an assassination attempt against the Pope is certainly clearly out of their mind.

So this is the type of evidence that the government presents against Globovision, against Radio Caracas, and at the same time, you know, you have a set of other cases, where in the government TV stations you also routinely have -- and the government-owned TV stations, are completely used to propagate pro-government messages, messages -- you turn on the government TV station and you see pro-Chavez slogans being chanted all of the time, not effectively respecting the difference between the fact that this TV station is property of the state and not of the government. But definitely the government feels that it has the right to do that. So, essentially, I think that -- you know, in answer to your question, I think that if a TV station were to actually call for the overthrow of the government and you can prove that in court, you would have a very strong case. It turns out that when the government has actually tried to prove these things in court, even the largely favorable supreme court, actually, ended up throwing out the government's case against military command [inaudible] for open rebellion. So the government has really had a hard time. And when one sees the type of proof that they’re presenting, one is not surprised.

AMY GOODMAN: Andres Izarra, your final response.

ANDRES IZARRA: Oh, yeah. He’s absolutely right. It is hard to -- in this country, oddest things had happened here. What was a clear coup d’etat -- everyone recognizes internationally, domestically, everyone knew what happened in 2002 -- our courts decided that it was not a coup. It was a power vacuum that was portrayed by military men who had good intensions and were protecting the president, never a coup d’etat happened in Venezuela. So Mr. Rodriguez is right. We have a very tough problem, very strong problem here with the courts, who have not even recognized that there had been a coup d’etat here in Venezuela.

But in terms of -- Mr. Rodriguez is an economist, so these economists have a very linear way of thinking, you know. If you show the images of Pope John Paul II when he was -- his assassination attempt -- and you put a music saying, “Everything has its end. People, go look for the end,” and in a context where you are reporting on all this vitriolic chants against the government and calls for to rebel against the government and denounce a dictatorship, that simple historic image gets a new context, and the message gets a very clear direction. You people, who are broadcasting, who are communications people, know very well how images can be manipulated and can be used to promote a sense and to promote a line of thought and feelings among the people.

AMY GOODMAN: Andres Izarra, we will have to leave it there. Andres Izarra speaking to us live from Caracas, Venezuela, manager at RCTV during the 2002 coup -- he quit at the time -- now president of TeleSUR, the multinational satellite network launched by Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia and Cuba. Francisco Rodriguez, joining us from Wesleyan, assistant professor of economics and Latin American studies at the Connecticut school, he is former chief economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly.

Washington’s Quest for Allies

in its Battle Against Chavez’s Influence in the Americas and Beyond: The Case of Europe’s Progressive Disappearance from Latin America’s Map

The U.S., with limited success, is using its diplomatic channels to urge nations to which it has privileged access to take a firm stand against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In the meantime, the European Union (EU) is fast allowing its presence on the map of Latin America to fade. On the Chavez issue, the EU clamorously remains neutral, and in doing so, might be losing out on what could be important benefits emerging from a sharpening divide separating the U.S. from a progressive bloc of Latin America states.

Anti-American sentiments are on the rise in Latin America, which was demonstrated by the wave of unrest manifested during President Bush’s tour of the region in March. After six years of neglect as a result of its preoccupation with Iraq, the Bush administration’s interests in South America are only now being resurrected. The motive: the former military officer and now president of oil-rich Venezuela is providing Latin America’s discontent with U.S. unilateralism and its lack of respect for the region’s autonomy, a voice that threatens vital U.S. economic interests in the area. As of now, Chavez is an ebullient advocate for a Latin American regional economic integration rather than the Bush promoted trade pact with the region. Welcoming the leaders of the Southern Cone to Caracas in late April for the ALBA (Alternativa Boliviariana Para Las Americas) Summit, Chavez stressed his alternative for the Bush-sponsored Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). In pursuit of this goal, Chavez not only tried to check U.S. negotiations with Brazil, but motivated Bush to start talking about bio-diesel production in the Southern Cone for the U.S. market in order to increase his influence over Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva while decreasing U.S. oil dependence on countries like Venezuela. The commencing wave of withdraws by left-leaning governments from the World Bank and IMF (beginning with Venezuela and Ecuador) or intimations that such could occur may also be attributed to Chavez’s increasing influence in the region. It also could promote an enlargement of the list of his detractors. Mixed signals given that plans were in the works to nationalize banks and the country’s largest steel producer on May Day further outraged private stakeholders. While the Bush administration is trying to secure like-minded allies to discredit Chavez in order to secure its hemispheric economic interests, the EU seems to be practicing abstinence regarding the showdown now occurring in the Western Hemisphere, being no better than an observer to this process.

Focus on Internal Issues Rather Than Foreign Policy
Europe is distracted by its own internal problems, making it difficult for it to pay more than perfunctory attention to conflicts in Latin America. The European Union has to cope with serious internal issues, giving the highest priority to the managing the integration of member states coming from “new” Europe. Starting with a group of twelve nations, the Union now comprises 27 states. There exists the ongoing controversy over the adoption of new candidates, particularly Turkey, a country accused of unabashed human rights violations. The EU is also negotiating with Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia, Ukraine, Moldavia, and Georgia about prospective membership. Moreover, there is the ongoing struggle to write the EU constitution. German Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to finish it while her country still holds the EU presidency. The last trial attempt failed in 2005 when both the Netherlands and France rejected the proposed documents.

The Stakes are High
Europe imports about 7% of its total foreign oil purchases from Venezuela. While Venezuela is not heavily dependent on EU purchases, a deteriorating relationship with Chavez could have significant implications for the EU energy market if Chavez ever decides to restrain or cut off supply. From this perspective, the EU would be well advised to not needlessly offend the Venezuelan leader. At a May Day ceremony, Chavez announced that his country would be taking over majority control its last privately owned oil fields. This marked the final step towards the nationalization of the Venezuelan energy industry.

Energy is of particular concern for the European Union, as demonstrated at the last EU-Latin America summit in Vienna in May of last year, where energy policy was at the center of the discussion. British Prime Minister Tony Blair criticized the nationalization of the oil and gas industry in Bolivia and Venezuela by urging the two Latin American nations not to act irresponsibly. He argued: “What countries do in their energy policy when they are energy producers like Bolivia and Venezuela matters enormously to all of us. My only plea is that people exercise the power they have got in this regard responsibly for the whole of the international community.” Other European leaders at Vienna expressed fears that nationalization would destabilize global energy markets and push up prices. The Austrian Chancellor, Wolfgang Schuessel, said that nations had to answer the question whether they wanted open markets and increased foreign direct investment, adding that experience showed that “open market societies are better in their performance than closed, restricted structures.”

Foreign Direct Investment in Peril
According to the Venezuela Strategy Paper (2001-2006) issued by the European Union, “the EU is only a moderately important trading partner for Venezuela.” Approximately 8.3% of Venezuela’s total trade in 2000 was with the EU, compared to 46.1% with the United States. Venezuela accounts for 0.3 % percent of the total trade of the EU. The main product exported from Venezuela to the EU is, of course, energy, which represents 59.8% of its total exports to the EU.

Venezuela always has been a recipient of foreign direct investment from Europe (FDI). In 2004, EUR 702 million were allocated to the country. Complicating matters, a few days ago, Chavez announced that the government might take over Sidor, the country’s major steel producer owned by the Luxembourg-based Ternium SA, with heavy Argentine investment. His issue with Sidor was that it exported most of its output, obliging Venezuelan developers to import steel pipes from more distant sources. “If they do not accept right now a change in the process, then they are going to force me to nationalize the company just as I did with [the telephone company] CANTV.” As a consequence, Ternium’s U.S.-traded shares tumbled by nearly 3.9% on the New York stock exchange.

Furthermore, the Venezuelan president has threatened to nationalize the country’s banks if they do not contribute to his ‘socialist revolution of the 21st century,’ stating that “private banks have to give priority to financing the industrial sectors of Venezuela at low cost.” He continued, “if banks don’t agree with this it’s better that they go, that they turn over the banks to me, that we nationalize them and get all the banks to work for the development of the country and not to speculate and produce huge profits.” In particular, Spanish banks (Santander, BBVA and Banco Provincial) would be affected by such a move. Nevertheless, the serious consequences of taking retaliatory action against Chavez by the European business community should be viewed with hesitation when formulating the argument why Chavez should not be facing even harsher criticisms from the EU than what is now heard.

Seeking a Niche Opened by Chavez; EU Promotes Social Cooperation
Instead of more vociferously intervening into Caracas’ regional activities, the EU is seeking to strengthen its social cooperation with the entire Southern Cone. At a recent meeting of foreign ministers from Latin America and Europe in April in the Dominican Republic, a degree of cooperation was achieved. Discussions focused on Haiti, energy, the environment, climate change and strengthening multilateralism, particularly collective action on issues of human rights, the drug war, and the fight against poverty.

The External Relations Commissioner of the EU, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, proposed an aid package of over 2.6 billion euro for 2007-2013 for Latin American countries. At successive ministerial meetings with the Andean Community, Central America, Mexico and Mercosur, Ferrero-Waldner highlighted the EU’s long term commitment to the region. “I believe that it is fair to say that the European Union and Latin America have made significant progress in the last few years,” referring to the successful Vienna Summit of 2006 and the establishment of the EU-Latin America Parliamentary Assembly. She added that the EU wishes to pick up the pace in the coming years: “The new aid programmes reflect the weight of our commitment to the region. We are determined to keep moving forward.”

The commissioner also outlined the group’s priorities for the Southern Cone up to the year 2013. The top priority of EU aid programmes is to achieve social cohesion, in particular, the fight against poverty, social inequality and exclusion. This is to be followed by regional integration and economic cooperation. The EU is counting on the negotiation of an association agreement with Central America and the Andean Community, with the aim of setting up free trade areas. Other priorities include achieving mutual understanding between the EU and Latin America, support for human rights, and the creation of sustainable development, including the protection of forests, concern for biodiversity and good governance.

Moreover, a new Euro-Latin American parliamentary assembly (EUROLAT) was established in November 2006, with an inaugural session held at the European Parliament in Brussels. EUROLAT aims to attribute greater substance to political relations between Europe and Latin America by replacing the inter-parliamentary dialogue launched in 1974. “Our relations are not simply based on free trade, we aspire to an association for a common future based on shared values,” observed then EP President Josep Borrell at the inaugural session. The Joint Assembly brings together MPs from the European Parliament, as well as legislators from the Andean, Central American and Latin American parliaments, representatives of the national parliaments of Mexico and Chile and members of the MERCOSUR Parliamentary Commission. It has three permanent committees: one that deals with political affairs, security and human rights, another with economic, financial and commercial affairs, and one on social affairs, exchanges of people, the environment, education and culture. The trend towards further social, cultural, and economic integration between the two regions could spark an even faster pace in the coming year when Portugal will succeed Germany to the EU presidency in July. Portugal’s Prime Minister Jose Socrates highlighted what he called “a deeper dialogue between the EU and Latin America,” as a priority.

The popularity of Chavez among the Latin American public is a consequence of the daring nature of his social agenda and his firm condemnation of U.S. unilateralism. Instead of only standing shoulder to shoulder with the U.S., the EU deserves a modest amount of credit for also emphasizing social cooperation with the region, consequently gaining some appreciation as well as influence in the Southern Cone as an independent source of leverage rather than simply a matter of “me too.”

Beyond the EU Governments: Chavez Evokes only Mixed Feelings in Europe
Despite a certain amount of sympathy with Chavez’s social agenda, the president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, expressed the notion of many Europeans. “We are a Europe against populist tendencies,” Barroso said at the EU-Latin American Summit in Vienna in May 2006. The Spanish newspaper El Pais came forth with a sprawling editorial that made its sclerotic point: “[Chavez] is mixing demagogy, populism and a scandalous lack of tact concerning everybody - countries, persons, and institutions.”

Furthermore, many are concerned about the economic sustainability of Chavez’s social agenda. On May Day, Chavez announced a 20% increase in the minimum wage and plans to decrease the weekly work hours from its present 44 to 36 hours. In response, Wolfgang Kunath denounced the myopia of Chavez’s policies in the German newspaper Stuttgarter Zeitung. “Nothing can stop his revolution, says Chavez. Correct! [referring to recent changes of the constitution and restriction of the media]—with one exception. If the oil price is falling he will find himself immediately in a very different position.” Kunath continued that Chavez asserts that even if the middle class and the rich benefit from free health clinics and regulated food markets, Venezuela still has the highest inflation rate in Latin America as prices increase and many subsidized goods are out of stock and only appear on the black market.

Another chronic Chavez critic, The Financial Times, points to the negative implications of Chavez’s policies for foreign investors, which could cause a “continued deterioration in Venezuela’s country risk that will have implications on the overall health of the economy and possibly on its sovereign ratings.”

Chavez and Civil Society
When Chavez visited the Vatican in May 2006, Pope Benedict XVI told him about his concerns over the treatment of the Roman Catholic Church in his country and insisted on the total independence of the Catholic media as well. The Venezuelan bishops’ conference has frequently criticized Chavez for tinkering with the constitution to give him more power. Chavez has in turn accused individual bishops of interfering in politics.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) argued that Chavez’s decision to close down RCTV, a television channel acerbically critical of the president, is potentially a “catastrophe for pluralism and social rights.” EU government officials have recently been present in Venezuela, requesting to talk to Chavez about the sensitive press issue as thousands were demonstrating against closing down RCTV. This could clearly be seen as a sign of Europe’s concern regarding Venezuela.

Labor experts in Burssels warned that Venezuela is guilty of “significant” trade union right violations. “This is of real concern to us,” said Tim Noonan of the International Trade Union Confederation. One recalls that some representatives of Venezuela’s heavily co-opted mainstream trade union movements were associated with the staging of the April 2002 attempted coup of Chavez.

Chavez and England
Not only in civil society, but also at the regime level, the discussion of Chavez is more lively in the EU than are other Latin American topics. Typically, it is about Chavez’s stylistic excesses. Since 9/11, the British government has been a close ally of the United States against the ‘War on Terror.’ Chavez recently called the Prime Minister Tony Blair an “imperialist pawn” who shares the same bed as President Bush. A recent BBC World Service poll suggested that nearly twice as many British citizens are hostile towards Venezuela than are positive. The London Assembly’s Conservative leader Bob Neill, said to the British newspaper The Mirror: “I am appalled that Londoners are paying to entertain this dictator [referring to a lunch hosted by London’s mayor Ken Livingstone]. I believe that this man should be shunned by every moderate regime in the world, not wined and dined like a legitimate world leader.”

Tony Blair has declared his concerns about Chavez’s close relationship with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, by saying that Venezuela “should abide by the rules of the international community,” referring to Chavez’s nationalization initiatives. Many say that the reason why Blair has never harshly criticized Chavez’s policies is because compared to the volumes of denouncements coming from the White House, many members of his Labour Party would oppose him. The fundamental values behind Chavez’s policies focused on the wellbeing of the working class, is exactly what Blair’s Labour Party should be about. Many Labour backbenchers don’t want to further delegitimize party ideals by taking a hostile stance against Chavez, just to maintain close ties with the United States. Ken Livingstone, who was the only government official Chavez requested to meet during his last visit to the UK, is one of them. He maintains that “it is the duty of all people who support progress, justice and democracy to stand with Venezuela,” as was noted in an interview with The Guardian in May 2006. Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, Livingstone added that Chavez had been responsible for significant social reforms and called him “the best news out of Latin America in many years.” Dismissing concerns of human rights groups about Chavez’s treatment of his political opponents, Livingstone said: “He’s won 10 elections for his party in the last decade and he’s pushed through a whole programme of social reform. ‘Venezuela was like a lot of those old Latin American countries - a small elite of super-rich families who basically stole the national resources. He’s now driven a new economic order through, you’ve got for the first time healthcare for poor people, illiteracy has been eradicated. It is encouraging to see … a government committed to the democratic and social transformation of one of the most important countries in Latin America.”

Playing the Spanish Card
Spain, in recent years, has given high priority to Latin American issues, in particular Venezuela. However, the Zapatero government has been relatively shy on the Chavez issue compared to other EU members, particularly hard-line Czech Republic and Slovakia. Over the last couple of years, Spanish foreign policy mainly has fallen hostage to domestic political strife. “Fierce disputes over Basque terrorism, regional autonomy, and culpability for the March 2004 attacks have polarized national discourse.” This might be an explanation for the Spanish inertia towards Latin America, wrote Peter H. Smith, professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, in the German news magazine Der Spiegel. However, the probably mock threats of Chavez on May Day, that he could very well nationalize Venezuela’s major banks (some Spanish owned) might alter the relatively benevolent behavior of Zapatero towards the Venezuelan leader. Chavez’s recent comparison of the former rightwing Spanish prime minister José Maria Aznar with Hilter had further pressured Zapatero to abandon his neutral position towards the Venezuelan president, even though the former Spanish leader is grossly unpopular in all of Europe, including Spain.

Chavez is the Master of His Own Destiny in Europe
Chavez is seen by some as Europe’s megaphone for the legions of the continent’s residents who are discontent with American unilateralism. Moreover, the majority of Europeans are upset that the protests of “Old Europe” against the invasion of Iraq have been relatively stifled, while the Kyoto Protocol (which all European countries have ratified) as well as several other UN Conventions and institutions (”Rights of the Child”, International Criminal Court, The Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty) have hardly been addressed by the Bush White House. Many Europeans hold to the belief that egoistical U.S. foreign policy is fueling the influence of radical groups, such as al-Qaeda, and therefore are contributing to destabilizing their hemisphere as well as much of the rest of the globe. Furthermore, as Gordon Hutchison has observed in the British newspaper The Morning Star, “people are inspired by a process that puts human need before profit - such as introducing free health care to millions, eradicating illiteracy and supporting international solidarity initiatives like Operation Miracle, a project with Venezuelan funding and Cuban medical expertise that has restored the eyesight of 400,000 people.”

However, despite the admiration of Chavez’s social agenda and the denunciation of U.S. unilateralism, his raw populist style and some of the strongman characteristics attributed to him remind many Europeans of negative experiences with totalitarian leaders in the past. The German Newspaper Stuttgarter Zeitung points to the fact that “Chavez is becoming more and more an autocratic monarch” because the Venezuelan parliament is without the representation of the opposition due to the latter’s boycott of the last elections. Yet, when it comes to indicting Chavez with hard felonies, in most of the cases the evidence is wanting, with his critics often confusing his always harmless bark with his rarely exhibited bite. That is why many think that although scores of the region’s leaders in the past abused the powers Chavez now holds, he should not be convicted before he commits the crime. The fact is that up to now, he has run one of Latin America’s more robust democracies.

Nevertheless, his frequent insults towards other head of states, such as the comparison of Bush and former Spanish Prime Minister Aznar to Hitler and the denunciation of British Prime Minister Tony Blair as ‘Imperialist Pawn,’ who shares the bed of Bush do not sit well with Europeans. In addition, the short shrift he provided to the rights of private property and his cooperation and friendship with controversial figures like Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are aspects that have cost Chavez huge chunks of support and credibility in Europe.

Yet there is the notion in Europe that when it comes to Hugo Chavez, there is more than meets the eye, and that he deserves the chance to end the country’s history of tiny elites exploiting Venezuela’s natural resources to the disadvantage of its poverty-ravaged population. For many, Chavez’s vision for Latin America’s future contains much more diamond than lead.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Staff Research

New Films on the Border, Mexico, and Oaxaca

Yesterday, I attended an event sponsored by Acción Zapatista (a UCSB student organization) that featured three new exciting documentaries. Jill Friedberg, who also worked on the Award Winning film This is What Democracy Looks Like, presented Granito de Arena, which tells the story of the dismantling of the Mexican public education system. This compelling film highlights the power of resistance by educators, families, and students, who demand access to free public education and a living wage. In 2006, a year after Friedberg completed this film, Oaxacan teachers entered a new chapter in their struggle. Her new film, a work in progress, called Un Poquito de Tanto Verdad, traces the story of the recent Oaxacan uprising. I was thrilled to see the brave Oaxacan women who took over Channel Nine powerfully represented in this film. I remember Jill from my time in Oaxaca–she was always at the frontlines, documenting the uprising as it happened. You can learn more about these films and how to order them, from Corrugated Films.

We were also treated by Monica Hernandez’s film, Rights on the Line, which deconstructs the image and reality of the Minutemen Project, in particular their racist and controversial involvement in apprehending immigrants who cross the Mexican/US border. I loved the footage of Minutemen at the Arizona border. The American Friends Service Commission trained ACLU legal observers to document the activities of the Minutemen and other vigilantes. The film and trailer are availble from the American Friends Service Commission.

Marcos: With Calderón, Anyone Is Within the Military Machine’s Sights

[From: detodos-paratodos.blogspot.com]

by: JESUS NARVAEZ ROBLES

Tepic, Nayarit, May 28, 2007.

Felipe Calderón Hinojosa’s government not only is preparing to unleash selective repression against social strugglers and popular movements, but anyone who “is in the military machine’s sights,” asserted Subcomandante Marcos here. Upon presenting “some reflections realized during the second stage of the Other Campaign in the country’s north,” Marcos warned that “taking the Mexican Army out of its barracks is easy, but returning it to the ambit to which it corresponds is not so simple, because it behaves as before an enemy, not before its fellow citizens.”

In a recap of “the situation of labor, of exploitation and repression” which reins in Mexico, Marcos warned: “The Calderón government’s dispositions and actions confirm the analysis that we have made since the middle of 2005: the country is on the path to a social explosion and in the face of that four alternatives present themselves: 1) Calderón’s, which is the use of indiscriminate force, the alternative of massive repression; 2) gradual control and demobilizing, in other words that of the forces that point towards 2012 for an orderly change and a change without rupture; 3) that of chaos and civil war; and, finally, 4) that of an organized alternative, anticapitalist and to the Left, by the organizations, groups, collectives, families and individuals of the Other Campaign.”

After pointing out that currently “olive green is in style and it is singing praises to an Army fulfilling the work of internal police, violating fundamental laws and internal regulations,” Marcos indicated that “a view with the minimum of criticism is enough to realize that the Mexican political system is dead, unstable and without a solid frame of reference.

“The national situation is a catastrophe; the economy has been abandoned to the ups and downs of the international market; social security is a pile of wreckage in the wind; public education is a poor imitation of the courses of personal and corporate excellence; cultural politics is a section many times assigned to a corner in the social pages; public health is a dirty, slovenly, inefficient commercial center, whose business debates between trademarks and generics. Nothing of what was the spinal column of the national state remains standing,” he said.

He added: “The Mexican political class thought that it was only trying to enter to relieve the PRI in the administration and sale of the horn of plenty called Mexico, and it didn’t turn out that way, that what tumbled together with the PRI hegemony was something else. What happened there above, in national politics, is only a pale reflection of what happened and happens at the basis of the nation State in Mexico. The Mexican political system’s former unwritten rules crumbled, among them that which was fundamental: that of presidential succession.

“That national tradition called cover up no longer exists, and these are times that run without even the minimum political oxygen (breathing room) that permitted Vicente Fox to survive initially as ruler. Felipe Calderón sees with desperation that he does not carry his own party along with him. His effective mandate ended when he abandoned the Congress of the Union like a criminal, after that accidental taking of power.

The media’s power was insufficient

“Being sustained in the mass media was not sufficient and, by what one sees, neither is filling the cities and streets with soldiers. Thus, the presidential highway has been initiated and the aspirants are practically defined: Marcelo Ebrard and Andrés Manuel López Obrador, for the PRD or for the new party they are forming; Enrique Peña Nieto and Beatriz Paredes, for the rubble called the PRI, besides Martha Sahagún, in ways of reappearing, for the PAN and a Francisco Ramírez Acuña who appears more vigilant of prison than of political office,” Marcos indicated.

He added that “the political class’ enthusiasm for that unsustainable farce of the struggle against drug trafficking, which we all know is no more than the Los Pinos cartel’s struggle to take possession of everything, hides two things: the criminalization of the social struggle which permits them to control the limits of power that they maintain, and the media attention about the bloody acts of that war lost from its beginning, which permits the politicians to measure the impact that the heavy hand has in the polls.”

--------------------------------------

Translation: Mary Ann Tenuto-Sánchez

MEDIA-LATIN AMERICA: Easy to See the Speck in the Other's Eye

by Diana Cariboni*
MONTEVIDEO
May 30

People have been collectively tearing their hair out all over Latin America because of the Venezuelan government's decision not to renew the broadcasting licence of that country's most popular television station, RCTV.

Three former Panamanian presidents -- Mireya Moscoso, Guillermo Endara and Ernesto Pérez-Balladares -- are planning to lobby the Organisation of American States (OAS) to get its general assembly to discuss the case in its meeting next weekend.

And Peruvian President Alan García said, with respect to the decision not to renew the concession for RCTV, which has been on the air since 1956: "In Peru, something like this would never happen."

Something like what? he might well be asked. Many in Venezuela argue that RCTV (Radio Caracas Televisión) dug its own grave with its vociferous opposition to the government of leftist President Hugo Chávez, which went as far as backing the April 2002 coup that briefly toppled the president.

In neighbouring Colombia, which has been in the grip of civil war for nearly half a century, journalist Juan Gossaín with the RCN Radio station said in an interview with President Álvaro Uribe: "Your remarks on respect for freedom of the press lead me to suppose, for example, that you would not strip RCTV of its broadcasting licence."

To which the president responded: "I would not do that to anybody. Or rather, let them exercise journalism even without a licence; they can say whatever they want; they can operate wherever they want."

But the rightwing Uribe cannot shut down opposition TV stations for the simple reason that there aren't any, by contrast with Venezuela, where most privately-owned media outlets are openly opposed to the government.

Earlier, however, in October 2004, the Uribe administration closed the public Instituto de Radio y Televisión (Inravisión), which broadcast on three stations. Its programming included educational and cultural content, a daily interview programme on social movements, and documentaries that were often awkward for the government.

The president made the announcement about Inravisión on a Monday, and the following Thursday "the police came in and evicted the employees that same day," Milciades Vizcaíno, a sociologist by training who worked for nearly 27 years in educational programming, which was eliminated with that measure, told IPS.

The Colombian government argued that Inravisión was "inefficient."

"But the underlying problem was the strength of the union (of Inravisión employees)," said Vizcaíno, author of "University and the Media: From the Welfare State to the Market", which was published in April.

The book analyzes a process that was the mirror reflection of what is occurring now in Venezuela, where the privately-owned RCTV's broadcast frequency was assigned to a newly created public station.

Inravisión was replaced by Radio Televisión de Colombia (RTVC), which "outsources" activities by means of concessions and contracts, thus preventing the creation of an employees' union and cutting operating costs by 72 percent. The transmitters are operated by another company, Telecom.

During an October parliamentary debate led by Senator Gustavo Petro (leader of the main opposition party, the leftwing Democratic Pole) on the ties between the far-right paramilitary militias and politicians in the northern provinces of Sucre and Córdoba, the Canal Institucional (Institutional Channel), which is now run by RTVC and frequently broadcasts parliamentary hearings and debates, inexplicably went off the air in both provinces.

When faced with complaints, RTVC referred the issue to Telecom. But "no one there could explain why it happened," Hernán Onatra, the senator's press officer, told IPS.

"Not only the public TV station, but also cable stations briefly stopped broadcasting the Canal Institucional in some parts of Bogotá and in big cities like Cúcuta (in the northeast), without any explanation. We know that from reports from viewers themselves, during the debate or the day after," added Onatra.

In Honduras, meanwhile, President Manuel Zelaya ordered all TV and radio stations to broadcast 10 daily one-hour programmes during prime time, starting Monday, to counteract what he called "misinformation" on his administration provided by the press.

Honduran law stipulates that nationally broadcast messages (known as "cadena nacional") can only be used to call elections or in case of natural disasters or emergencies.

Zelaya's decision was reminiscent of the frequent use of national broadcasts in the 1970s, when the military held power, and has drawn fire from journalists' associations, the media, and even the president of parliament, Roberto Micheletti.

Political analyst Juan Ramón Martínez told IPS that the decision "is an attack on freedom of expression" and that "not even the military were as abusive as what the current government is announcing."

Edgardo Escoto, the government beat reporter for the opposition radio station Circuito Radial Voces, commented to IPS that he has been censored by presidential spokespersons. "They refuse to talk to me; they hide the president's itinerary from me," he said.

In Nicaragua, the last media outlet to lose its broadcasting licence for apparently political reasons was the La Poderosa radio station in 2002, during the administration of Enrique Bolaños, when the station's equipment was seized without any legal proceedings.

La Poderosa was an outspoken critic of the government, and aligned with former president Arnoldo Alemán, who has been convicted of corruption.

Under the government of Alemán (1997-2001), newspapers that were critical of the government, like La Prensa and El Nuevo Diario, reported that they suffered harassment by tax authorities and a boycott by the government, which cancelled all official advertising, after publishing articles on corruption among public officials.

RCTV is not the only media outlet that has stopped operating in Venezuela as the result of a government measure. During the April 2002 coup in which Chávez was removed from power for two days, the public station Canal 8 was shut down.

And in 2003, Caracas Mayor Alfredo Peña, an outspoken Chávez opponent, also closed down the community station Catia TV for several days.

That is why the government and its supporters argue that only the opposition has closed down media outlets in Venezuela. Former information minister Andrés Izarra, who is president of the Venezuela-based international TV network Telesur, pointed out to IPS that in the case of RCTV, the station "was not closed down; what happened was that its concession was not renewed."

With respect to the question of freedom of speech, Chávez supporters also note that during the April 2002 coup, private stations like RCTV refused to provide coverage of the Apr. 13 popular uprising that swept the president back to power with the support of loyal army troops, airing instead reruns, cartoons and old Hollywood films.

Furthermore, RCTV and other stations only aired anti-Chávez propaganda and coverage of anti-government marches during a two-month business and oil industry shutdown in 2002-2003 aimed at bringing down the president.

But Ciro García, president of the chamber of broadcasters, remarked to IPS that the decision against RCTV "has placed in a difficult situation more than 150 private radio stations that are awaiting the renewal of their licences."

Another incident that the opposition in Venezuela complain about and invoke to accuse Chávez of undermining freedom of speech was a two-day closure and 13,900 dollar fine imposed on the opposition-aligned El Impulso paper in the west-central city of Barquisimeto in October 2005, for tax evasion.

In addition, RCTV was fined on numerous occasions, some of which involved its failure to cooperate with the tax laws. The 24-hour news station Globovisión has also been fined, and some of its satellite equipment was compounded two years ago after an inspection discovered irregularities. And neither of the stations received official advertising.

But "if we look at the diversity of the media, there is much more freedom of expression in Venezuela than in Chile, for example," Felipe Portales, who runs the Freedom of Expression Programme at the public University of Chile's Institute of Communication and Image, told IPS.

Although no arbitrary measures against the media have been reported in Chile in recent years, freedom is restricted by the concentration of ownership in a few hands, according to Portales and the director of the Fucatel Media Observatory, Manuela Gumucio.

"With the exception of Cuba, Chile is the country that has the least freedom of expression in Latin America, in terms of media plurality," with "a situation that is worse than what we experienced before the end of the dictatorship" of General Augusto Pinochet in 1990, said Portales.

The coverage of the RCTV case is one illustration of that, she said. "The Chilean media have only shown one version, the anti-Chávez side. We don't have the necessary elements to form an opinion on it," she argued.

Both Portales and Gumucio also blame the lack of diversity on the unequal distribution of official advertising.

And in Cuba, like in Colombia -- although for different reasons -- there are no opposition stations that could be closed down.

Private ownership of the media in Cuba came to an end in the 1960s, after President Fidel Castro took power in the 1959 revolution. The media are entirely controlled by the governing Communist Party.

Dissidents, who are labelled "mercenaries on the payroll of the empire" (the United States) by the socialist government, have no access to the media. A group of journalists not in line with the government or openly opposed to it were handed stiff prison sentences in 2003 on charges of transmitting or providing information to "enemy" media outlets.

The only exception are the Catholic magazines Palabra Nueva and Vitral, founded in 1994 in the western province of Pinar del Río, whose editorial team fell into crisis early this year, however, after the arrival of the new bishop, Jorge Enrique Serpa.

Vitral became known for its critical view of conditions in Cuba. But Serpa decided that the publication should avoid being "aggressive" and should be less anti-establishment.

Censorship in Mexico, meanwhile, which was common during much of the time that the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was in power from 1929 to 2000, began to ease in the mid-1990s.

But the Diario Noticias newspaper in the southern state of Oaxaca, which has been published for 31 years and is openly critical of the widely criticised state Governor Ulises Ruiz, has been the target of attacks since 2005, including assaults on its journalists and attempts to evict the staff from the paper's offices.

And Radio Monitor, which has operated since1975, was one of the few that confronted the years of censorship under the PRI. Now its owner, José Gutiérrez Vivo, says the governing National Action Party (PAN) is punishing the station for criticising the government by reducing the amount of official advertising it receives and denying it interviews and information.

In Uruguay, the only party that ever revoked a broadcasting licence was the centre-right National Party, which has now called on the governing leftist Broad Front to issue a statement condemning the Venezuelan government's decision in the RCTV case.

In its refusal to do so, the Broad Front has noted that the government of former president Luis Alberto Lacalle (1990-1995) of the National Party was the only one to take a similar measure in the history of Uruguay, and "without waiting for the licence to expire," said Broad Front Senator Eleuterio Fernández Huidobro.

In 1994, Lacalle stripped the CX 44 Radio Panamericana station of its licence after it urged the public to take part in a demonstration, which was the target of a harsh crackdown, against the extradition to Spain of three citizens from that country accused of belonging to the Basque separatist group ETA.

* With additional reporting by Constanza Vieira (Colombia), Daniela Estrada (Chile), Patricia Grogg (Cuba), Thelma Mejía (Honduras), Diego Cevallos (Mexico), José Adán Silva (Nicaragua), Humberto Márquez (Venezuela) and Darío Montero (Uruguay). (END/2007)

REFLECTIONS OF PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO: The G-8 meeting

FOR those who are not informed –and I am one of them – G-8 refers to the group of most developed countries, including Russia. The anticipated meeting which begins in 6 days has awakened great expectations due to the profound political and economic crisis threatening the world.

Let's read the news services.

The German news agency DPA announces that the German minister of Transportation and Urbanism, Wolfgang Tiefensee, declared "that the European Union countries have agreed on a common strategy."

"The European ministers of Urbanism meeting in the eastern city of Leipzig in an informal council under the motto of 'Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion’, will employ a common strategy for the protection of the environment and the halting of climatic change."

"For example," Tiefensee warned, "in the south of Europe the summer temperatures are expected to increase by up to six degrees, while on the coasts we can expect strong winter storms.

"The drought threatening Spain and the lack of water in Poland are two more examples of the challenges facing the European Union, the German added at the end of the council."

Meanwhile, AFP reports that "the German minister of the environment, Sigmar Gabriel, judged it to be ‘very difficult’ that in the next G-8 summit any success could be achieved in the matter of climatic warming due to United States opposition."

"Germany will be the host country to the summit which will be held on June 6 to 8 in Heiligendamm with the eight most highly industrialized countries on the planet.

"Even though there are many in the United States who would like to see another kind of policy on climatic warming, ‘unfortunately, Washington prevents’ such a position to materialize, according to the German Social-Democratic minister.

"The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, will put forth a ‘strong signal’ about the need to act urgently on this matter; the United States administration multiplies its opposition signals."

Reuters, the English agency, reports: "The United States has refused the German proposal to see that the Group of Eight agrees to tougher restrictions for carbon emissions that are producing global warming, according to the draft of the communiqué which will be presented at the meeting.

"The United States still has serious and fundamental concerns about this declaratory draft, to which Reuters had access.

"Treatment of climatic change goes completely counter to our position and crosses many ‘red lines’ in terms of which we simply cannot be in agreement, explained the American negotiators.

"This document is called FINAL, but we were never in agreement with any of the climatic language present in the text," they added.

"Germany would like an agreement to contain the increase of temperatures, in order to cut back global emissions by 50 percent lower than 1990 levels for the year 2050 and to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent for 2020.

"Washington rejects all those objectives."

While Blair declares that he would persuade his friend George, the only thing certain is that he has added another submarine to the three that are now being built in Britain; with this, the expenses for sophisticated armaments increase by another 2.5 billion dollars. Perhaps someone with one of those new computer programs developed by Bill Gates could calculate the resources being used for war expenses at the cost of education, healthcare and culture for humanity.

George must say what he really thinks at the G-8 meeting, including the subject of the dangers threatening peace and food for human beings. Someone should ask him and he should not try to escape with the advice of his friend Blair.

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 29, 2007.

6:45 p.m.

Attorney General summons Globovisión CEO, anchorman

The Attorney General Office has subpoenaed Alberto Federico Ravell, CEO of private news TV channel Globovisión, and Leopoldo Castillo, host of talk show "Aló, Ciudadano" with regard to the events denounced by Minister of Communication and Information William Lara involving the station.

Based on a press release from the Attorney General Office, Ravell and Castillo should appear the morning of June 6 and June 7, respectively, to talk about the images that show an attack on Pope John Paul II in May 1981, concomitantly with the song "This is not the end," by singer Rubén Blades.

The shots were aired during TV program "Aló Ciudadano" where they held an interview with Empresas 1BC CEO Marcel Granier.

Destabilization plan underway, affirms Chávez

Venezuelan students support government measures

CARACAS, May 29.—Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez affirmed this Tuesday that underlying opposition protests over the RCTV case there is a process of destabilization to propitiate violence, and called on the popular sectors to be alert to this, during a speech on radio and television, AFP reports.

“This is an alert to the hills, the barrios and the towns to defend our Revolution from this new fascist attack,” he urged.

The president said that certain television and radio stations and dailies “have given themselves the task of distorting the facts. We cannot accept, the state cannot accept that, under its very nose, they are calling for a flouting of the authorities and, worse, killing the president in order to generate chaos,” he emphasized.

Meanwhile, students from the Bolivarian University of Venezuela (UBV), as well as the various programs that have provided access to education for more than two million people, marched to Miraflores Palace in support of the government measure not to renew RCTV’s broadcasting license and, at the same time, to condemn the vandalizing actions of opposition groups.

The ABN news agency noted that students from the Armed Forces Experimental University (UNEFA) and the Rómulo Gallegos Experimental University (UNERG), the José Lorenzo Pérez University College, and those in the Robinson, Ribas and Sucre programs all took part in the march.

Free Speech and the Corporate Media

If a news station supports an anti-democratic coup against a democratically elected president, does that station have the right to broadcast ultra-right propaganda over public airwaves? If the government shuts that station down for its democratic violations, does that constitute an attack on freedom of speech? Do the people of a country have the right to decide what they allow broadcasted in their airspace? Or do the corporations have that right?

These are some of the central questions generated by Venezuela’s recent shutdown of “RCTV”, a right-wing television channel that supported the coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002. The station reported several lies during the coup, actively encouraged citizens to riot against the government, and then failed to report Chavez’s return to power three days later, instead deciding to broadcast cartoons.

Now, the Venezuelan government has declined to renew RCTV’s broadcast license, and in it’s place, has created a new progressive public television channel. RCTV, obviously facing a big dip in their profits (since they can no longer broadcast in Venezuela), has used their remaining corporate media friends and contacts to incite several protests all across the country, a few of which have turned violent. At the same time, pro-socialist and progressive forces have staged several mass rallies in support of the government’s decision to rid their country of the right-wing propaganda machine.

So who is the greater threat to democracy? A television station with a large audience, vast amounts of wealth, and a proven willingness to lie to it’s viewers and incite them to violence and large-scale anti-democratic actions like, say, a coup? Or a democratically elected government supported by a majority of the population that decides to revoke the news station’s license to broadcast lies over public airwaves?

And isn’t there something hypocritical about a corporation screaming about the violation of its democratic right to free speech, when it has a well documented history of grossly anti-democratic behavior?

In fact, RCTV’s actions, had they taken place in practically any major industrialized democracy around the world, would quite likely have resulted in a much quicker license revocation. The FCC has certainly barred media stations from broadcasting for actions far less significant than treason in the US.

So does this constitute a violation of free speech? Quite simply, no. The ultra-right media capitalists at RCTV still have the right to spread lies, incite people to violence, and support coups. The people of Venezuela have simply decided that RCTV can no longer use their airwaves to do so. They’ll now have to stand on soapboxes out in the streets like everyone else.

I write all of this not to say I completely agree with the particular course of action the Venezuelan government has taken. For starters, a media corporation with as much capital, and with as many friends in the worldwide corporate media (and particularly the US corporate media) should have no problem spinning the Venezuelan’s governments actions as “authoritarian” and anti-democratic. In fact, RCTV’s corporate media friends both in Venezuela (i.e., Globovision) and around the world (e.g., FOX News, CNN, Bloomberg Corporation, etc.) have already started a concerted and coordinated media saturation campaign against the Venezuelan government attempting to convince people that it is an “authoritarian” and “un-democratic” regime.

Yet even if RCTV weren’t part of a very powerful media conglomerate with even more powerful friends, I probably still wouldn’t have supported a license revocation. In my opinion, censorship is never the answer. It gives that which is censored a legitimacy that it doesn’t deserve. I would have instead advocated for a different tactic: lure away the station’s top talent with higher salaries and newer, better shows and launch a concerted campaign to generate much larger audiences, thereby eating into RCTV’s advertising revenue and viewing audience. Furthermore, I would have also advocated doubling or tripling taxes on the corporate media.

Hugo Chavez versus RCTV

Venezuela's oldest private TV network played a major role in a failed 2002 coup.

By Bart Jones, BART JONES spent eight years in Venezuela, mainly as a foreign correspondent for the Associated Press, and is the author of the forthcoming book "Hugo! The Hugo Chavez Story, From Mud Hut to Perpetual

May 30, 2007

VENEZUELAN President Hugo Chavez's refusal to renew the license of Radio Caracas Television might seem to justify fears that Chavez is crushing free speech and eliminating any voices critical of him.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Committee to Protect Journalists and members of the European Parliament, the U.S. Senate and even Chile's Congress have denounced the closure of RCTV, Venezuela's oldest private television network. Chavez's detractors got more ammunition Tuesday when the president included another opposition network, Globovision, among the "enemies of the homeland."

But the case of RCTV — like most things involving Chavez — has been caught up in a web of misinformation. While one side of the story is getting headlines around the world, the other is barely heard.

The demise of RCTV is indeed a sad event in some ways for Venezuelans. Founded in 1953, it was an institution in the country, having produced the long-running political satire program "Radio Rochela" and the blisteringly realistic nighttime soap opera "Por Estas Calles." It was RCTV that broadcast the first live-from-satellite images in Venezuela when it showed Neil Armstrong walking on the moon in 1969.

But after Chavez was elected president in 1998, RCTV shifted to another endeavor: ousting a democratically elected leader from office. Controlled by members of the country's fabulously wealthy oligarchy including RCTV chief Marcel Granier, it saw Chavez and his "Bolivarian Revolution" on behalf of Venezuela's majority poor as a threat.

RCTV's most infamous effort to topple Chavez came during the April 11, 2002, coup attempt against him. For two days before the putsch, RCTV preempted regular programming and ran wall-to-wall coverage of a general strike aimed at ousting Chavez. A stream of commentators spewed nonstop vitriolic attacks against him — while permitting no response from the government.

Then RCTV ran nonstop ads encouraging people to attend a march on April 11 aimed at toppling Chavez and broadcast blanket coverage of the event. When the march ended in violence, RCTV and Globovision ran manipulated video blaming Chavez supporters for scores of deaths and injuries.

After military rebels overthrew Chavez and he disappeared from public view for two days, RCTV's biased coverage edged fully into sedition. Thousands of Chavez supporters took to the streets to demand his return, but none of that appeared on RCTV or other television stations. RCTV News Director Andres Izarra later testified at National Assembly hearings on the coup attempt that he received an order from superiors at the station: "Zero pro-Chavez, nothing related to Chavez or his supporters…. The idea was to create a climate of transition and to start to promote the dawn of a new country." While the streets of Caracas burned with rage, RCTV ran cartoons, soap operas and old movies such as "Pretty Woman." On April 13, 2002, Granier and other media moguls met in the Miraflores palace to pledge support to the country's coup-installed dictator, Pedro Carmona, who had eliminated the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Constitution.

Would a network that aided and abetted a coup against the government be allowed to operate in the United States? The U.S. government probably would have shut down RCTV within five minutes after a failed coup attempt — and thrown its owners in jail. Chavez's government allowed it to continue operating for five years, and then declined to renew its 20-year license to use the public airwaves. It can still broadcast on cable or via satellite dish.

Granier and others should not be seen as free-speech martyrs. Radio, TV and newspapers remain uncensored, unfettered and unthreatened by the government. Most Venezuelan media are still controlled by the old oligarchy and are staunchly anti-Chavez.

If Granier had not decided to try to oust the country's president, Venezuelans might still be able to look forward to more broadcasts of "Radio Rochela."

No Bosses, No Servants

Argentina’s Worker Run Enterprises

by John Elrick / May 30th, 2007

It has been nearly five and a half years since a national uprising in Argentina exploded onto the streets of Buenos Aires in response to the economic crisis prompted by failed neo-liberal policies and IMF development plans. The economy’s collapse plunged Argentines in to poverty, unemployment and insecurity, and highlighted the harsh realities and dire failings of global capitalism. While Argentines rioted against the government corruption, misery and systematic inequality that plagued their country, movements of resistance were born. Worker recuperated factories, organizations of unemployed, and popular neighborhood assemblies sprang up in an effort to oppose the injustice of capitalism.

The recuperated factory movement continues to be a source of inspiration. In a trend that The Economist magazine described as a “testament to the erosion of property rights,” worker self-management has risen to the forefront as a means to resist the instability of capitalism. Indeed, throughout Argentina workers have struggled to take control of production, safeguard jobs, and operate without bosses. In the process of challenging the capitalist mode of production, many recuperated enterprises have attempted to transform a culture of competition, instability and fear in to one of solidarity, equality and cooperation. This summer, I visited several recuperated enterprises and talked with cooperative workers about the experiences they have had taking back their livelihoods.

Una Empresa Nacional

The Bauen Hotel has become an important symbol of the recuperated factory movement in the city of Buenos Aires. After the previous owners fired workers and shut down, around 40 employees decided to take it back and, with the help of other worker cooperatives and social activists, occupied the hotel in 2003. Since then the workers have struggled to get the hotel up and running while operating it democratically and under principles of fairness and equality. “That’s the idea,” said Jorge, a Bauen employee, “to keep it as democratic as possible and free of exploitation.” Despite the hotel workers’ resourcefulness, they continue to operate in opposition to the state. The hotel has fought for legality while drawing strength and support from social and political groups. “While we may not have legality,” Federico from the hotel explained, “we have community legitimacy.”

Bauen’s present is especially striking upon consideration of its past. Opened in 1978 — during the height of the brutal military dictatorship responsible for the implementation of neo-liberal policies, violent state repression, torture, and the disappearance of at least 30,000 Argentine citizens deemed “subversive” by the regime — the hotel was considered a symbol of the ruling elite. Later, the hotel served as the prime gathering point for the movers and shakers in international business and the corrupt politicians who did their bidding. “[Ex-President] Menem and all the other scum hung out here,” said Jorge about the hotelŐs roots. Indeed, gazing at the commanding view offered by one of the top floor suites, one can imagine the owners of capital and political power looking down at the city like lords over their kingdom. But now the hotel belongs to its workers and instead of exploitation and inequality the hotel represents a more egalitarian and just social vision.

“After the economic collapse in 2001,” described Federico, “tourists started flooding in due to the decreasing value of the peso. We saw that we could survive were others couldn’t.” The Bauen workers were able to, somewhat ironically, use the detrimental economic effects of neo-liberal policies to defend their livelihoods as workers and resist the system itself. “No one can say that we aren’t revolutionary,” he said, “when we charge some yuppie 2000 pesos for a room — enough to pay a worker’s monthly salary.” Since taking the business over in response to mass unemployment and instability, Bauen has been able to hire over a hundred new workers. “Yeah, I like working here,” a worker named Lucio said, “You have the ability to learn new things.” Rather than the suspicion and individualism that pervades most capitalist workplaces, knowledge sharing and skills training are encouraged at the hotel and viewed as being in all of the workers’ collective interest.

An important aspect of the hotel is the space it provides for worker organizations, various social and political groups, and cultural activities. Solidarity permeates throughout Bauen and it has become a meeting place and organizational center for different worker and community groups. The city’s subway workers used the hotel as a strike headquarters, eventually winning concessions in their struggle for increased wages and shorter hours. The hotel lobby itself displays Bauen’s links of support with other cooperatives. A worker run shoe cooperative displays sneakers in the front window and the hotel’s cafe sports sparkling floor tile from the Zanon ceramics factory — whose workers stay at Bauen without charge when they make the trek to Buenos Aires from Neuquen. In addition to occupying and running the hotel, the workers at Bauen support the production of working class culture and powerful murals of class struggle line the walls of the hotel lobby. On the weekends, musical performances and film screenings take stage. There are also radio programs and theatrical productions put on at the hotel on a regular basis.

Impresa Chilavert

“The only politics I have is work,” said Fermin, a worker at the recuperated Chilavert printing press in the Buenos Aires neighborhood of Pompeya. “I don’t think it’s right that the boss gets fat while workers suffer.” The Chilavert factory was occupied in 2002 after the previous owner fired employees, defaulted on back pay that he had promised workers, and — upon claiming bankruptcy and squandering the workerŐs pension funds — attempted to illegally sell off printing machines. After putting up with the lies, unpaid wages and liquidation of their livelihood, the 8 remaining employees, with support from the community and other worker cooperatives, claimed their ownership rights as workers and took over the plant. “I spent most of the occupation in the kitchen,” chuckled Fermin before describing how the occupying workers stood down a police backed eviction attempt. “I called the news and told them that if the police came in it would be a genocide.” Now the plant employs 15 workers paid roughly equal depending on family needs and all decisions are made democratically.

Like Bauen, solidarity and cooperation are fundamental to Chilavert as an entity. In addition to the numerous printing jobs they take on in order to survive in the market, they also print pamphlets, journals and books detailing political events and the movement’s struggle. A striking example of how recuperated factories are transcending capitalist mentality is the cultural space at Chilavert used by community members and workers. Overlooking the shop floor, the space contains paintings, books, art supplies, musical instruments and a stage, all of which facilitate another kind of production at Chilavert — one that seems as hopeful as the prints and texts pumped out below. In the office space at the front of the shop, volunteers from the public university are building a library to document the movement’s history. The factory is a burgeoning center of cultural and political activity, surviving in the market against odds and championing worker self management and community solidarity as an alternative to the insecurity and crisis of capitalist organization.

Fermin has worked at the factory for decades and has been subjected to all sorts of indignities throughout the years. Being lied to be the old owner was especially trying. “He would travel all over the world and then tell us he was broke,” he remembered while standing in the factory’s kitchen. “Once I walked in on him in here with a big pile of money. He kicked me out.” When the previous owner went bankrupt he claimed to have spent his employees’ pension funds. Now, Fermin receives only a fraction of what he put towards his retirement throughout the years. But along with financial necessity, Fermin works to “keep the apprenticeship chain” unbroken and pass on the knowledge that is so vital to the continued existence of the Chilavert worker’s cooperative. Fermin’s story reflects the struggles and successes of the recuperated factory movement in Argentina, as well as the hope and possibility that they represent. Ultimately, the words of Natalia, a volunteer at Chilavert, ring true. “Being a worker in a recovered factory,” she said, “is a political position itself.”

**********

While fighting to exist in the hostile environment of the market, some individual enterprises have succumbed to old hierarchical structures of organization and undemocratic decision making processes. The lack of capital, precarious legal standing, state hostility, and difficulties creating a sustainable alternative market, have put tremendous pressure on worker controlled enterprises and the ideals of horizontalism and equality. While the limitations and obstacles that the factories face in building a movement offering an alternative can’t be ignored, neither can the sense of possibility and hope that is offered by their survival.

The Bauen Hotel and Chilavert printing press are strong examples of how recuperated businesses in Argentina have struggled to survive within the market while maintaining and strengthening networks of support and community solidarity that resist worker exploitation and offer a possible solution. Over five years after the economic disaster that threw the country into depression and despair, their success at surviving in direct opposition to capitalist reason and transcending a culture of division and competition is both remarkable and hopeful.

Links
www.recuperadasdoc.com.ar
www.guiarecuperadas.com.ar
www.bauenhotel.com.ar
www.obrerosdezanon.org

VENEZUELA, RCTV, AND MEDIA FREEDOM: JUST THE FACTS, PLEASE, by James Jordan

2007-05-30 | LESSONS IN CURTAILING MEDIA FREEDOM

There are a number of ways to curtail press freedom. You can charge a journalist with murder and put him on death row-Mumia Abu-Jamal, for instance. You can grant special favors, privileges, and access to corporate media giants while raiding and shutting down low-power, independent radio stations, which the FCC does with some regularity. You could arrest independent journalists at anti-war demonstrations-again, a regular occurrence. For instance, I recall my friend and Indy journalist, Jeff Imig, who has been repeatedly threatened with arrest, while recording anti-war demonstrations in Tucson, Arizona, for violating the statute against filming federal buildings. Jeff finally got arrested-for jaywalking! Corporate press, on the other hand, seems to have free reign to jaywalk and film federal buildings at these same events-behavior I and countless others have witnessed!

And then there is the Mother of All Media Manipulations: the blackout engineered by the Bush administration which blocks media from showing the arrival of body bags and coffins of newly dead soldiers "coming home" from Iraq. Those are some pretty good ways of curtailing freedom of speech. And they're each and everyone home grown right here in the good ol' United States of America.

SO WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH VENEZUELA, ANYWAY???

So, pardon me if I'm just a little astounded by all this noise in the media, the Bush
administration, the Senate and the House, about how Venezuela is "attacking" free speech and independent media by not renewing the broadcasting license of RCTV. Perhaps even more disturbing is that this ridiculous assertion is being repeated even among some persons on the Left.

Just last week the Senate passed a condemnation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez' refusal to renew the license. Senate Resolution 211 was sponsored by Richard Lugar, (R-IN) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), with vocal, and disappointing, support from presidential contenders Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Barak Obama (D-IL). Rep. Jerry Weller (R-IL) has introduced similar legislation into the House. Puerto Rico's delegate to the House, Republican Luis Fortuno has outspokenly supported this legislation, which is surprising, considering his complete lack of action or outcry when the FBI was harassing Puerto Rican journalists in 2006. Anyway, who says bipartisanship is dead?

Joining in these condemnations are a whole host of so-called "press freedom" advocates, lead by the National Endowment for Democracy funded Reporters Without Borders. One would think that the iron hand has fallen and the crackdown has begun in Venezuela.

THE FACTS, PLEASE?

Corporate media seems to regularly forget that along with freedom of press is the responsibility of presenting facts to back up their news reporting. Well, dear reader, you are in for a rare treat-a discussion of some actual facts.

The general situation is this: In April of 2002, there was a two-day, illegal coup carried out against Venezuela's electoral government, which involved the kidnapping and jailing of President Hugo Chavez. There were four major media outlets, along with others, who actively aided and abetted this coup (more later). In the intervening five years, none of them were closed, nor were any of their journalists incarcerated. Rather, the Chavez administration met with them, not to change their editorial slant, but to reach agreements preventing a repeat of such anti-democratic measure and the hyperbolic misrepresentation of facts, and also to discourage such continued infractions as the airing of pornography and cigarette commercials.

Another important fact is that the heads of the media-monopoly in Venezuela, including Marcel Granier -owner of RCTV, also participated in the economic sabotage that occurred between 2002-2003. Yet, no one went to prison for endangering the country's social and economic stability.

What is truly amazing is that it has taken five years for the Chavez administration to take action in any way against media that helped carry out this coup. Certainly, if the same thing happened in the United States, it wouldn't be tolerated. Just ask Aaron Burr or Timothy McVeigh what happens when folks plot against the existing, elected government. The fact is. you don't get away with it, you get punished, and pretty severely. Getting their broadcasting licenses renewed would be the least of their problems.

When RCTV's broadcasting license came up for review, Pres. Chavez decided, after exhaustive research and study, not to renew the license. Chavez is legally responsible for renewing such licenses under laws which were enacted before he became president. The reasons given for not renewing the license cite RCTV's participation in the coup, plus the fact that RCTV leads Venezuelan media in infractions of communications laws. RCTV's problems pre-date the Chavez administration, having been censured and closed repeatedly in previous presidential administrations. RCTV leads Venezuela in its violation of communications codes, with 652 infractions.

Another interesting fact is that our corporate media and distinguished Members of Congress have neglected to mention that on April of 2007 the government of Peru did not renew the broadcasting licenses of two TV stations and three radio stations for breaking their Radio and Television laws. It is obvious that Venezuela continues to be a target.

What, then, are the facts behind the charges made by the Chavez administration?

On the morning of April 11th, 2002, the first day of the coup, the anti-Bolivarian opposition had started a march from the headquarters of the state owned oil company. Across town, supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution were gathered outside the presidential palace. Breaking with its previously announced plan, the opposition changed directions and headed to the presidentia palace, greatly increasing the chances of a violent confrontation between the two opposing sides.

During the midst of this confusion, shots rang out from the rooftops, where snipers were firing on both crowds, resulting in the deaths of 18 persons, with 150 wounded. Reports on the opposition's four largest TV stations indicated the violence was the result of pro-Bolivarian gunmen, and this became the immediate catalyst "justifying" the coup.

However, the testimony of eyewitnesses and videos taken from other angles show that a much different scenario was actually taking place. The following transcript is excerpted from the video documentary, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, which was produced for television in Ireland. It sheds important light on the sequence of events. Note particularly the quotation included from RCTV News Correspondent, Andre Cesara.

NARRATOR: The opposition march was fast approaching and some in the vanguard seemed ready for a fight. With thousands of Chavez supporters still surrounding the palace a confrontation seemed imminent. Then at about 2:00 p.m., we saw the opposition march arrive. The army tried to act as a buffer between the two groups.
[shouting]
NARRATOR: We moved back into the heart of the Chavez crowds when all of a sudden the firing started.[sirens]
NARRATOR: We couldn't tell where the shots were coming from, but people were being hit in the head.[gunshots]
NARRATOR: Soon it became clear that we were being shot at by snipers. One in four Venezuelans carry hand guns and soon some of the Chavez supporters began to shoot back in the direction the sniper fire seemed to be coming from.
WITNESS (in Spanish): One of the channels had a camera opposite the palace that captured images of people shooting from the bridge. It looks like they are shooting at the opposition march below, but you can see them, they themselves are ducking. They are clearly being shot at, but the shots of them ducking were never shown. The Chavez supporters were blamed. The images were manipulated and shown over and over again to say that Chavez supporters had assassinated innocent marchers.
ANDRE CESARA, RCTV (in Spanish): Look at that Chavez supporter. Look at him empty his gun. That Chavez supporter has just fired on the unarmed peaceful protesters below.
NARRATOR: What the TV stations didn't broadcast was this camera angle which clearly shows the streets below were empty. The opposition march had never taken that route. With this manipulation, the deaths could now be blamed on Chavez.

There is no doubt, and no dispute, that RCTV and the three other largest corporate television stations (Globovision, Venevision, and Televen) aided and abetted the ensuing coup throughout the three day period it was being carried out. They knowingly broadcast false and manipulated information, including the lies that Bolivarian supporters instigated violence against demonstrators, and that Pres. Chavez, as a result, had willingly resigned and left the country. Pres. Chavez had not resigned. He had been kidnapped and was being held prisoner by traitors within the Venezuelan military.

During all this, RCTV hosted coup plotters, including co-leader Carlos Ortega of the corrupt and US government supported labor union, the CTV, and had broadcast Ortega's appeal rallying demonstrators to march on the presidential palace.

RCTV and its partners undertook a complete blackout on reporting any news relating to the more than a million citizens who had taken to the street and surrounded the presidential palace in defense of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. Rather than broadcasting this news, RCTV treated its viewers to reruns of Tom and Jerry cartoons and the movie Pretty Woman.

Vice-Admiral Ramirez Perez spoke for all his fellow coup plotters when told a Venevision reporter, "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." His congratulations were premature, however, as multitudes of people in the street, with the aid of truly independent, community based media and patriots within the Venezuelan military were able to defeat this coup without firing a shot, returning Pres. Chavez to his rightful office on April 13, 2002.

ON THE JOB AT RCTV-EYEWITNESS, ANDRES IZARRA SPEAKS

If any doubts remain as to RCTV's complicity in this coup, the voice of one of its own producers should lay them all to rest. Andres Izarra had worked as the assignment editor in charge of Latin America for CNN before being hired by RCTV as news production manager for Venezuela's highest ranked newscast, El Observador. Izarra says, quite clearly, "We were told no pro-Chavez material was to be screened". Later, RCTV officials would maintain that they could not film pro-Bolivarian demonstrations for security reasons. Even if that were true, Izarra notes, footage of these demonstrations was available from sources such as CNN. RCTV also continued broadcasting reports that President Chavez had willfully resigned and left the country, even though Izarra notes that they were receiving news to the contrary, and that Mexico, Argentina, and France had all issued statements condemning the coup and refusing to recognize the new government. Conversely, the United States welcomed this illegal government.

Izarra says the last straw came for him when, "We had a reporter in Miraflores and knew that it had been retaken by the Chavistas.[but] the information blackout stood. That's when it was enough for me, and I decided to leave."

Asked what he thought the response should be to this level of disinformation, Izarra replied, "I think their licenses should be revoked". Having had enough of corporate media's complicity in blocking news reportage, Izarra now serves as head of Telesur, the joint news channel broadcast by the nations of Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, and Cuba.

As Patrick McElwee, of Just Foreign Policy, points out: "It is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chavez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves." Despite their participation in the coup, the Chavez administration entered into repeated negotiations with RCTV and its partners, Venevision, Globovision, and Television to make sure that such crass manipulation of the news would not occur again, and about other infractions. RCTV refused to reach any agreements.

Despite the nonrenewal of its broadcasting license, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be available to RCTV; moreover they will continue to broadcast through their two radio stations in Venezuela. The new broadcasting license is being given to a public station, TVes-Venezuela Social Television, which will run shows produced mainly by independent parties. The station will be controlled not by the government, but by a foundation of community members, with one chair reserved for a government representative. TVes also hopes to reach into some of the most remote areas of the nation, not covered before by RCTV.

THE COUP GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA FREEDOM-AN ALTERNATIVE?

There is, indeed, an example that shows a real alternative to how Pres. Chavez and the Bolivarian movement deals with freedom of the media and freedom of speech. The two-day coup government of Pedro Carmona revealed that alternative.

But, first, let's quickly review the general state of media freedom in Venezuela under the presidency of Hugo Chavez. Shortly after Chavez became president, media law was reformed so that it became legal for anyone who could broadcast to do so. In the United States, many fans of underground and independent radio speak fondly of "pirate" radio-low powered, but illegal stations broadcast from small, "renegade" transmitters. There are no "pirate" radio stations in Venezuela, because such stations are legal. Rather, there is a significant Community Media movement-community based and non-profit media production centers run locally by community volunteers.

Corporate and opposition media also have great freedom in Venezuela. In fact, the radio and television airwaves, and the print media as well, continue to be dominated by corporations which support the opposition. There is no shortage of negative opinions and portrayals of Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution - in fact, these remain the standard among the for-profit news and entertainment industry. This concept is strange to those of us in the United States, where official party lines and major news sources are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

But while corporate and community media both retain enormous freedoms in Venezuela, the April 11-13th, 2002 coup, and the two day coup government, provide a much different example. Once interloper Pedro Carmona had declared himself President of Venezuela, among the very first actions taken by the coup government involved the suppression of Venezuela's non-corporate media. Police troops answering to Carmona raided and shut down Channel 8, the government TV station. They ordered the Catholic Church's Radio Fe y Alegria to play only music and not report national events, lest they also be shut down. Carmona's raiders also hit a number of Community Media centers, closing down, among others, TV Caricua, Catia TV, and Radio Perola. Fortunately, reporters from Catia TV and Radio Perola were able to escape and recapture their transmitters. Because of this, they were able to provide mobile broadcasts to the people of Venezuela of the news that RCTV and its partners were blacking out.

Another action taken by the Carmona government was to release the persons who had been arrested in connection with the sniper attacks that instigated the coup. Instead, coup forces arrested independent journalist Nicolas Rivera and accused him of participating in these attacks. The only weapon Rivera had had with him during these demonstrations was a tape recorder - obviously considered a threat by coup plotters. Rivera was freed after the two-day coup was defeated and democratic government was reestablished. However, the scars of his detention remained, with his face disfigured by the torture he had endured while incarcerated. Rivera's wife said that the forces that raided their home planted a sack of bullets on Rivera, beat both of them, and threatened to kill their children. Yet despite these attacks and threats to this journalist and his family, not one, single international organization in "defense" of press freedoms spoke out on behalf of Rivera. Perhaps it was in this case that Reporters Without Borders found its border.

Also silent about these attacks on freedom of speech and press were both houses of the US Congress, both parties, the Bush administration; no, there was no resolution of any kind condemning the attacks by the coup government on these freedoms. Could that be because coup leaders were funded by Congress, via USAID and the so-called National Endowment for Democracy, and were aided, abetted, and advised by the Bush Administration, the State Department, and the US military? Just maybe these factors were an influence.

Again: the Facts.

While Representatives and Senators weep bipartisan crocodile tears about supposed threats to media rights in Venezuela; while US and Venezuelan corporate press crow about the "unfair" targeting of RCTV; while even some segments of the US Left express "concern" about press freedoms in Venezuela; an examination of the facts leads one to this clear conclusion: these folks are full of a substance that emanates from the hind end of a male bovine.

Fact: not renewing the broadcasting license of coup plotters, lawbreakers, and liars like RCTV is the kind of thing it takes to defend Venezuela and make it the haven of free speech, free media, and participatory democracy that it is today.

Want to learn more about the movement to change US policy toward Venezuela? Visit http://www.vensolidarity.org and be sure and join the Emergency Response Network to receive regular action alerts!

By James Jordan

Please also see:

VHeadline.com Venezuela http://snurl.com/vheadlinenews

Bolívar to Take Asunción

by Paul Haste / May 29th, 2007

In 2008, Paraguay could replace the Colorado red of its past with a different shade of red: a revolutionary or Bolívarian red.

Former Catholic priest, Fernando Lugo Méndez, is almost certain to be the presidential candidate of a rising leftist opposition to the perpetual rule of Paraguay’s Colorado Party in the 2008 elections.

A May opinion poll in the Asunción newspaper Última Hora indicated that 40.8% of Paraguayans intended to vote for Lugo, against just 9% for the probable ruling party candidate supported by the current president, Nicanor Duarte.

Should Lugo be elected, Paraguay will become the latest Latin American nation to spurn the United States and reject the divisive neoliberal policies that have only further enriched an exclusive elite at the expense of the indigenous and workers.

That Paraguay, controlled since 1946 by the Colorado (or ‘Red’) Party — including the 34 year extreme right wing military dictatorship of General Alfredo Stroessner — should even contemplate joining Venezuela and Bolivia and most of Latin America in electing a progressive leftist as president, demonstrates just how far politics have changed on this continent.

Not since an attempted revolution against the fascist dictator Morínigo in March 1947, has Paraguay experienced such a concerted and united challenge for political control from the left. Since the rightist Colorado party’s victory in the civil war of that year, political repression, authoritarianism and single party rule had denied space to workers, their unions, and indigenous Guaraní, leftist and communist activists to organize or oppose the government.

Even after Stroessner was deposed in a military coup in February 1989, the Colorado Party has continued to rule Paraguay through patronage and corruption — utilizing their advantage of decades of elitist control of the country to manipulate successive presidential elections — with disastrous results.

The General who overthrew Stroessner, Andrés Ródriquez Pedotti, who had amassed a large fortune during the dictatorship, was accused of profiting from heroin trafficking and ultimately denied a US visa even though he was president. His successor, Juan Carlos Wasmosy, appointed Stroessner’s supporters to government positions and on leaving office was convicted of fraud and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.

The next Colorado administration saw the Marzo Paraguayo events in March 1999, when then president, Raúl Cubas, tried to pardon General Lino Oviedo who had been imprisoned for attempting a military coup in 1996. Cubas’ own vice-president, Luís María Argaña, instituted impeachment proceedings against Cubas, but was assassinated in the capital, Asunción, sparking riots and demonstrations which Cubas attempted to suppress by putting tanks on the streets.

After eight protesters were killed by the military, representatives in Congress voted to dismiss Cubas from the presidency, but before the Senate could ratify the impeachment, Cubas resigned and fled to Brazil. Despite the resignation of the president and the assassination of the vice-president, the Colorado Party continued to hold onto power through the accession of Luís Ángel González, the president of the legislature — which the party controlled — to the presidency of the republic.

However, González did nothing to improve the Colorado Party’s miserable record — even using a stolen armored BMW as his official car while illegally transferring millions of dollars from the Central Bank to accounts in the US. As soon as he lost his legal immunity upon leaving office, he was charged with fraud and embezzlement, convicted, and sentenced last year to 8 years in prison.

The latest Colorado president, Nicanor Duarte, elected in 2003 with 38% of the vote, has so far taken a less excessive approach to governing, and has attempted to pursue a centrist political line in the face of Latin America’s shift to the left, but the institutionalized privileges and patronage of the longest continual ruling party in the world continue to pressure the president to appease the right.

This reluctance, or inability, to change policies favorable to Paraguay’s elite, while all Latin America continues to elect and reelect progressive presidents who reject US priorities, has encouraged the country’s left to take the offensive and start to disprove Paraguayan sociologist Bernardino Caño’s assertion that the country has a ‘cultural fear of change’.

In 2006, a 50,000 strong demonstration took over Asunción to protest Colorado Party rule, and unionized workers, and leftist and indigenous organizations began to unite behind a Catholic bishop from one of Paraguay’s poorest areas, Lugo Méndez, who was speaking out forcefully against poverty and inequality.

Praising Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez’s Bolívarian revolution for favoring the poor, Lugo, the ‘Bishop of the Poor’, as he is now popularly known, continually challenged Paraguay’s traditional elite, questioning why ‘there are so many differences between the 500 families who live with a first world standard of living while the great majority live in a poverty that borders on misery.’

Last December, Lugo renounced his ministry to participate in politics, not just to defeat the Colorado Party, but to ‘be more ambitious… to change the country.’ A forceful orator both in Spanish and Guaraní, the indigenous language that most Paraguayans speak, he declared that ‘united in our diversity… we will not allow our dreams to be frustrated.’

The response from Paraguay’s Catholic hierarchy was swift. ‘Monsignor Lugo is in a state of contempt, exposing himself to the punishment of excommunication,’ said the president of Paraguay’s Episcopal Conference, Monsignor Ignacio Gogorza, ‘Lugo does not have the permission of the Vatican to go into politics, so he is leaving Catholicism for poor choices… he cannot leave the cloth simply by resigning. His life devoted to religion is for one’s entire life.’

On February 1, the Vatican denied Lugo’s request to be laicized. Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re wrote that Lugo must ‘remain in the clerical state,’ claiming that a bishop as a presidential candidate would be ‘a cause of confusion and division amongst the faithful and an offense to the laity.’

This indirect support for the Colorado Party from the Vatican has been further fueled by Lugo’s adherence to liberation theology — the ‘preferential option for the poor’ tendency within Catholicism that emphasizes a commitment to those less privileged — and which the official Church considers radical or revolutionary.

Although the Vatican’s rejection of Lugo’s resignation does not have legal force under Paraguay’s secular constitution, the closeness of the conservative Church hierarchy with the Colorado Party, and the Party’s control of the Supreme Court, Congress and Electoral Tribunal, could mean that Lugo’s presidential candidacy may be ruled invalid.

Lugo is undeterred, however, and returned to the streets in March with a 20,000 strong demonstration against the Supreme Court, whose justices are all members of the Colorado Party, calling on them to resign because of corruption and their partisan support for President Duarte.

Justice in Paraguay is ‘fast and cheap for the wealthy or those who have friends in power,’ Lugo told the demonstrators, ‘but new times are coming… a change can come in the short term… but we have to be aware to guarantee that the forces of chaos do not sabotage the awakening.’

The former priest continues to attract the almost unconditional support of many of the estimated 50% of Paraguayans who still live in poverty, and who have seen no gains from the failed neoliberal policies that the ruling party imported from the United States, but there are signs that support from the organized left in Paraguay is more qualified.

Communist Party activists have cautioned that workers ‘have to see what Lugo does, more than what he says,’ while the Popular Socialist Convergence Party points out that Lugo has considered an alliance with the traditional, and conservative, opposition coalition, Concertación Nacional, although no agreement has so far been formalized.

However, it is undeniable that most Paraguayans have expectations that the politics that Lugo says have ‘favored narrow, partisan interests over those of the nation’ will be defeated in 2008. United with organized workers and indigenous activists, the massive popular support behind Lugo’s challenge to the elite and their Colorado Party could finally end the control this privileged minority has had over Paraguay for the last 60 years.

Venezuela sues CNN for linking Chavez to Al-Qaeda

Venezuela filed lawsuits on Monday against US cable network CNN for linking President Hugo Chavez to Al-Qaeda, and against a Venezuelan TV network for encouraging Chavez's assassination.

The move comes one day after popular TV network RCTV went off the air after the Chavez government yanked its broadcast license.

Information Minister William Lara showed at a press conference what he said was CNN footage displaying pictures of Chavez juxtaposed with those of an Al-Qaeda leader.

CNN also aired a story about the Venezuelan protests, but used images taken in Mexico of an unrelated story, Lara said.

"CNN broadcast a lie which linked President Chavez to violence and murder," Lara said.

CNN issued a statement late Monday in which they "strongly deny" being "engaged in a campaign to discredit or attack Venezuela."

The news network acknowledged a video mix-up, and "aired a detailed correction and expressed regret for the involuntary error".

Regarding the Al-Qaeda leader, the networks that "unrelated news stories can be juxtaposed in a given programme segment just as a newspaper page or a news website may have unconnected stories adjacent to each other".

The government also sued Venezuelan network Globovision for what they said was indirectly encouraging Chavez's murder by airing footage of the 1981 assassination attempt on the late pope John Paul II.

"In my view, this television network, in this specific part of its programming, committed the offense of incitement to assassination, against the Venezuelan head of state," Lara said.

The charges comes amid protests against Chavez's shutdown of RCTV, a privately-owned broadcaster of popular comedy and drama shows that was boldly critical of Chavez.

After 54 years on the air, RCTV went black at midnight on Sunday after the government refused to renew its license. It was promptly replaced by TVes, a state-backed "socialist" station which began broadcasting cultural shows.

Cuba-U.S. negotiations continue in Havana

HAVANA, May 29 (PL). — Representatives from around 100 U.S. companies were continuing negotiations begun here yesterday with Cuba’s food import company ALIMPORT, with the expectation that contracts will be signed for more than $100 million.

During this round of talks, which began with the presence of five U.S. members of Congress, ALIMPORT director Pedro Alvarez affirmed that Cuba is a principal and new potential market for the United States.

Addressing 265 U.S. businesspeople, Alvarez said that from the start of this one-way trade — given that the United States has outlawed the purchase of Cuban goods — and despite the many obstacles, a total of $2.431 billion in U.S. products has been purchased.

He noted that while U.S. restrictions have increased, Cuba has made contact with 4,351 companies from 45 U.S. states, and has established excellent relations with businesspeople and agencies who broadly support the elimination of all obstacles.

The Cuban official also explained that difficulties in financing stemming from the conditions under which Cuba is required to make payment have implied additional annual costs of $110 million.

Nevertheless, Alvarez affirmed, what Cuba has purchased to date under these restricted conditions is little, because under normal trade conditions it could buy double or triple that amount.

On the first day of talks, a group of U.S. businesspeople criticized Washington’s restrictions on the island and advocated the normalization of relations between the two countries.

They affirmed that the blockade hurts not just the Cuban people, but also the businesses of the United States.

Translated by Granma International

REFLECTIONS OF PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO: Ideas cannot be killed

A few days ago, while analyzing the expenses involved in the construction of three submarines of the Astute series, I said that with this money "75,000 doctors could be trained to look after 150 million people, assuming that the cost of training a doctor would be one-third of what it costs in the United States." Now, along the lines of the same calculations, I wonder: how many doctors could be graduated with the one hundred billion dollars that Bush gets his hands on in just one year to keep on sowing grief in Iraqi and American homes. Answer: 999,990 doctors who could look after 2 billion people who today do not receive any medical care.

More than 600,000 people have lost their lives in Iraq and more than 2 million have been forced to emigrate since the American invasion began.

In the United States, around 50 million people do not have medical insurance. The blind market laws govern how this vital service is provided, and prices make it inaccessible for many, even in the developed countries. Medical services feed into the Gross Domestic Product of the United States, but they do not generate conscience for those providing them nor peace of mind for those who receive them.

The countries with less development and more diseases have the least number of medical doctors: one for every 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 or more people. When new sexually transmitted diseases appear such as AIDS, which in merely 20 years has killed millions of persons – while tens of millions are afflicted, among them many mothers and children, although palliative measures now exist – the price of medications per patient could add up to 5,000, 10,000 or up to 15,000 dollars each year. These are fantasy figures for the great majority of Third World countries where the few public hospitals are overflowing with the ill who die piled up like animals under the scourge of a sudden epidemic.

To reflect on these realities could help us to better understand the tragedy. It is not a matter of commercial advertising that costs so much money and technology. Add up the starvation afflicting hundreds of millions of human beings; add to that the idea of transforming food into fuels; look for a symbol and the answer will be George W. Bush.

When he was recently asked by an important personality about his Cuba policy, his answer was this: "I am a hard-line President and I am just waiting for Castro’s demise." The wishes of such a powerful gentleman are no privilege. I am not the first nor will I be the last that Bush has ordered to be killed; nor one of those people who he intends to go on killing individually or en masse.

"Ideas cannot be killed", Sarría emphatically said. Sarría was the black lieutenant, a patrol leader in Batista’s army who arrested us, after the attempt to seize the Moncada Garrison, while three of us slept in a small mountain hut, exhausted by the effort of breaking through the siege. The soldiers, fuelled by hatred and adrenalin, were aiming their weapons at me even before they had identified who I was. "Ideas cannot be killed", the black lieutenant kept on repeating, practically automatically and in a hushed voice.

I dedicate those excellent words to you, Mr. W. Bush.

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 28, 2007

6:58 p.m.

Is Free Speech Really at Stake? Venezuela and RCTV

Written by Patrick McElwee

Tuesday, 29 May 2007

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has been the subject of many controversies. His critics often accuse him of laying the groundwork for dictatorship, despite the democratic credentials of his government. Chávez was democratically elected in 1998 and again in 2000 under a new constitution. He then won a recall election in 2004, which was certified by observers from the Carter Center and the Organization of American States. Chávez was re-elected last December by 63 percent of voters, a result again certified by international observers including the OAS and the European Union. Chávez has pledged to accelerate policies that have given poor Venezuelans vastly increased access to health care, education, and subsidized food, and in the last three and a half years of political stability, a remarkable 40 percent increase in the economy. Throughout this process of increasing voter and citizen participation and electoral democracy, the Venezuelan opposition and their allies in the U.S. press have told us that authoritarianism was just around the corner. They now say it has arrived. The immediate focus of their concern is the president's decision not to renew the broadcast license of a major television network that is openly opposed to the Chávez government. Their free speech concerns have been echoed by Human Rights Watch, Reporters without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists. On the other hand, the vice-chair of the European Parliament's Freedom Commission, ruling out a resolution on the issue, has said the non-renewal has nothing to do with human rights. Here are the basic facts. Rádio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) is one of the biggest television networks in Venezuela. It airs news and entertainment programs. It is also openly opposed to the government, including by supporting a military coup that briefly ousted Chávez in 2002. (More information available on what Le Monde Diplomatique has called Venezuela's "hate media" here and here.) During the oil strike of 2002-2003, the station repeatedly called upon its viewers to come out into the street and help topple the government. As part of its continuing political campaign against the government, the station has also used false allegations, sometimes with gruesome and violent imagery, to convince its viewers that the government was responsible for such crimes as murders where there was no evidence of government involvement. According to a law enacted in 1987, the licenses given to RCTV and other stations to use the public airwaves expire on May 27. President Chávez has publicly declared that RCTV's license will not be renewed, citing its involvement in the coup. Although it will not be able to continue to use the public broadcast frequencies, the station will still be able to send its signal out over cable, satellite, and the Internet. The U.S. media, much of which has been unsuccessfully predicting dictatorship under Chávez for years, has used this case to make accusations of censorship and the end of press freedom in Venezuela. To understand the issue better, I decided to talk to the human rights and press freedom groups who have criticized the action. José Miguel Vivanco of Human Rights Watch clarified for me that "broadcasting companies in any country in the world, especially in democratic countries, are not entitled to renewal of their licenses. The lack of renewal of the contract, per se, is not a free speech issue. Just per se." A free speech issue arises if the non-renewal is to punish a certain editorial line. Still, Benoît Hervieu of Reporters Without Borders in Paris said that, while he could not be certain, he thought US and European governments would stop short of non-renewal despite RCTV's "support for the coup." "I think that there would be pressure to make a replacement at the head of the channel. But I don't think that they would not renew the concession. There is a risk in that story. There are 3000 employees at RCTV. So I don't think that even in a country like [the United States or France], a government would risk putting 3000 people in the streets," he said. Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it? In the United States, this may seem plausible, since broadcast licenses here seem to be forever. (Who could imagine life without ABC, CBS, or NBC?) Still, the government sometimes takes actions in other parts of the economy that result in a company going out of business. Actually, in other democratic countries, broadcast companies sometimes do not get their licenses renewed. For example, in Britain in 1992, in a process based in part on a subjective assessment of "quality of service," Thames Television lost its license after 24 years of service. Several British commentators speculated that the Thatcher government had influenced the result. So democracies do occasionally find reasons not to renew a license. So what about this case in particular: Would RCTV have had its license renewed in the United States or Europe? While the two US-based human rights advocates I spoke with declined to answer that question directly, they acknowledged that non-renewal would not be out of the question here. Vivanco said, "I don't know. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could decide that they're not going to renew, for instance, Fox News or MSNBC because they're in violation of the contract, according to the conditions of the contract. Normally you settle those things in court." Carlos Lauría of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) spoke similarly: "I don't think you can translate what's going on there [in Venezuela] to the United States. That's a very difficult question. I mean, if RCTV had violated the law, I assume they wouldn't get the concession renewed." For Lauría, non-renewal itself is not the problem. His concern is the process by which the decision was reached. "I assume in the US there would be a process. The FCC would follow protocol. This is what hasn't happened in Venezuela. We're not arguing that the concession should be renewed, should be given to RCTV. We're just saying that there's no process to evaluate if it should be." Vivanco also complained about the process, saying that if the government argues there is a violation of the contract, "that would be settled normally in court. Second, if there's some crimes committed, the individuals who were involved in those crimes should be prosecuted in a court of law." On process, they have a legitimate point. The government seems to have made the decision without any administrative or judicial hearings. Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made. However, Vivanco's critique goes beyond process to the government's justification for non-renewal. "You have the president saying, forget it, the license is not going to be renewed, it's a bunch of golpistas [coup-mongers] or fascists or whatever – which is clearly some sort of censorship. That sounds like an arbitrary decision made by the president on political grounds. And that is not acceptable." Lauría also told me that RCTV was "selectively chosen because of opposition views." But is support for the violent overthrow of an elected government really protected political speech? Vivanco acknowledges that RCTV "obviously probably sympathized with the coup." But, he says, "it is a matter of free speech." Vivanco understates RCTV's connection to the coup. RCTV encouraged viewers to attend a rally that was part of the coup strategy, invited coup leaders to address the country on their channel, and reported the false information that the president had resigned. After Pedro Carmona declared himself president and dissolved the National Assembly, Supreme Court, and other democratic institutions, the head of RCTV Marcel Granier met with him in the Presidential Palace. The following day, when mass protests and loyal army units brought back President Chávez, RCTV and other stations blacked out the news, showing movies and cartoons instead. Such actions clearly go beyond protected free speech, at least in the United States. Imagine the consequences if NBC took such actions during a coup against Bush. In fact, RCTV's participation in the oil strike of 2002-2003, and even their joining in legal political campaigns would be grounds for revoking their broadcast license in the United States. Consider this episode in the US. Two weeks before the 2004 presidential election, it was reported that the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates the largest number of local TV stations in the United States, planned to order its affiliates to replace prime-time programming with a documentary critical of John Kerry. Democrats were outraged. The Democratic National Committee filed a case with the FCC arguing that such "partisan propaganda" was inappropriate. And, yes, at least one powerful Democratic politician swore that if the documentary was aired, there would be no Sinclair Broadcast Group by the 2008 election. A Kerry spokesman said, "You don't expect your local TV station to be pushing a political agenda two weeks before an election. It's un-American." Couldn't it be un-Venezuelan too? (The political pressures above led Sinclair to cancel the anti-Kerry broadcast). If RCTV were the only major source of opposition to the government, the loss of its voice would be troubling. It would also be disturbing if the RCTV case forced others to tone down legitimate opposition. But Greg Wilpert, a sociologist living in Venezuela, declares, "It is the height of absurdity to say that there's a lack of freedom of press in Venezuela." Of the top four private TV stations, three air mostly entertainment and one, Globovisión, is a 24-hours news channel. On Globovisión, Wilpert says, "the opposition is very present. They pretty much dominate it. And in the others, they certainly are very present in the news segments." Regarding the print media, Wilpert told me, "There are three main newspapers. Of those three, two are definitely very opposition. The other one is pretty neutral. I would say, [the opposition] certainly dominates the print media by far. There's no doubt about that." "I think some of the TV stations have slightly moderated [their opposition to the government] not because of intimidation, but because they were losing audience share. Over half of the population is supportive of Chávez . They've reduced the number of anti-Chávez programs that they used to have. But those that continue to exist are just as anti-Chávez as they were before." The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves. Once again, it seems, the warnings of a move from democracy to dictatorship in Venezuela have been loud but lacking in evidence. Patrick McElwee is a policy analyst with Just Foreign Policy ( www.justforeignpolicy.org). He can be reached at patrick@justforeignpolicy.org

Communal power versus capitalism in Venezuela

by Stuart Munckton

May 27, 2007
Green Left Weekly

Led by the country's socialist president, Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan revolution is sending shockwaves through the corporate elite both within Venezuela and internationally. The Venezuelan people are waging a struggle to gain sovereignty over the country's natural resources in order to rebuild the nation along pro-people lines.

From April 30 to May 9, a range of Australian trade unionists, including an official delegation from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), participated in the 2007 May Day solidarity brigade to Venezuela. This was the fifth official solidarity brigade, and the second May Day brigade, organised by the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network (AVSN). It was the first brigade from Australia to visit Venezuela since Chavez's announcement of a new phase in the Bolivarian revolution following his re-election on an explicitly socialist platform in December last year with the largest vote in Venezuelan history.

Chavez followed his re-election with the insistence that "now we build socialism". He has announced a series of moves, including plans to renationalise previously privatised companies, an "explosion of communal power", and the construction of a new, mass, revolutionary socialist party that would unite all militants across the country to help lead the construction of "socialism of the 21st century".

While the brigade was going on, the Chavez government carried out the nationalisation of oil ventures worth US$17 billion owned by multinational corporations in the Orinoco Belt. Also, the mass registration drive for the new United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) began on April 29, and they have already signed up hundreds of thousands of people — nearly 30% above the national target.

Green Left Weekly spoke to the brigade's coordinator, Federico Fuentes, who also served as a GLW correspondent in Caracas in the second half of 2005, about the brigade and the recent developments in Venezuela's Bolivarian revolution.

Fuentes told GLW: "The brigade had either official representation or members participating in a personal capacity from the Electrical Trades Union from three different states, the Community and Public Sector Union, the National Union of Workers, the Australian Services Union, [and] the Rail, Bus and Tram Union, as well as perhaps one or two others. The brigade was an extremely important way to cut through the lies in the corporate media and give Australian unionists a sense of what is really happening in Venezuela."

The brigade was especially important because "this was the first time the ACTU [has] sent an official delegation to Venezuela, on a fact finding mission to gather information on the UNT [the National Union of Workers, the pro-revolution trade union federation established in 2003 after the right-wing Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV) backed attempts by the elite to overthrow the Chavez government], and the battle occurring inside the International Labor Organisation between the UNT and CTV about which federation has the right to represent Venezuela in the organisation, and about whether the Chavez government is pro- or anti-union".

As well as extensive discussions with a range of unionists, Fuentes said the brigade was able to visit a range of community organisations, as well the popular health-care clinics that provide free care to the poor. The clinics are part of the Barrio Adentro health care program, one of the many government-funded social missions that allow the poor majority to enjoy the benefits of the nation's oil wealth.

Fuentes explained that the brigade got to witness the elections for one of the communal councils in Barrio 23 de Enero, a large, impoverished neighbourhood in Caracas that is a revolutionary stronghold. The communal councils are currently Venezuela's most important experiments in popular power. More than 18,000 councils have been established, based on communities of no more than 400 families.

Fuentes explained the depth of the social gains achieved by the revolution, telling GLW that an article published during the brigade revealed that the purchasing power of the poorest wage income category has increased dramatically over the last year (in Venezuela the categories are rated from A, the richest, to E, the poorest). "This is a phenomenal figure, and is on top of figures already showing a significant drop in poverty before this period. This doesn't even include the gains associated with the mass provision of free health care and education. They are continuing to reach out to more and more communities; there are still some of the social missions that have yet to achieve national coverage. The minimum wage was increased once again on May Day, by 20% — higher than the rate of inflation."

Fuentes said that returning to Venezuela he had been struck by "a feeling among the people that, post Chavez's election victory, now was the time for serious inroads into the capitalist system, that now was the time the revolution would significantly deepen. And this has been expressed especially through the real surge of community organising.

"It is a powerful dynamic developing centred on the creation of the communal councils, with the community and workers increasingly organising to take power into their own hands. This is being constructed side-by-side with the process of the formation of the PSUV, built from the grassroots up. This has created a lot of discussions in Venezuelan society — what type of socialism, what type of party, what type of program for the party? These discussions are only just beginning, but this will undoubtedly come more and more to the fore through the year. There was a real sense that this is going to be a decisive year, perhaps one that breaks a bit of the deadlock that has existed."

Fuentes explained that the discussion on socialism "was much deeper than in 2005", when socialism was identified mostly with providing for people's basic needs, such as free education and health care. He said the discussion was "still very open". "There is a willingness to discuss and debate all different kinds of ideas", especially what had failed in previous attempts to build socialism.

Fuentes said there are a variety of perspectives on what form socialism should take, however "there is a very strong view that having property formally state-owned doesn't resolve the key question, which is how do you ensure that people feel the property really belongs to them? How do you not simply reproduce the old relations of production?"

Giving a sense of how the government is promoting this as a mass discussion, Fuentes pointed out that one of the "five motors" to advance the revolution announced by Chavez is the concept of "education everywhere". Fuentes said this involves "the massive expansion of education into all areas of life, not limiting it to the existing universities and schools. The government is saying we don't just want the ideological formation of just some people, but that everywhere is the site of this discussion."

To this end, the government announced new legislation on May Day that by 2010 will cut the working week from 44 to 36 hours, and will also mean that "every week workers will be paid by their bosses for four hours to take part in classes on socialism and the nature of the Bolivarian revolution". Fuentes said that this had already begun in the ministry for labour. There are plans to expand it to the rest of the work force over the next two years.

Fuentes told GLW: "One group we met as part of the brigade was the Bolivarian Schools of Popular Power. They would work with the communal councils to go out into the communities for discussions on what sort of socialism they are trying to build, and [encourage] each communal council to have an ongoing school that can train council members to then go out into the community and give workshops."

Fuentes said he was able to attend a meeting in Petare, the largest barrio in Venezuela, aiming to create a federation of communal councils in the area. "I was able to get a real sense of both the exciting potential of the communal councils, as well as some of the problems they face. What was very clear was the push by those leading the process of constructing popular power to explain to people that the councils were not the end point, but were the means to achieve something much more fundamental. The formation of the councils is seen as a process through which a sense of community spirit can be formed, and humans can develop themselves. This is in a community that has one of the highest murder and crime rates in Caracas."

The revolutionary movement still faces serious obstacles, especially the role of the old state structures and the bureaucratic and corrupt practices that dominate it, as well as sections of the pro-Chavez camp. Fuentes told GLW that this "underpins the current push to 'deepen' the revolution". He highlighted the "inability of the revolutionary government to push forward on a lot of its programs, because of the fact that they have inherited an old state bureaucracy that was never built to carry out the types of programs the Chavez government is pushing. It has created a very dangerous dynamic where the needs and wishes of the people are often not being met, where the results of the revolution are falling short of people's expectations.

"This is why you see the combination of the push around the communal councils, which seeks to organise the entire Venezuelan society, along with the formation of the new revolutionary party, which attempts to group together the real leadership emerging out of real struggles across the country. That is, those whose authority stems not from past struggles, but the real organic leadership developing today, which needs to be given space to develop. We are seeing a whole new layer of revolutionaries that are yet to impose themselves on this process, but are beginning to do so through the combined dynamic of the communal councils on the one hand, and the new party on the other."

Fuentes says this "scares the pants off" some in the pre-existing pro-Chavez parties, who realise they stand to lose out through this process. Many of those currently in official positions would not be elected by the grassroots because " they haven't done the work". However, Fuentes said there were a number of officials who had used their positions to promote popular power, "and the classic example is Chavez as president. He describes himself as the 'subversive within Miraflores [the presidential palace]'. He uses his position to undermine the old state bureaucracy."

While the PSUV is still in its early days, Fuentes pointed out that already "over 2 million people have demonstrated their willingness" to join it, and it is expected at the end of the registration process that more than 4 million will have joined. "This is having a tremendous impact on the grassroots of the parties that have held back from joining the PSUV", Fuentes said. So far, For Social Democracy (Podemos), Homeland for All (PPT), and the Venezuelan Communist Party (PCV) — the three largest pro-Chavez parties after Chavez's Movement for the Fifth Republic, which has already dissolved — have held back from joining the PSUV. "Last I heard, Podemos [generally regarded as the most right-wing and consciously reformist pro-Chavez party] was down to around 30% of its original membership. This is ordinary members leaving en masse for the PSUV, saying clearly that they believe the Podemos leadership is heading for the camp of the counter-revolutionary opposition. I'd say the PPT has lost a similar proportion of members."

Fuentes said Chavez "constantly talks about the need for unity", not to prevent discussion and debate, but to promote united action. "Among the grassroots there is 100% support for this idea."

GLW asked Fuentes about the value of the brigade both for building solidarity with the Venezuelan revolution and for those who participate. He explained that "those who participate in these brigades do so as friends of the revolution. However, that doesn't mean they come without preconceptions and questions. Many participants get a real shock when they see exactly how far this revolution has developed and what has already been achieved. It is one thing to read about the revolution, it is another altogether to see it, live it and be able to speak to people who are breathing this revolution every day." He said this enabled those who participate to come home as "ambassadors" for the revolution, to tell their stories as widely as possible.

Fuentes told GLW that the Venezuelan people realise the importance of this international solidarity, and are very keen to tell their stories to international visitors. He said, "The most important social gain that I could see has been the growth in feelings of dignity among the Venezuelan people". They feel like Venezuela is no longer "just a hole in the ground for people to come and extract oil". He said this feeling of pride and self worth "is the thing the old elite will never be able to take back".

Don't Cry for Venezuela's RCTV

By Charlie Hardy,
Posted on Sun May 27th, 2007

As I write this, I am looking at a Venezuelan newspaper, El Diario, from February 10, 1992. The editorial that would have occupied half of page 2 is missing. Page 4 is completely blank. The contents were censored by the government of the then president Carlos Andres Perez.

The newspaper is just one of many horrible memories of the pre-Hugo Chavez days in Venezuela’s “exceptional” democracy.

U.S. newspapers seem to overlook what Venezuela used to be like as they today discuss the actions of the current government. I have lived in Venezuela for most of the past 22 years and have never experienced such freedom as that which the Venezuelan population enjoys today under Hugo Chavez. That would include freedom of information. Never, in the past 22 years, has the mass media experienced the freedom it has had during the presidency of Chavez. One can freely buy anti-Chavez newspapers on streets and the airwaves and television channels are amply filled with anti-Chavez commentators.

However, today, May 27, the Venezuelan government will not renew the license of RCTV, a television station that has been on the air for over 50 years. The owner, Marciel Granier, has been running around the world crying because he is about to loose his license. Even the millionaires in the U.S. Senate feel he should get to keep the license. Interestingly, Granier was president of the censored El Diario in 1992. He didn’t complain then. I bought his newspaper. He got his money.

What the news reports in the U.S. don’t tell us, and what the U.S. Senate doesn’t seem to understand, is that hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans will be celebrating tonight at midnight because RCTV’s license will have expired. They’ve been meeting on city squares and corners throughout Venezuela discussing who owns the air and what kind of programming they would like on their television sets. They are asking whether it is truly fair that if you are a millionaire, you can buy the air space of the people for the next 20 years. Independent producers will now have a chance to get their programs shown, without having to obtain the approval of Granier who has been something of a media dictator in Venezuela.

Granier is no saint and his channel hasn’t been an example of the heavenly kingdom on earth either. RCTV was taken off the air five times by Venezuelan administrations before Chavez ever entered the presidential palace. In 1981, for example, it was taken off the air for 24 hours because of airing pornographic scenes.

In 2002, RCTV actively encouraged Venezuelans to march toward the presidential palace in order to participate in a coup that was taking place to overthrow the democratically elected president. Marciel Granier gave clear instructions to the managing producer of Venezuela’s most watched news program on the day of the coup that he should not give any information about President Chavez. Actions like this would not be tolerated by the FCC in the U.S.

However, when Chavez returned to power a few days later, no reprisals were taken against the channel.

No, May 27 is not a sad day for freedom of expression in Venezuela, so don’t weep for Mr. Granier when RCTV’s license is not renewed. He can still broadcast through cable or satellite and he can still sell his programming to other stations. Instead, rejoice with all the independent producers and thousands of Venezuelan who will have access to the space one wealthy man controlled for years. May 28 will be a day of celebration in Venezuela. It should be a day for celebrating freedom throughout the world.

(You can now order the book, Cowboy in Caracas, A North American’s Memoir of Venezuela’s Democratic Revolution, at bookstores, online, or directly from Curbstone Press.)

ARGENTINA: Abortion - No Longer a Taboo Subject

Marcela Valente
BUENOS AIRES
May 28

Capitalising on a more favourable public opinion, an alliance of civil society organisations in Argentina presented to Congress a draft law Monday for the legalisation of abortion in a country where illegal abortions are the main cause of maternal mortality.

On the International Day of Action for Women's Health, which is celebrated May 28, 250 women's and human rights groups, trade unions, political parties and personalities from the spheres of culture, science and academia delivered their initiative to the legislators.

"This is the first time that parliament has been presented with a draft law drawn up by civil society to demand the decriminalisation of abortion up to the 12th week of pregnancy," one of the initiative's sponsors, Martha Rosenberg with the Forum for Reproductive Rights, told IPS.

The climate is more favourable today for the initiative, for different reasons. According to a national poll on public opinion on reproductive rights carried out by the Knack polling firm, the proportion of people in Argentina who believe abortion should be decriminalised grew from 28 to 46 percent before 2004 and 2006.

In that same period, the proportion of respondents who said they would accept full legalisation of abortion on demand rose from 11 to 20 percent, while the proportion of respondents who said abortion should be illegal under any circumstances shrank from 23 to 13 percent.

Under the draft law, whose authors studied abortion legislation in other countries, all women would have the right to choose before the 12th week of pregnancy whether or not to carry the baby to term and would have access to a safe abortion, free of charge, in the public health care services.

The proposed legislation would also grant the right to late-term abortion (after the 12th week of pregnancy) to rape victims, women found to be carrying a severely malformed fetus, or women whose health or life is endangered by the pregnancy. In no case would prior judicial authorisation be required, only the patient's written consent.

In Argentina, both the woman who undergoes an abortion and the person who practices it are subject to prosecution, except in cases involving the rape of a mentally disabled or ill girl or woman, or when the mother's health or life is put at risk by the pregnancy.

But even in these extreme cases, doctors tend to demand judicial authorisation, with the consequent delay and possible risks to the mother's mental or physical wellbeing.

A 20-year-old mother of three died this month of jaw cancer in the northeastern province of Santa Fe. After she became pregnant, the public hospital refused her radiation therapy, to avoid endangering the fetus. An abortion was then requested and also denied by the hospital. In the end, both the mother and the newborn baby died.

Last year there were two cases that also unleashed heated public debate. In different provinces, two mentally disabled girls, one of whom was a minor, were raped and became pregnant as a result. But doctors refused to give them an abortion, and the families had to turn to the courts to obtain legal permission.

According to Health Ministry estimates, between 450,000 and 500,000 clandestine abortions are practiced every year in this country of 37 million, and the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses reports that 37 percent of pregnancies end in abortion, while 15 percent of the total involve girls under 20 years of age.

Although safe clandestine abortion services are available to those who can afford the high cost, poor women must resort to unsafe abortions practiced in unsanitary conditions. A little over one-quarter (27 percent) of maternal deaths are the result of complications from unsafe abortions, the main cause of maternal mortality and the second cause of death among women of child-bearing age.

Nevertheless, public opinion has traditionally been dead-set against abortion -- resistance that seems to be yielding despite the still powerful influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Argentina.

Something similar is occurring in other Latin American countries. In Colombia, the circumstances under which abortion is legal were expanded a year ago; abortion was legalised in Mexico City in April; and authorities in Brazil have proposed putting the issue up to referendum, following the lead of Portugal, where people voted in February that parliament could legalise abortion on demand up to the 10th week of pregnancy.

"I am convinced that there is a greater openness now to debate," Cira Candia, secretary for gender equality and opportunity in the Central de Trabajadores de Argentina trade union federation, told IPS.

"Abortion in Argentina is no longer a taboo issue," she said. "The health minister has stated that it should be decriminalised, the media are discussing the question, and for the first time, INADI (the National Institute against Discrimination, Xenophobia and Racism) made a presentation on the matter."

Candia was referring to remarks by Health Minister Ginés González García, who promoted the creation of the Programme for Sexual Health and Responsible Parenthood, ordered the distribution of a guide to improve the treatment received in public hospitals by women suffering post-abortion complications, and has repeatedly said that he backs the decriminalisation of abortion.

INADI, for its part, sent Congress and regional health ministries around the country a protocol this month for health care in cases in which abortion is legal, warning doctors that if they failed to live up to the regulations, they would be committing an act of discrimination by denying due treatment.

Rosenberg said the climate today for introducing a proposed draft law is indeed more positive, because of the growing support for legalised abortion as well as the participation in the debate by a broader range of social sectors. She pointed out that human rights groups, trade unions and political parties have incorporated it in their agendas.

"We used to have the personal support of individual members of more or less well-known human rights groups. But now, for example, the presidents of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo (two of Argentina's leading human rights organisations) have come out in favour of decriminalisation," she said.

The activist also said the national campaign for the right to legal, safe and free abortion, which is heavily promoted by the alliance of organisations that drafted the proposed new abortion legislation, has helped spark debate on the issue every time a controversial case has appeared, such as the rapes of the two mentally disabled girls.

"Actually, there have always been cases. What's happening now is that there is a current of opinion that seizes on the cases as indications of a serious problem of discrimination that should no longer be tolerated," said Rosenberg. (END/2007)

Venezuela Calls for Probe of CNN, Globovision `Lies'

by Alex Kennedy and Guillermo Parra-Bernal, May 28

Venezuela's government asked the attorney general to investigate Time Warner Inc.'s Cable News Network and local television station Globovision for ``lies'' and inciting violence against President Hugo Chavez.

Communications and Information Minister Willian Lara said CNN last week falsely portrayed a Mexican protest as being in Caracas and displayed images of Chavez alongside an al-Qaeda leader. Globovision, a 24-hour news channel, ran scenes from the 1981 attempt to kill Pope John Paul II, which Lara said was incitement against Chavez.

``This is an effort to associate Hugo Chavez with two things, violence and death,'' Lara said in a televised news conference today in Caracas. ``CNN lies about Venezuela.''

Chavez shut down the country's most-watched station, Radio Caracas Television, yesterday sparking clashes between protesters and police that injured 11 policemen, Lara said. The government is prepared to maintain order today as protesters marched in Caracas, Lara said.

Venezuela Announces New Programs and Progress in Health and in Education

By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Caracas, May 27, 2007

Unperturbed by increasing criticism about the non-renewal of the broadcast license of one of Venezuela’s main television channels, Venezuela’s President Chavez announced a major new higher education initiative and important progress in expanding the country’s health care system.

On Thursday, Chavez announced the creation of 28 new universities across the country and yesterday he officially inaugurated one of 19 new health clinics in the country, highlighting statistics about the advancement of his government’s health care program in general.

With the goal of advancing the new National Public Health System of the Venezuelan government, 19 new Integral Diagnostic Centers (CDI) were inaugurated across the country yesterday, bringing the total to 319 CDIs in the whole country. According to President Chavez at an inauguration of one CDI in Barquisimeto, the end goal is to construct 600 CDIs across the country, of which there remain 281 more to build.

Chavez presented statistics for the national health system Barrio Adentro (Inside the Barrio), showing significant advancement in the construction of new installations. The Barrio Adentro II program, which consists of Integral Diagnostic Centers (CDI), Integral Rehabilitation Centers (SRI), and High Technology Centers (CAT), now has a total of 1,235 installations in the whole country which give free medical treatment to all Venezuelans. Chavez said that the infrastructure of the health system has grown 62% this year alone.

Along with the 19 new CDIs inaugurated on Saturday, the government also inaugurated 27 new Integral Rehabilitation Centers (SRI) which brings the total in the country to 430. "We still have to build 170 more meet our goal of 600 SRIs," said Chavez.

In addition, there are now a total of 15 High Technology Centers (CAT) in the country, of which three were inaugurated on Saturday. The end goal for these centers is 35 in the whole country.

The Barrio Adentro program is made up of 4 different levels of treatment. Barrio Adentro I consists of the construction of basic health clinics built in communities around the country to provide basic family care. Barrio Adentro II consists of the CDI, SRI, and CAT, which can give more advanced care with modern technology and testing. Later, Barrio Adentro III is the remodeling and reconditioning of existing national hospitals, and Barrio Adentro IV consists of the construction of new hospitals around the country. The program has made significant progress since Hugo Chavez was elected in 1998.

"We will not rest in the construction and advancement of the national public health system because it is a very important element in the concept and practice of socialism," said Chavez.

28 New Universities

On Thursday, at an event with university students from around the country, Chavez also announced the launch of the first phase of Mission Alma Mater, which is supposed to dramatically increase the country’s higher education system. Chavez explained that this phase of the new program will go from 2007 to 2012 and will have the objective of constructing 28 national universities in different parts of the country.

"There will be 11 new national universities, in addition to 13 regional ones, and 4 new technical institutes," explained Chavez. He went on to explain that the new national universities will be organized into the following specializations: University of Health Sciences, University of Basic Sciences, University of Art, University of Hydrocarbons, University of Security, University of Languages, University of the South, University of Economy and Fiscal Sciences, University of Tourism, University of Communications, and a University of Agricultural Sciences.

Chavez also announced that the 29 existing technological institutes and technical schools in the country will be converted into technical universities.

In addition, Chavez made various announcements affecting the existing universities in the country. All university staff will receive salary raises for 2006-2007 and will be paid back pay that the state has accumulated over the past 15 years. All workers will receive between 28 percent to 34 percent pay raises, depending on their position in the public universities.

Chavez added that Bs. 1.4 billion has been approved to pay all retired upper education personnel up to December 31st, 2006. $12 million will be invested in university cafeterias and 1,800 computers will be given to high schools and universities. University scholarships will also be increased by 10,000 this year and all scholarships will be raised to $100 per month in all the universities in the country.

Also, all entrance examinations to public universities will be eliminated, so that students only need a high school diploma in order to enter the university system. The entrance examinations had constituted a major filter mechanism that skewed university entrance in favor of the upper and middle class, who could better afford entrance examination preparation courses.

Venezuela's RCTV: Sine Die and Good Riddance

Venezuela's RCTV: Sine Die and Good Riddance - by Stephen Lendman

Venezuelan TV station Radio Caracas Television's (known as RCTV) VHF Channel 2's operating license expired May 27, and it went off the air because the Chavez government, with ample justification, chose not to renew it. RCTV was the nation's oldest private broadcaster, operating since 1953. It's also had a tainted record of airing Venezuela's most hard right yellow journalism, consistently showing a lack of ethics, integrity or professional standards in how it operated as required by the law it arrogantly flaunted.

Starting May 28, a new public TV station (TVES) replaces it bringing Venezuelans a diverse range of new programming TV channel Vive president, Blanca Eckhout, says will "promot(e) the participation and involvement of all Venezuelans in the task of communication (as an alternative to) the media concentration of the radio-electric spectrum that remains in the hands of a (dominant corporate) minority sector" representing elitist business interests, not the people.

Along with the other four major corporate-owned dominant television channels (controlling 90% of the nation's TV market), RCTV played a leading role instigating and supporting the aborted April, 2002 two-day coup against President Chavez mass public opposition on the streets helped overturn restoring Chavez to office and likely saving his life. Later in the year, these stations conspired again as active participants in the economically devastating 2002-03 main trade union confederation (CTV) - chamber of commerce (Fedecameras) lockout and industry-wide oil strike including willful sabotage against state oil company PDVSA costing it an estimated $14 billion in lost revenue and damage.

This writer explained the dominant corporate media's active role in these events in an extended January, 2007 article titled "Venezuela's RCTV Acts of Sedition." It presented conclusive evidence RCTV and the other four corporate-run TV stations violated Venezuela's Law of Social Responsibility for Radio and Television (LSR). That law guarantees freedom of expression without censorship but prohibits, as it should, transmission of messages illegally promoting, apologizing for, or inciting disobedience to the law that includes enlisting public support for the overthrow of a democratically elected president and his government.

In spite of their lawlessness, the Chavez government treated all five broadcasters gently opting not to prosecute them, but merely refusing to renew one of RCTV's operating licenses (its VHF one) when it expired May 27 (its cable and satellite operations are unaffected) - a mere slap on the wrist for a media enterprise's active role in trying to overthrow the democratically elected Venezuelan president and his government. The article explained if an individual or organization of any kind incited public hostility, violence and anti-government rebellion under Section 2384 of the US code, Title 18, they would be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for up to 20 years for the crime of sedition.

They might also be subject to prosecution for treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution stating: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort" such as instigating an insurrection or rebellion and/or sabotage to a national defense utility that could include state oil company PDVSA's facilities vital to the operation and economic viability of the country and welfare of its people. It would be for US courts to decide if conspiring to overthrow a democratically government conformed to this definition, but it's hard imagining it would not at least convict offenders of sedition.

Opposition Response to the Chavez Government Action

So far, the dominant Venezuelan media's response to RCTV's shutdown has been relatively muted, but it remains to be seen for how long. However, for media outside the country, it's a different story with BBC one example of misreporting in its usual style of deference to power interests at home and abroad. May 28 on the World Service, it reported RCTV's license wasn't renewed because "it supported opposition candidates" in a gross perversion of the facts, but that's how BBC operates.

BBC online was more nuanced and measured, but nonetheless off the mark in key comments like reporting "Hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets in Caracas Sunday, some to celebrate, others to protest" RCTV's shuttering. Unexplained was that Chavez supporters way outnumbered opponents who nearly always are part of rightist/corporate-led staged for the media events in contrast to spontaneous pro-government crowds assembling in huge numbers at times, especially whenever Chavez addresses them publicly.

BBC also exaggerated "skirmishes" on the streets with "Police us(ing) tear gas and water cannons to disperse (crowds) and driving through the streets on motorbikes, officers fired plastic bullets in the air." It also underplayed pro-government supportive responses while blaring opposition ones like "Chavez thinks he owns the country. Well, he doesn't." Another was "No to the closure. Freedom." And still another was "Everyone has the right to watch what they want. He can't take away this channel." BBC played it up commenting "As the afternoon drew on, the protests got louder." The atmosphere became nasty. Shots were fired in the air and people ran for cover. It was not clear who was firing" when it's nearly always clear as it's been in the past - anti-Chavistas sent to the streets to stir up trouble and blame it on Chavez.

BBC's commentary ended saying "The arguments highlight, once again, how deeply divided Venezuela is." Unmentioned was that division is about 70 - 80% pro-Chavez, around 20% opposed (the more privileged "sifrino" class), and a small percentage pro and con between them.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

Cartoon Coup D’Etat, by Paul Haste

‘The Presidential Palace is in our hands; why don’t you show that?’ Chávez’s supporters shouted to the journalists… instead, RCTV was broadcasting Looney Tunes cartoons.

Venezuela takes an important step towards democratizing its media on 28 May when a billion dollar media corporation loses its television broadcast license to ‘those who almost never have a voice,’ in President Hugo Chávez’s words.

Radio Caracas Television — RCTV — and its multi-millionaire owner, Marcel Granier, who are about to lose their unceasing political war against Chávez and Venezuela’s Bolívarian revolution, are claiming that ‘independent media are being closed down,’ that Chávez is a dictator intent on ‘restricting freedom of expression and democratic rights.’

Reporters without Borders declares that RCTV losing its license is ‘a serious attack on editorial pluralism’, while editorials in US newspapers have predictably misrepresented the controversy, claiming Chávez is retaliating against his critics in the opposition media who ‘disagree’ with the Bolívarian revolution.

The reality is rather different. As Reporters without Borders doesn’t mention, perhaps understandably so, given its financing by the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy — which also finances rightist opposition political parties in Venezuela — RCTV was an active participant in the violent coup d’etat that deposed President Chávez for almost 48 hours in 2002.

On the day of the coup, RCTV abandoned all pretense to report news impartially, calling opposition supporters to illegally demonstrate at the Miraflores Presidential Palace in Caracas while showing the constant on screen message ‘Ni un paso atras’: ‘Not one step back.’

It deliberately showed film from one angle to falsely claim that Chávez supporters were firing on opposition demonstrators, when another camera angle would have shown that Chávez supporters were defending themselves from sniper attacks — no opposition demonstrators were in sight. The constant repeated broadcasting of this film was then used as justification for some military officers to declare their ‘disobedience’ to the president, and these declarations were faithfully broadcast to attempt to legitimize a military takeover.

The American editorial writers who fail to mention all this, also fail to comment on the Venezuelan media’s support for the subsequent fascist junta that took control in Caracas and proceeded to dismiss the entire Supreme Court and the Congress, suspend the constitution, arrest the democratically elected president and then sent armed police onto the streets to suppress any resistance.

A junta member, Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, thanked journalists on live TV the day after the coup, saying that the organizers ‘had a weapon — the media — let me congratulate you,’ and the businessman the junta chose to be ‘president’, Pedro Carmona, summoned media executives to Miraflores to ensure that opposition to the coup was not reported.

RCTV’s boss, Granier, denied he ever met Carmona during the coup, despite film showing his presence at Miraflores, and while Granier still refers to the junta leader as ‘President Carmona’, RCTV’s subsequent actions demonstrated that no instructions were necessary to keep it on message.

As Venezuelans took to the streets to demand the return of President Chávez, fighting the police and demonstrating at Miraflores in their thousands against the coup, RCTV, contrary to the constant coverage it awarded the opposition demonstration that led to the coup, intentionally blacked out this breaking news, and as RCTV production manager at the time, Andrés Izarra, later related, Granier himself ordered journalists ‘not to broadcast information on Chávez, his supporters or anyone connected to him.’

The Chávez demonstrators coming down from the poor shanty towns on the mountains above Caracas encouraged soldiers loyal to the president to take back Miraflores and arrest the junta. Helicopters were sent to the Caribbean island where the president had been kept prisoner, and barely 48 hours after the right had attempted to take Venezuela back to the military dictatorship of the Fifties, the coup had failed and Chávez had returned to an ecstatic welcome.

However, none of the resistance to the coup, the junta’s arrest or Chavez’s return could be seen on television screens. Amid the coup’s complete collapse, and on probably the most dramatic day in Venezuela’s recent history, RCTV was showing Warner Bros. Looney Tunes cartoons.

Other opposition media followed its lead. No rightist newspapers were printed or distributed the following day, but the leftist Últimas Noticias in Caracas told Venezuela what had happened, and the Chávista Panorama newspaper published four editions in 20 hours as its journalists reported on the coup’s stunning defeat.

It is not difficult to imagine that had CNN or the New York Times acted in the United States as RCTV had done in Venezuela, their executives would now be in Guantánamo, but President Chávez responded with restraint, imploring the media to think about the fascist nature of the junta it had supported: ‘Reflect a little, for God’s sake! It’s your country too!’

No journalists or media executives were jailed or persecuted after the coup, and once the opposition dominated Supreme Court declared that, in their opinion, ‘no coup had taken place,’ Pedro Carmona and other putchists were released, and the right once again went on the offensive against Chávez’s Bolívarian revolution.

Marcel Granier’s RCTV had abandoned any pretense at professional journalism, concerning itself with the political impact of its propagandistic ‘news’ broadcasts, rather than adhering to anything that resembled journalistic ethics. In all, five private television stations, reaching 90% of Venezuela’s viewers, and nine of the ten national newspapers, support the opposition.

Despite US newspaper editorialists claiming that the state is restricting criticism of President Chávez, it is clear to anyone who reads these newspapers or watches Venezuela TV, that the vast majority are implacably hostile to the revolution and critical of the president. There is no censorship, as there is in US client states such as Saudi Arabia, and journalists are not intimidated or assassinated as in México and Colombia.

US President Bush’s recent inaccurate claim that Venezuela has ‘repressive laws’ that ‘severely restrict the liberty of the press,’ hardly stands up to scrutiny, especially when, as Venezuelan Vice-President Jorge Rodríquez pointed out, ‘the only television channel closed down for political reasons during this Bolívarian administration was the pro-Chávez Canal 8 in 2002. It was taken off the air on the first night of the coup by Pedro Carmona’s fascist junta.’

The disproportionate criticisms have more to do with Chávez’s challenge to the unaccountable elite that clearly limits ‘editorial pluralism’ by using its ownership and control of the media to present its own privileged interests as those of all Venezuelans. Accustomed to operating their lucrative commercial television channels for decades without democratic oversight, this elite has come to believe this privileged position is their ‘right.’

Chávez has pointed out that broadcasting licenses are concessions, and are not granted in perpetuity. In fact, Venezuelan law and the Bolívarian Constitution confer certain responsibilities, such as ensuring the public receives ‘true and accurate information,’ on the media corporations that are granted these concessions, as does the respective media laws in the United States and most other countries.

RCTV’s concession to broadcast on Venezuela’s terrestrial Canal 2 frequency expires on 28 May. The government has decided not to renew RCTV’s concession, citing, among other crimes such as not paying taxes, the station’s failure to provide ‘true and accurate information’ during the 2002 coup, when its executives intentionally refused to report breaking news and critical information to the public and imposed its ‘cartoon blackout.’

‘This decision is an irreversible fact,’ William Lara, Venezuela’s Communications and Information Minister declared, ‘the Constitutional, legal and regulatory basis for the decision is solidly incontrovertible.’ For the first time in Venezuela, the privileged media elite has come up against a government that cannot be bought, bribed or intimidated.

Moreover, the Bolívarian revolution’s originality doesn’t stop with challenging elite interests. A new television service, Televisora Venezolana Social (Venezuelan Social TV or TEVES), will take over the Canal 2 frequency, Chávez has announced. It will be run by an independent foundation and have independent, community and alternative programming and participation, promoting Venezuelan film and program production.

Although the new TEVES station will initially receive government financing, which the British state financed BBC rather ironically claimed ‘might affect its independence’, it will not be required to broadcast government programmes such as Chávez’s ¡Alo, Presidente!, and it will be able to take commercial advertising to eventually allow it to be self financing.

Corporate media in almost all countries is often unresponsive, unaccountable and inaccessible, permitting virtually no popular participation in film production and programming. Venezuela’s attempt to start to democratize the broadcast media has been met with predictable criticism from that corporate media, who continue to insist that a tiny, wealthy elite — and not a democratic government elected time and time again with a massive popular vote — should have the right to control what is seen and heard on the airwaves.

As for Granier and RCTV, some in the opposition believe it is no loss to have the station lose its license. ‘RCTV wasn’t even good at propaganda,’ wrote one anti-Chávez columnist citing Chávez’s return after the coup and massive election win in 2006, ‘the point of giving up journalism is to increase the political effectiveness of what is broadcast, and on that score RCTV has certifiably failed.’

But all is not lost for the anti-Chávez opposition — RCTV can still broadcast on cable and satellite, and should there be news it doesn’t like, it will be free to black it out with as many Looney Tunes cartoons as it likes.

Sources

La no renovación de la concesión a RCTV es irreversible, Agencia Bolívariana de Noticias report in Aporrea.org, Caracas, 2 de enero de 2007

Bush critica restricciones a la libertad de expressión, headline report in El Nacional, Caracas, 4 de mayo de 2007

Publicados en Gaceta Oficial estatutos de Televisora Venezolana Social, Radio Nacional de Venezuela report, Caracas, 15 de mayo de 2007

El periodismo de Venezuela en 2002, Eleazar Díaz Rangel, Últimas Noticias report in BBC Mundo, Caracas, 4 de abril de 2007

Venezuela, National Endowment for Democracy report at grants/Venezuela, United States, 2005

RCTV: Censorship or broadcaster responsibility, PR Watch report, Center for Media and Democracy, United States, 19 January 2007

Not about free speech, George Ciccariello, Caracas report in Counterpunch, United States, 12 January 2007

The 47 hour coup that changed everything, Gregory Wilpert, Venezuela Analisis, United States, 13 April 2007

Chávez/RCTV: ¿censura o decisión legítima? Salim Lamrani, Progreso, United States, 7 February 2007

¿Una revancha política? article in El Espectador, Bogotá, 13 de mayo de 2007

Hugo Chávez, the media, and everybody else, Nicki Mokhtari and Larry Birns, Council on Hemispheric Affairs report, United States, 19 January 2007

US papers hail Venezuelan coup as pro-democracy move, report in Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), United States, 18 April 2002

Lara: Granier patea los derechos de los usarios, Prensa Ministro de Comunicación e Información statement on Aporrea.org, Caracas, 6 de enero de 2007

Media accused in failed coup, David Adams and Phil Gunson, St. Petersburg Times, United States, 18 April 2002

Las perlas de un fascista mediático, Lubriorama Stereo film, director: Luigino Bracci Roa, Venezuela, released: May 2007

Venezuela investiga el ‘Carmonazo,’ Carlos Chirinos, BBC Mundo, Caracas, 5 de octubre de 2004

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Bórd Scannán na hÉireann film, directors: Bartley and O’Briain, Eire, released: September 2003

Venezuela’s press power, Maurice Lemoine, Le Monde Diplomatique, París, August 2002.

Paul Haste is a union organizer from London who is currently living in Bogotá to improve his Spanish. He can be reached at paul.jisv@hotmail.com. Read other articles by Paul.

Too quiet in Oaxaca: This Mexican city's volcano of popular unrest has cooled -- but further eruptions are expected

By John Ross
OAXACA (May 27th)

On the first anniversary of the beginning of last summer's feverish uprising here, the city's jewel-box plaza which had been occupied for seven months by striking teachers and their allies in the Oaxaca Peoples' Popular Assembly (APPO) from May until October when federal police forced them into retreat, shimmered in the intense spring sunbeams. The only massive police presence on view was the city police department's orchestra tootling strident martial airs to a shirt-sleeved crowd of gaffers. Here and there, handfuls of burley state cops, sweltering in bulletproof vests and helmets in hand, huddled in the shade quaffing aguas frescas (fruit water) and flirting with the senoritas.

Evidence of last summer's occupation has been obliterated. Surrounding government buildings have been scrubbed clean of revolutionary slogans and no marches were scheduled to commemorate last May 22nd when the teachers first established their camp in the plaza. Indeed, militant members of Section 22 of the National Education Workers Union (SNTE) were not encamped in the stately old square for the first time since the section's founding 27 years ago. Ulises Ruiz Ortiz (URO), the object of their fury, was still the despotic governor of Oaxaca.

Despite the relaxation of U.S. State Department travel advisories and the apparent calm, few tourists were strolling the cobblestone streets of Oaxaca's historic center and the cavernous colonial hotels around the plaza were virtually deserted.

The 2006 uprising has put a serious kibosh on the international tourist trade, the backbone of the local economy. If the experience of San Cristobal de las Casas after the 1994 Zapatista uprising is any lesson, the tourist moguls will take years to recoup.

"Apparent calm" is a euphemism oft utilized to describe the uneasy lulls that mark social upheaval in Mexico. True to the nation's volcanic political metabolism with its fiery spurts of molten fightback and sullen, brooding silences, the Oaxaca struggle seems to have entered into a period of internal contemplation.

Government repression, which featured death squad killings and the jailing of hundreds of activists, slammed the lid down on the social stew but did not extinguish it. Discontent continues to brew and fester, the bad gas building down below. The structures of the Popular Assembly and the teachers union, which served to catalyze this discontent throughout 2006, remain intact.

To be sure, the social movements that lit up red bulbs as far away as Washington last year are not enjoying their best moments. Section 22, which itself is a loose amalgam of left factions, is wracked with division and dissonance, and its titular leader, Enrique Rueda Pacheco, is held in profound contempt for having forced the strikers back into the classroom last October and abandoning the APPO to savage government repression.

Moreover, in response to the 70,000-strong Section 22's rebellion against the leadership of the National Education Workers Union (SNTE), union czarina Elba Esther Gordillo, a close confidante of President Felipe Calderon, chartered a new Oaxaca local, Section 59, to diminish the control that the militants exert over the state's classrooms.

The division has put a dent in the teachers' usual aggressive stance and instead of walking out this past May 15th, National Teachers Day, when new contracts are negotiated, Section 22 tentatively accepted a 4.8 percent base wage increase (above the 3.7 percent Calderon had conceded to other sectors) and 122 million bonus pesos to "re-zone" Oaxaca for cost of living increases in this tourism-driven state.

Although the "maestros" did participate in a two-day boycott of classes in May to protest the Calderon government's privatization of government workers pension funds, whether the teachers will take part in an indefinite national walk-out June 1st that has been called by dissident education workers organized in the Coordinating Body of Education Workers or CNTE, remains unresolved at press time.

Nonetheless, the teachers' disaffection with Ulises remains strong and Section 22 spokesperson Zenen Reyes last week (May 23rd) called upon the teachers and the APPO to push for cancellation of the Guelaguetza, an "indigenous" dance festival in July that has become Oaxaca's premier tourist attraction. Last year, the strikers and the APPO destroyed scenery and denied access to the spectacle, forcing URO to suspend the gala event. In its place, activists reclaimed this millennial tradition of Indian cultural interchange by staging a "popular" Guelaguetza in the part of the city they were occupying, and plans are afoot to repeat that celebration this year.

The Oaxaca Popular Peoples Assembly, which came together after the governor sent a thousand police to drive the maestros out of the plaza last June 14th and which at one time included representatives of the state's 17 distinct Indian peoples and many of the 400 majority indigenous municipalities plus hundreds of grassroots organizations, is equally fractured. Having borne the brunt of the repression - 26 killed, 30 disappeared, hundreds imprisoned - the Popular Assembly has been reduced to a defensive posture when only months ago it was an aggressive lightning rod for social discontent.

Even more debilitating than the government crackdown has been the prospect of upcoming local elections August 7th to choose 42 members of the Oaxaca legislature and October 5th balloting for 157 non-Indian municipal presidents (majority indigenous municipalities elect their presidents via traditional assemblies.) While the APPO considers that its goals transcend the electoral process and rejects alliance with the political parties, some Popular Assembly leaders engage in a quirky dance with the left-center Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) which last July almost catapulted Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) into the presidency.

Prominent APPO mouthpiece Flavio Sosa, jailed by Calderon as his first political prisoner, is a former Oaxaca party leader and the PRD has mobilized to achieve his release.

Perhaps the cruelest blow the APPO and the striking teachers struck against Ulises came during July 2nd 2006 presidential elections. Although URO had promised the long-ruling (77 years - at least in Oaxaca) Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) a million votes for his political godfather Roberto Madrazo, the popular movement inflicted the voto del castigo (punishment vote) against the PRI, handing the state to AMLO's presidential bid in addition to electing both PRD senators and nine out of 11 federal representatives to the new congress for the first time ever.

The left party seemed positioned to bump Ruiz again in 2007 by taking the state legislature and neutralizing the tyrannical governor's clout. But instead of rewarding the APPO and Section 22 for having dumped the PRI in 2006, the party has responded by excluding activists from its candidate lists.

"If, at one time, there was hope that elections could provide a solution to the conflict, exclusion of the APPO has canceled them," writes Luis Hernandez Navarro who follows Oaxaca closely for the national daily La Jornada.

One Oaxaca-based PRD insider who preferred not to be named confides that APPO activists were vetoed by the left party's national leadership least front-page photos of the candidates hurling rocks during last summer's altercations lend credence to the perpetual allegations of the PRI and Calderon's right-wing PAN that the PRD is "the part of violence." Most local candidacies were distributed in accordance with the laws of PRD nepotism and amongst the party's myriad "tribes."

The exclusion of the APPO activists so infuriated 50 members of grassroots organizations led by Zapotec Indian spokesperson Aldo Gonzalez that they stormed the PRD's Oaxaca city headquarters May 18th, leaving its façade a swirl of spray-painted anguish. The failure to select candidates from the popular movement, Gonzalez and others charge, throws the elections to URO, suggesting that the PRD has cut a deal with the APPO's arch enemy.

Given the hostilities the upcoming elections have sparked so far, the August and October balloting could well signal another "voto del castigo" - this time against the PRD.

The election season was in full swing by mid-Spring in Oaxaca. PRD leader Felix Cruz, who had just coordinated Lopez Obrador's third tour of the Mixteca mountains (AMLO was conspicuously absent during last summer's struggle), was gunned down in Ejutla de Crespo on May 21st. Juan Antonio Robles, a direction of the Unified Triqui Liberation Movement (MULT), a participating organization in the APPO, met a similar fate the next day. That same week, a car carrying a local candidate for Elba Esther Gordillo's New Alliance Party was riddled with gunfire along the coast. Drug gang killings have also jacked up the homicide rate in the state - under Ulises' governance, drugs and drug gangs have flourished.

Meanwhile, in classic "cacique" (political boss) style, the PRI governor is out and about dishing up the pork to buy votes, passing out cardboard roofing and kilos of beans, building roads to nowhere and bridges where there are no rivers to cross, to pump up his electoral clientele. Gifting opposition leaders with pick-up trucks to enlist their allegiances is a favorite URO gambit, notes Navarro Hernandez.

Despite the ambitions of some of its members, the APPO is not enthusiastic about participating in the electoral process. At a statewide congress in February, APPO members were allowed to run for public office as individuals and only if they resign from any organizational function.

Miguel Cruz, an APPO activist and member of the directive of the CIPO-RFM or Popular Indigenous Council of Oaxaca - Ricardo Flores Magon (Flores Magon was a Oaxaca-born anarchist leader during the Mexican revolution) is not a partisan of the electoral process. Seated in the CIPO's open-air kitchen out in Santa Lucia del Camino, a rural suburb of Oaxaca city where police gunned down U.S. journalist Brad Will last October, Miguel explains his disdain for how the elections have split the APPO "when they were supposed to bring us together.

"Everyone is working on their own agendas now and the so-called leaders are all looking for a 'hueso" (literally 'bone' - political appointment.) This is a crying shame. The APPO is a mass movement, not a political party. Our consciences are not for sale."

June 14th, the day last year Ulises sent a thousand heavily armed police to unsuccessfully take the plaza back from the striking teachers, is a crucial date. The APPO and Section 22 are planning one of their famous mega-marches which last summer sometimes turned out hundreds of thousands of citizens. Will June 14th signal a resurgence of massive resistance and if it does, will the popular leadership be able to restrain hotter heads and government provocateurs that last November gave the federal police the pretext to beat and round up hundreds? Miguel Cruz is hopeful the APPO will persevere. "Whatever the 'leaders' do and say, the APPO lives down at the bases."

Up the steep, windy hill in San Pablo Etla, where the cognoscenti live above the hurly-burly on the streets of Oaxaca, political guru Gustavo Esteva views the popular struggle down below geologically. "The popular movement in Oaxaca is like an active volcano" he writes in La Jornada, "last year when it erupted, the movement left its mark in the form of molten lava trails. Now the lava has cooled and formed a cap of porous rock that marks the point through which the internal pressure will find its way to break through to the surface again."

John Ross is in Mexico City hot on the trail of Brad Will's killers and re-immersing himself in the real world. Write him at johnross@igc.org if you have further information.

2007-05-28 06:04:30

Bolivia Criticizes US Interference

Bolivian President Evo Morales criticized US government of interference in his country's internal affairs and asserted his country is enjoying a democracy as never before.

Morales made the denounced agaisnt Washington this weekend during a military ceremony in commemoration,of the 186 anniversary of "Bolivia Colorados" Regiment, his escort.

He rejected US ambassador Philip Goldberg´s recent declarations saying that Bolivia violates the rights of those running the law.

"I really regretted that Goldberg, on the pretext of respect to powers independence, tries to defend corruption and injustice," added the dignitary.

The Bolivian leader mentioned the governmental measures adopted after the Constitutional Court dismissed four acting ministers from the Supreme Court of Justice, appointed by supreme decree.

In this respect, the Justice Vice-Minister Renato Pardo considered US diplomatic violated Vienna Convention.

Pardo said US ambassador did not recognize the international rule by which no foreign diplomatic representative can get involve in other State's internal affairs.

He also criticized members of the Supreme Court of Justice, experts of laws, which allow a foreign diplomatic make an opened provocation.

President of the Lower House Edmundo Novillo asked Foreign Relations Minister David Choquehuanca, to issue a communiqué accusing Goldberg of political interference.

The Path of the Mayos (in Spanish)

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/chiapas/the_path_of_the_mayos_part_i.mp4

http://images.indymedia.org/imc/chiapas/the_path_of_the_mayos_part_ii.mp4

Caracas Police Halt TV Shutdown Protest

By IAN JAMES (Associated Press Writer)

From Associated Press

May 27, 2007 7:00 PM EDT

CARACAS, Venezuela - Police broke up an opposition protest using a water cannon and tear gas after hundreds took to the streets on Sunday condemning a decision by President Hugo Chavez to force Venezuela's most widely watched channel off the air.

Soaked protesters scattered while the stream of water swept the street, then sang the national anthem as they returned to face a column of riot police outside the state telecommunications commission.

Radio Caracas Television, the sole opposition-aligned TV station with nationwide reach, was due to go off the air at midnight because Chavez refused to renew its broadcast license.

Police said some of the protesters threw rocks and bottles, prompting them to respond with the water cannon. Police said at least four officers were lightly injured.

Inside the channel's studios, meanwhile, TV personalities embraced, wept and chanted "freedom!" before the cameras, mixing an emotional on-air goodbye with denunciations of Chavez's government.

"We are living an injustice," said Eyla Adrian, a 35-year-old presenter, her eyes welling with tears. "I wish that tonight would never come."

Chavez said he is democratizing the airwaves by turning RCTV's signal over to a public service channel.

"That television station became a threat to the country so I decided not to renew the license because it's my responsibility," Chavez said in a speech over the weekend.

RCTV's top executive, Marcel Granier, said Chavez's decision "marks a turn toward totalitarianism."

The socialist president and his supporters accuse RCTV of supporting a failed 2002 coup, violating broadcast laws and regularly showing programs with excessive violence and sexual content.

In 2002, RCTV and other private channels broadcast opposition calls for protests to overthrow Chavez while giving scant coverage to Chavez's return to power amid protests by his supporters.

Andres Izarra, who now heads the state-financed channel Telesur, said he quit his job as a newsroom manager at RCTV because he was disgusted with the way "everything was censored" during the coup.

"The order was 'zero Chavismo on the screen.' Nothing related to Chavez, his allies, his congressmen, members of his party," Izarra said. "When I hear the owners of RCTV talk about freedom of expression, it seems to me a great hypocrisy."

Granier insisted his channel has never sought to destabilize the government.

Hundreds of protesters gathered at the station's studios to condemn the shutdown.

"I want to live in a free country," said Elianna Castro, a 17-year-old student who said RCTV is one of the few channels that airs complaints about problems like rampant crime.

Thousands of red-clad government supporters held demonstrations elsewhere to show support for the measure.

"RCTV was exclusionist. You never saw blacks or Indians on its screens, and its programming promoted violence," said Gerardo Sanchez, 52, a student in a state cultural program. Dozens of Chavez supporters on motorcycles roared through Caracas in a caravan, waving red flags.

RCTV, founded in 1953, is Venezuela's oldest private TV station and has regularly been the top channel in viewer ratings. But Chavez calls its soap operas "pure poison" that promote capitalism.

Venezuela's Supreme Court has ruled that the replacement station can use RCTV's broadcasting equipment and told the military to guard it.

Most Venezuelan news media are in private hands, including many newspapers and radio stations that remain staunchly critical of Chavez. But the only other major opposition-sided TV channel is Globovision, which is not seen in all parts of the country.

US Media: Distorting the Venezuelan media story

Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs
Distorting the Venezuelan media story

5/25/07

The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.

According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chavez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."

Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."

In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with [RCTV owner Marcel] Granier and RCTV is political."

In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.

RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks’ participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.

On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."

That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), "[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."

As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it’s doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."

When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs—in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):

What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles…. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.


The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.

When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists—all groups that have condemned Venezuela's action in denying RCTV's license renewal—he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV's actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups' arguments, "Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?"

McElwee acknowledged the critics' point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."

Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:

The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.

REFLECTIONS BY THE COMMANDERIN CHIEF: Bush expects everything to be solved with a bang

A word popped up in my mind. I looked it up in the dictionary and there it was; it’s an onomatopoeic word and its connotation is tragic: bang. I’ve probably never used it in my life.

Bush is an apocalyptic person. I observe his eyes, his face and his obsessive preoccupation with pretending that everything he sees on the "invisible screens" are spontaneous thoughts. I heard his voice quaver when he answered criticism from his own father about his Iraq policy. He only expresses emotions and constantly feigns rationality. Of course he is aware of the impact of every phrase and every word on the public he addresses.

What’s dramatic is that what he expects to happen may cost the American people many lives.

One can never agree, in any kind of war, with events that take the lives of innocent civilians. Nobody could justify the attacks of the German Air Force on British cities during World War II, nor the thousands of bombers that systematically destroyed German cities in the decisive moments of the war, nor the two atomic bombs which the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an act of pure terrorism against old people, women and children.

Bush expressed his hatred of the poor world when he spoke on June 1, 2002 at West Point, of the pre-emptive attacks on "60 or more dark corners of the world".

Whom are they going to convince now that the thousands of nuclear weapons in their possession, the missiles and the precise and exact delivery systems they have developed are just to combat terrorism? Could it be perhaps that the sophisticated submarines being constructed by their British allies, capable of circumnavigating the globe without surfacing and reprogramming their nuclear missiles in mid-flight, will be used for that as well? I would never have imagined that one day such justifications would be used. Imperialism intends to institutionalize world tyranny with these weapons. It aims them at other great nations which arise not as military adversaries capable of surpassing their technology with weapons of mass destruction, but as economic powers that would rival the United States whose chaotic and wasteful consumerist economic and social system is absolutely vulnerable.

What’s worse about the bang upon which Bush is hanging his hopes is the antecedent of his actions during the September 11^th events, when, knowing full well that bloody attack on the American people was imminent, and having the capacity to foresee it and even to prevent it, he took off on a vacation with his entire administrative apparatus.

From the day of his appointment as President –thanks to the fraud orchestrated by his friends from the Miami mafia, in the manner of a "banana republic" –and prior to his inauguration, W. Bush was informed in detail of the same facts and in the same way as the president of the United States, who directed that he be informed. At that moment, the tragic events symbolized by the fall of the Twin Towers were still more than 9 months away.

If something similar were to happen with any kind of explosives or nuclear material, given that enriched uranium flows like water throughout the world since the days of the Cold War, what would be the probable fate of humanity? I try to remember and analyze many moments of humanity’s march through the millennia, and I wonder: could my views be subjective?

Just yesterday Bush was bragging about having won the battle over his adversaries in Congress. He has a hundred billion dollars, all the money he needs to double, as he wishes, the number of American troops sent to Iraq, and to carry on with the slaughter. The problems in the region are increasingly aggravated.

Any opinion about the president of the United State's latest feats grows old in a matter of hours. Is it perhaps that the American people can’t take this little moral fighting bull by the horns?

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 25, 2007.

7:15 p.m.

Documents Reveal U.S. Effort to Influence Venezuelan Journalists

By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Eva Golinger during her press conference on U.S. efforts to influence Venezuelan journalists. Credit: El Universal

Caracas, May 26, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Several major Venezuelan journalists have received all-expenses paid trips to the U.S. for courses in an apparent effort of the U.S. State Department to influence the media in Venezuela, according to recently released documents. The Venezuelan-American attorney Eva Golinger, who released the information yesterday in a press conference in Caracas, also revealed evidence of a destabilization plan against the Chavez government to take place this weekend.

Golinger is the author of The Chavez Code, which documents U.S. funding of opposition groups and U.S. involvement in the 2002 coup attempt.

Under a program named International Business Leadership Program, many Venezuelan journalists, mostly from the opposition media, but also some from the Venezuelan government, have received "scholarships" from the U.S. government to attend training courses during the years 2001-2005.

Some of the most recognized opposition journalists of the country have participated according to the documents, including Miguel Angel Rodriguez of RCTV, who received more than six thousand dollars for his participation in 2003, and Maria Fernanda Flores of Globovision among others, according to the documents obtained by Eva Golinger through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

With the supposed intention of teaching journalists about the media and journalism in the United States, the program also has the purpose of influencing how Venezuelan journalists cover events related to the U.S. foreign policy. According to the documents released, the programs denominated "Journalism IV" seek to "influence the approach and ultimately the coverage given to issues of importance to U.S. foreign policy and to strengthen the Venezuelan democratic process."

The State Department gave special attention to the Venezuelan news channel Globovisión, which they believe to be "the most influential channel" and to have the most positive coverage of the United States. The State Department sought a special relationship with this particular news network, and especially with one important journalist Maria Fernanda Flores.

According to an unclassified State Department memo, “A program that gives Flores a better understanding of and closer ties with U.S. media executive decision-making policies and practices can help Globovision, already the country’s news leader, an even more professional responsible force in Venezuela’s media environment, with profound implications not only for more positive coverage of U.S. policies but for Venezuela’s evolving political situation as well.”

Golinger emphasized, though, that the journalists involved in these programs were chosen by the U.S. embassy and could very well be unaware of the program’s efforts to influence their coverage of U.S. foreign policy.

Golinger also spoke about other State Department programs including one to increase U.S. access to the Venezuelan Armed Forces through various training programs, whose objectives she said are similar to the program for journalists.

The Press Attaché of the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela, Bryan Penn, responded on Globovisión to Golinger’s press conference yesterday by saying that the programs she presented were common with governments around the world and that the U.S. is “proud of them.”

Destabilization Plan

Golinger also presented evidence of a destabilization plan for this Saturday, showing a flyer calling for people to come into the streets and march in the morning hours of Saturday, May 26th. According to the attorney, the campaign is designed by Freedom House, a U.S. organization dedicated to non-violent resistance.

Freedom House, headed by Peter Ackerman, has been involved in other countries and other campaigns to overthrow regimes such as Serbia and the Ukraine. According to Golinger, the flyers circulating in Caracas have the logo of a clenched fist, the same logo used in the campaigns in other countries such as Serbia, Georgia, and the Ukraine.

Golinger also made reference to the fact that leaders from the Serbian campaign, and people from the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (Canvas) have been involved with the Venezuelan opposition and have given trainings about nonviolent resistance inside Venezuela. According to the webpage of Canvas, Venezuela is one of three nations in which the resistance strategies are being used.

Golinger said that she found the presence of these programs to be "worrying" in light of the tense relations between the United States and Venezuela, as well as the aggressive media atmosphere in Venezuela in recent years.

Senator Dodd's Bizarre Campaign Against Venezuela

by: Robert Naiman - Huffington Post

While many people were gnashing their teeth over the Congressional decision to fund the escalation of the war in Iraq without any meaningful restriction, the Senate, led by Senators Dodd, Clinton, and Obama, did something very bizarre. It passed a resolution introduced by Dodd and Lugar denouncing Venezuela for not renewing the license of a TV station that actively supported the 2002 military coup against the democratically elected government.

This continues a pattern for these Senators. I guess they feel that every time they do something to convince Democratic primary voters that they really oppose Bush's foreign policy, they feel they have to do something else to convince the Washington foreign policy establishment that they really support the Empire. Maybe they figure it's a freebie. Maybe they think that, unlike many places where the U.S. government sticks its nose, Venezuela is a truly independent country, so they can say nonsense things about Venezuela without causing much harm in the world. But such a resolution is not totally harmless. It hurts the cause of human rights, by giving grist to those in the world who ask, when some American politician talks about human rights somewhere, "How much oil does that country produce?"

Some of the bigfoot human rights groups also played a nefarious role in this affair. Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, and the Committee to Protect Journalists also trashed the Venezuelan government's decision not to renew the license.

My colleague Patrick McElwee contacted these groups and asked them a simple question: if this had happened in the U.S., would the station have had its license renewed? None would give a direct answer, as Patrick documents here:

Why these groups carry water for the Bush Administration on Venezuela would make a good topic for an academic study. There are several competing theories.

One theory is that advocacy on human rights constantly pushes these groups into confrontation with the U.S. government, so like the Democratic Senators, they are looking for a freebie - a case where they can support the Bush Administration, to argue that they are not in fundamentally in conflict with the U.S.

A second theory regarding some of the bigfoot human rights groups in Washington is that when it comes to Latin America, the people running policy at the groups and the people running policy in the U.S. government are the same group of people, moving back and forth. So denouncing the official enemy is a good career move - some of these folks may hope to get a job at the State Department, and this will look good on their resume.

This second theory seeks to explain why one sees a divergence in some of these groups between their reporting on Latin America and their reporting on the Middle East. In the case of the Middle East, these groups seem much more willing to do reporting that directly challenges the U.S. government. According to this theory, the reason is that people working on these issues in the Middle East could never hope to get a job at the State Department, so people who hope to work in the State Department would never work at these groups on Middle East issues.

No doubt this fails to exhaust the possible explanations, which is why it would be a good subject for academic study.

But in the meantime, picking unnecessary fights with Venezuela seems like a pretty dumb foreign policy. If you look at the world's oil producers today, you see a lot of trouble: Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria. Whatever the policy disagreements between Venezuela and the Bush Administration, the oil keeps flowing. No 9/11 hijackers were Venezuelan. Oil pipelines in Venezuela are not being blown up. Foreign oil workers are not being kidnapped or killed in Venezuela. By comparative standards, things are rosy. Why mess it up?
...
Get involved:
www.justforeignpolicy.org

Original source / relevant link:
Huffington Post

Gibraltar decolonized and all that remains is “UN delisting”

Joe Holliday, Gibraltar’s deputy Chief Minister, told the United Nations seminar in Grenada that Gibraltar is decolonised and that it is for the UN to de-list the territory. The seminar reaffirmed the principle of self determination and Argentina and Spain were criticized for furthering their sovereignty disputes.

According to official UN reports Holliday told the Caribbean Regional Seminar on the implementation of the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism that the people of Gibraltar had approved a new Constitution, recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom, which gave practical self-government to the territory with some residual powers for the UK.

“That was the relationship with the United Kingdom that the Territory’s people wanted, and it was not a colonial relationship. The United Kingdom had recognized the acceptance of the Constitution after a referendum as an act of self-determination”.

Holliday announced that the United Nations should not further concern itself with the decolonisation of Gibraltar and that “all that remained was de-listing, a matter purely for the United Nations itself,” said the UN report from St George, Grenada.

However the representative of Spain stated that the text of the Constitution had been submitted to the people of Gibraltar in non-legal consultations and that the process had not taken place within the framework of the United Nations.

“The so-called self-government was limited, and article 10 of the 1730 Treaty of Utrecht gave Spain the right of sovereignty over Gibraltar. Sovereignty matters were of a bilateral nature between Spain and the United Kingdom”, he insisted.

Several speakers reportedly regretted that the Seminar was used by some States to further their own agenda regarding sovereignty disputes.

It was pointed out that the phrase in one of the recommendations from last year’s Seminar — “in the process of decolonization, where there are no disputes over sovereignty, there was no alternative to the principle of self-determination, which is also a fundamental human right” — did not reflect the opinion of Seminar participants, but solely of Spain and Argentina. They should not be allowed to “hijack” the Seminar, said the UN report.

Addressing the role of the Special Committee in facilitating the decolonisation of the Non-Self-Governing Territories within the framework of the Second International Decade, the Chairperson of the Seminar, Margaret Hughes Ferrari (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), said that the Committee’s one essential task was the “de-listing” of Non-Self-Governing Territories.

With only two and a half years left in the Second International Decade, it was essential to focus the next steps in decolonisation on tangible results for all concerned.

It was important, she said, “to recognize an act of self-determination when we see one”.

Instead of automatically discounting the “status quo” situation in its entirety, possibilities could be considered among the array of legitimate “transitions to self-determination”, provided that the people of the territory had had the opportunity to make a fully informed choice.

Costa Rica Aims To Win Carbon Neutral Nation Race

By John McPhaul, Reuters

SAN JOSE -- Green trail-blazer Costa Rica is drawing up plans to cut its net greenhouse gas emissions to zero before 2030, the government said Thursday, and aims to be the first nation to offset all its carbon.

Environment Minister Roberto Dobles said the tiny, jungle-cloaked Central American nation would clean up its fossil fuel-fired power plants, promote hybrid vehicles and increase tree planting to balance its emissions.

"The goal is to be carbon neutral," Dobles told Reuters. "We'd like to do it in the next 20 years." He said Costa Rica would also eliminate net emissions of other greenhouse gases.

Costa Rica is a leader on green issues, with protected areas like national parks and biological reserves covering more than a quarter of its territory.

The country generates 78 percent of its energy with hydroelectric power and another 18 percent by wind or geothermally. It now plans to cut emissions from transport, farming and industry.

Faced with mounting evidence that burning fossil fuels is the main cause of global warming, many nations and companies are looking at ways to reduce their net carbon output.

In April, world number five oil exporter Norway said it was aiming to get rid of its net greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The EU says it will cut emissions 20-30 percent by 2020. California aims to cut emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

But Costa Rica believes it can still become a voluntarily carbon neutral country before anyone else.

"We think we can get there first," said Dobles.

Costa Rica has a headstart. According to the United Nations, in 2003 the country produced roughly 1.5 tons of carbon per person, compared to close to 10 tons in Norway.

At the heart of the Costa Rica's anti-carbon efforts are payments that compensate landowners for growing trees to capture carbon and protect watersheds. The government also plans payments to protect wildlife habitat and scenic beauty.

The program, launched in 1997 and funded by a 3.5 percent tax on gasoline and by loans and grants, now pays out about $15 million a year to nearly 8,000 property owners.

"The fact that Costa Rica has applied (payments) on a national scale is what's innovative," said Esteban Brenes, a conservation finance expert at the World Wildlife Fund.

Not all environmentalists have good things to say about the idea of capturing carbon to offset emissions.

"It's a deception to allow polluters to continue to pollute with makeup to mask it," said Juan Figuerola, forestry coordinator for the Costa Rican Conservation Federation.

Some other countries in the world, mainly in Africa, are virtually carbon-neutral, because poverty prevents them from emitting more greenhouse gases.

Venezuela's RCTV has Long Record of Law-breaking A lot of organizations and politicians have criticized Venezuela for refusing to renew the broadcast

A lot of organizations and politicians have criticized Venezuela for refusing to renew the broadcasting license of Radio Caracas Television, or RCTV.

In a press release today, the Washington-based Venezuela Information Office says the history of RCTV should be considered by Venezuela's critics:

RCTV's history of noncompliance with federal broadcasting guidelines that predate the Chavez administration. Since 1976, RCTV has been fined or temporarily closed six times, including for airing pornographic scenes, cigarette advertisements, sensationalist programming, and tendentious news coverage. Additionally, in 2002 RCTV aired programming calling on the public to take to the streets and overthrow the democratically elected president, a feat that would surely be punished by jail time and charges of treason if tried in the U.S. Yet, the station has been allowed to continue broadcasting to this day.

Venezuela's National Telecommunications Commission, which operates exactly like the US FCC, ruled that RCTV's long history of unlawful acts warranted the decision to refuse to renew the license. Venezuela's Supreme Court upheld the decision.

Olivia Goumbri, Executive Director of the Venezuela Information Office, stated that,

In the U.S. the FCC has shut down TV stations for far less. In this case though, the expiration of RCTV’s contract is an opportunity for the government to reconsider its 20 year old license, and whether or not a station which has violated broadcasting regulations and the law to such an extreme extent should have its license renewed.

RCTV will be able continue to transmit via cable and satellite. And despite the claims of those who hate the Venezuelan government, the vast majority of Venezuela's media remain in private hands, most of which oppose the policies of the government.

In a hypothetical comparison: imagine how the conservatives would howl if the New York Times called for the violent overthrow of the Bush regime and applauded his kidnapping and possible execution.

In a realistic comparison: Do you remember when right-wing pundits and politicians accused the New York Times of treason for doing little more than publishing stories with classified information purposely leaked to the press? What happens to people convicted of treason?

The point is that RCTV's record as a scofflaw and as an inciter of violence is clear. Let's not let political biases cover for phony claims of the abuse of a free press.

--Joel Wendland

Posted by Joel

BRAZIL: Homeless Squatters Find 'Social Function' for Empty Buildings

SAO PAULO, May 25

The dark entry hallway and a lower floor full of rubble that smells of excrement make it difficult to imagine that this was once a busy hotel, located next to two train stations in the central Luz neighbourhood of the southern Brazilian city of Sao Paulo.

The building has been abandoned for 13 years, Silmara Congo, who lives on the fifth floor of the former Santos Dumont hotel with her four children, her husband and her mother, told IPS. They moved in on Mar. 25, when the Homeless (or literally "roofless") Movement of Central Sao Paulo (MSTC) occupied this seven-floor building with 33 rooms on each floor, which are now home to some 150 families.

The MSTC had already taken over the building three years ago, but the owner got them evicted.

Now he has taken a different stance, and has not even turned to the courts, probably because he is no longer interested in maintaining a derelict building that has accumulated a bulky debt in municipal taxes, according to Congo, one of the MSTC's local coordinators.

The squatters now hope to stay in the disused hotel, and have even begun adapting the rooms to their needs, adding to the piles of rubble that are "the main problem to be solved," said Congo.

Her own family knocked holes in two walls, where they hung doors, to create an apartment complete with a kitchen and bedrooms.

The families with six or more members, like Congo's, were assigned three rooms each. Single people or couples without children were given one, and the rest received two.

The movement is well organised, with cleaning shifts on each floor. At the beginning, the food was prepared collectively.

With a frequently unemployed husband and four kids ranking in age from six to 18, Congo's family has been living in squats or slums for the past 10 years.

The Sao Paulo city government was providing a rent allowance for poor families, paid directly to their landlords. That programme made it possible for Congo to rent an apartment for the past few years. However, the assistance came to an end just before she and the other squatters moved into the old hotel.

In central Sao Paulo neighbourhoods, there are 400,000 housing units that are not in use -- over half of the metropolitan area's housing deficit, as estimated by the Ministry of Cities.

Greater Sao Paulo is one of the world's biggest cities, with a population of around 19 million.

The proportion of unoccupied dwellings compared to the number of people without decent housing is one reflection of the social injustice and inequalities that afflict Brazil, where a large part of the population cannot afford to pay rent.

The situation is similar around the rest of the country. In Rio de Janeiro, 18 percent of apartments and houses are unoccupied, and in Brazil as a whole the total number amounts to nearly five million, while there is a shortage of around seven million units, according to Raquel Rolnik, secretary of urban programmes in the Ministry of Cities.

Brazil's large cities have a tendency to expand, with the poor living in shantytowns on the outskirts and some of the rich heading even farther outside the city limits, to private semi-rural luxury estates and gated communities.

Organised movements reclaiming buildings for people without decent housing, including the urban homeless and low-income workers, many of whom are active in the informal economy, have been growing since last decade, especially in Sao Paulo.

The Brazilian constitution, rewritten in 1988, explicitly recognises the right to decent housing, and states that property, whether urban or rural, must serve a "social function." Unoccupied buildings or unproductive land thus became more susceptible to expropriation by the government in the social interest.

The main form of struggle used for years by the MSTC and similar groups is unannounced mass occupations of disused buildings. The activists reject the term "invasion" used by the local press to describe these actions, arguing that they are reclaiming their rights and that they negotiate the acquisition of the buildings on reasonable terms.

"We have occupied over 30 buildings" since the MSTC emerged in 1997, because the tactic is "the only one that brings results," said Ivaneti de Araujo, the general coordinator of the group, which according to her has 3,500 active member families and twice that number of registered families.

Many of these families are living in slums, with relatives or friends, or in housing from which they could be evicted at any time because they have not kept up on the rent.

"Neti", as this high-spirited dark-skinned 34-year-old activist is known, initially stood out in the movement thanks to her experience from living on the streets.

During the first occupation in which she took part, of an abandoned hospital in late 1998, when the food ran out in the community kitchen she did not hesitate to take the lead in asking for donations in the streets and in shops and businesses, which the others could not do "because of embarrassment," she told IPS.

Araujo went to work cutting sugarcane and harvesting peanuts at the age of eight, in the sugarcane-growing district of Guariba, 330 km from the city of Sao Paulo. She did not attend school beyond fifth grade because she would "fall asleep in class" out of sheer exhaustion from the hard work, she said.

She later held low-paying jobs in a nearby town, before moving to Sao Paulo with her husband and three children, the first of whom was born when Araujo was just 15 years old.

But in the city, she and her husband fell on hard times when they both found themselves unemployed at one point, and the family ended up living on the streets for several months in 1998.

Her life changed when she joined the MSTC, where "I learned in assemblies and seminars that I had rights," and began to acquire the skills to eventually lead meetings and make public speeches.

She now lives in the old Santos Dumont hotel, where she and the others are waiting for the authorities to provide an official solution to the problem, by means of an agreement between the city government and the owner of the building. The squatters are also in need of a source of financing, in order to purchase the building at an affordable price.

The leaders of the homeless movement groups do not receive any pay for their work, among other reasons because their members cannot afford to pay, since they can't even afford to rent the cheapest shantytown dwellings.

"Women are bolder," Araujo told IPS, explaining the fact that most of the leaders of the group are women. "They feel a greater need for a home, to provide shelter to their dependents," while "men feel guilty for not being able to provide for their families, and crumple at the first difficulty. Many of them fall into alcoholism," she said.

Some fathers say "they want to die because they are not capable of stealing or killing to prevent their kids from going hungry," said the activist.

"The future will be one of continuous struggle and few victories, but it's worth it, because if you don't fight, you're dead," said Araujo with respect to the prospects for the movement, which has chalked up as many successes as failures in its numerous occupations of buildings that are not fulfilling "a social function."

Turning "the marginalised into proactive agents of their own history" and "building a strong social movement that attacks the causes of poverty," with the goal of "building a socialist, fraternal and egalitarian society" are the guiding principles of the MSTC, which has joined 11 other groups to form an umbrella organisation, the Frente de Luta por Moradia (Pro-Housing Front) in Greater Sao Paulo.

Another group, the National Union for Popular Housing (UNMP), which emerged in Sao Paulo 20 years ago, forms part of a network that is active in 18 of Brazil's 26 states, and has already secured housing for 50,000 families, nearly two-thirds of them in cities in the state of Sao Paulo, said the movement's local coordinator José de Abraao.

"We promote socialism, based on self-management," he told IPS, after explaining that the network groups around 50 organisations in the state of Sao Paulo alone. Besides staging occupations and coming up with local solutions, the UNMP presents proposals for government measures, legislation and alternative sources of financing for affordable housing.

For example, it is discussing with the government of leftwing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva a programme by which 1,100 unoccupied buildings that are in the hands of the National Social Security Institute would officially be made available to the homeless movement.

One of the buildings was occupied 15 years ago in Sao Paulo by the movement, which has only now obtained authorisation to convert the offices into apartments.

The UNMP has teams of architects and engineers who oversee construction carried out under the "mutirão" (collective mutual aid) system.

In addition, it negotiates discounts on large-scale purchases of quality products from suppliers.

Abraao underscored that the UNMP educates its members in self-management, to prevent further deterioration of the buildings they occupy. The network's projects address the entire range of basic needs of the squatters, like education, health care and security.

This is a "school of citizens" he said, after citing his own case "of personal transformation brought about by the knowledge and skills gained in the movement," which enables him today to speak with the authorities on an equal footing.

The community leader decided to join the movement 16 years ago when he became painfully aware of the "social injustice" that deprives so many people of decent housing.

He joined together with some of his neighbours, and with the support of the UNMP was able to acquire his own home, leaving behind "the humiliation" of owing months of rent. That was when he became an activist in the homeless movement in his spare time, after his long working day cutting fabric in a garment factory. (END/2007)

Privacy Concerns Raised Over U.S.-Funded Mexican Wiretapping

Calderon is seeking to expand monitoring of drug gangs; Washington also may have access to the data.

By Sam Enriquez, Times Staff Writer
May 25, 2007

MEXICO CITY — Mexico is expanding its ability to tap telephone calls and e-mail using money from the U.S. government, a move that underlines how the country's conservative government is increasingly willing to cooperate with the United States on law enforcement.

The expansion comes as President Felipe Calderon is pushing to amend the Mexican Constitution to allow officials to tap phones without a judge's approval in some cases. Calderon argues that the government needs the authority to combat drug gangs, which have killed hundreds of people this year.

Mexican authorities for years have been able to wiretap most telephone conversations and tap into e-mail, but the new $3-million Communications Intercept System being installed by Mexico's Federal Investigative Agency will expand their reach.

The system will allow authorities to track cellphone users as they travel, according to contract specifications. It includes extensive storage capacity and will allow authorities to identify callers by voice. The system, scheduled to begin operation this month, was paid for by the U.S. State Department and sold by Verint Systems Inc., a politically well-connected firm based in Melville, N.Y., that specializes in electronic surveillance.

Although information about the system is publicly available, the matter has drawn little attention so far in the United States or Mexico. The modernization program is described in U.S. government documents, including the contract specifications, reviewed by The Times.

They suggest that Washington could have access to information derived from the surveillance. Officials of both governments declined to comment on that possibility.

"It is a government of Mexico operation funded by the U.S.," said Susan Pittman, of the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Queries should be directed to the Mexican government, she said.

Calderon's office declined to comment.

But the contract specifications say the system is designed to allow both governments to "disseminate timely and accurate, actionable information to each country's respective federal, state, local, private and international partners."

Calderon has been lobbying for more authority to use electronic surveillance against drug violence, which has threatened his ability to govern. Despite federal troops posted in nine Mexican states, the violence continues as rival smugglers fight over shipping routes to the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as for control of Mexican port cities and inland marijuana and poppy growing regions.

Nonetheless, the prospect of U.S. involvement in surveillance could be extremely sensitive in Mexico, where the United States historically has been viewed by many as a bullying and intrusive neighbor. U.S. government agents working in Mexico maintain a low profile to spare their government hosts any political fallout.

It's unclear how broad a net the new surveillance system will cast: Mexicans speak regularly by phone, for example, with millions of relatives living in the U.S. Those conversations appear to be fair game for both governments.

Legal experts say that prosecutors with access to Mexican wiretaps could use the information in U.S. courts. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have held that 4th Amendment protections against illegal wiretaps do not apply outside the United States, particularly if the surveillance is conducted by another country, Georgetown University law professor David Cole said.

Mexico's telecommunications monopoly, Telmex, controlled by Carlos Slim Helu, the world's second-wealthiest individual, has not received official notice of the new system, which will intercept its electronic signals, a spokeswoman said this week.

"Telmex is a firm that always complies with laws and rules set by the Mexican government," she said.

Calderon recently asked Mexico's Congress to amend the country's constitution and allow federal prosecutors free rein to conduct searches and secretly record conversations among people suspected of what the government defines as serious crimes.

His proposal would eliminate the current legal requirement that prosecutors gain approval from a judge before installing any wiretap, the vetting process that will for now govern use of the new system's intercepts. Calderon says the legal changes are needed to turn the tide in the battle against the drug gangs.

"The purpose is to create swift investigative measures against organized crime," Calderon wrote senators when introducing his proposed constitutional amendments in March. "At times, turning to judicial authorities hinders or makes investigations impossible."

But others argued that the proposed changes would undermine constitutional protections and open the door to the type of domestic spying that has plagued many Latin American countries. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe last week ousted a dozen generals, including the head of intelligence, after police were found to be wiretapping public figures, including members of his government.

"Calderon's proposal is limited to 'urgent cases' and organized crime, but the problem is that when the judiciary has been put out of the loop, the attorney general can basically decide these however he wants to," said John Ackerman, a law professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. "Without the intervention of a judge, the door swings wide open to widespread abuse of basic civil liberties."

The proposal is being considered by a panel of the Mexican Senate. It is strongly opposed by members of the leftist Democratic Revolution Party. Members of Calderon's National Action Party have been lobbying senators from the former ruling party, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, for support.

Renato Sales, a former deputy prosecutor for Mexico City, said Calderon's desire to expand federal policing powers to combat organized crime was parallel to the Bush administration's use of a secret wiretapping program to fight terrorism.

"Suddenly anyone suspected of organized crime is presumed guilty and treated as someone without any constitutional rights," said Sales, now a law professor at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico. "And who will determine who is an organized crime suspect? The state will."

Federal lawmaker Cesar Octavio Camacho, president of the justice and human rights commission in the lower house of Congress, said he too worried about prosecutorial abuse.

"Although the proposal stems from the president's noble intention of efficiently fighting organized crime," he said, "the remedy seems worse than the problem."

Activists Defending Central American Migrants Complain of Harassment

by Diego Cevallos

MEXICO CITY, May 24
Activists with the Mexican non-governmental organisation Sin Fronteras complained that they are the targets of harassment and intimidation by the authorities in Mexico because of their work on behalf of Central American migrants who suffer abuses of all kinds in this country on their way to the United States.

"If they are harassing us as never before, you can imagine what is happening in the case of the migrants themselves," Karina Arias, spokeswoman for Sin Fronteras (Without Borders), which has been working and carrying out research on migration issues in Mexico for almost 11 years, told IPS.

Some 200,000 undocumented migrants, mainly from Central America but also from a few South American countries, are arrested and deported every year by Mexico as they attempt to make their way to the United States.

The migrants are highly vulnerable to ill-treatment from all sides. Many are harassed, sexually abused, extorted, robbed and otherwise mistreated by immigration agents and police, and assaulted, raped, held up, kidnapped and sometimes killed by gang-members and thieves.

In addition, many fall off the tops of freight trains -- like the infamous "train of death" -- that they try to ride from southern to central or northern Mexico.

The "train of death" heads north to Mexico City from the southeastern state of Chiapas, along the Guatemalan border. Once the train is moving, hundreds of migrants try to climb aboard. But many don't make it, and fall under the train or are caught in the wheels, losing a leg -- or their life -- in the attempt.

Around 73,000 Central American migrants make it through Mexico but are deported from the United States, and only about 70,000 actually reach their goal and stay in the U.S., either temporarily or permanently.

Sin Fronteras asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Wednesday to order precautionary measures (police protection), out of fear for the safety of its roughly 20 members.

"The harassment we have experienced since the start of the year is unprecedented," said Arias.

Sin Fronteras Director Fabienne Venet visited the National Migration Institute in Mexico City in March to discuss migration issues with the authorities, and discovered that while he was meeting with them, his identity documents were videotaped by staff at the public Institute for no apparent reason.

The activists also complained about the restrictions placed on Sin Fronteras lawyers since the beginning of the year when they try to visit detention centres where migrants are held, in order to provide them with legal advice and support.

"Their time inside is limited, they aren't allowed in with pens or paper, and if they carry a writ (a legal document ordering an individual's release), they are not even allowed to enter," said Arias.

Another incident interpreted as part of the pattern of harassment occurred on May 20, when a Sin Fronteras staff member travelling to southern Mexico to visit migrants in detention was held up in the Mexico City airport by migration agents, who attempted to intimidate her, she said.

"This is occurring against a backdrop of a stiffening of Mexico's migration policy and its growing link with security questions and a policy aimed at discrediting civil society organisations that work for the human rights of migrants," said Arias.

But the Mexican government of conservative President Felipe Calderón, who took office in December, claims it is making an effort to improve the treatment of migrants and to take action against police and immigration and customs agents who abuse them.

The government announced that training courses in human rights and even first aid would soon be given to immigration agents and officials.

Calderón acknowledges, however, that Mexico has failed to implement an adequate migration policy with respect to Central Americans and that they face serious human rights problems.

But Sin Fronteras says that recognition of the problems has not translated into real efforts at improvement. "So far we have not seen any changes," said Arias.

The activists accuse the authorities of double standards, because they vehemently protest the treatment received by undocumented immigrants in the United States while reacting much less vigorously to reports of abuses against Central American immigrants in Mexico.

Mexico shares a 1,150-km border with Guatemala and Belize, many parts of which are remote and poorly guarded. To make it through Mexico and reach the United States, undocumented immigrants from Central America reportedly pay 3,000 dollars or more to "coyotes" or people smugglers. Half of the money is paid up front, and the other half once the migrant arrives at destination in the U.S. But on top of that, they are often forced to pay bribes as they travel through Mexico.

In 2006, the National Human Rights Commission received 337 complaints of abuses against immigrants. The government body says that this is far less than the actual number of cases, because most migrants do not report the violations. (END/2007)

Mexican paper closes amid threats

The state of Sonora has seen fierce drug violence

One of Mexico's leading regional newspapers has said it is shutting temporarily amid continuing attacks and threats from suspected drugs gangs.

The offices of Cambio Sonora have come under grenade attack twice since April

The newspaper is based in Sonora state on the US border, which last week saw a battle between drug gangs and security forces that left 22 people dead.

Rising drug-related violence in Mexico has prompted President Felipe Calderon to send troops to several states.

Speaking on Thursday, Mr Calderon insisted he would not abandon his policy of sending the army in to tackle drug-traffickers despite growing criticism.

Mr Calderon, who has been in office nearly six months, has sent more than 20,000 troops throughout the country to battle the drugs cartels who have been fighting each other for control of territory and drug routes.

About 1,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence so far this year.

Danger

Last week, unidentified attackers threw a grenade at Cambio Sonora's offices in the state capital, Hermosillo, following a similar attack in April - both caused minor damage.

The head of the company that publishes the newspaper said these attacks were clearly designed to intimidate the staff and create an atmosphere of fear and terror.

"With profound sadness, we have to acknowledge that in Sonora the dangers and insecurity that confront...Cambio Sonora have surpassed the limits that common sense, patience and human sensitivity can tolerate," said Mario Vazquez Rana.

The newspaper had already halted most of its investigations into organised crime or drug trafficking because of the rising level of violence.

Media rights groups consider Mexico to be one of the most dangerous countries for reporters in the world.

Seven journalists have been killed since October and earlier this month, a TV reporter and cameraman disappeared in the northern city of Monterrey provoking fears they were abducted by a criminal gang.

We should back Chávez

It's not too late for Britain to stand against the Washington consensus on Latin America

Colin Burgon
Friday May 25, 2007
The Guardian

Neoconservative forces, via compliant media outlets and Christian right groupings within the European parliament, are preparing their latest attack on Hugo Chávez and the government of Venezuela. The latest focus of the campaign is the decision of Venezuela's broadcasting authorities not to renew the licence of the private television channel RCTV. The anti-Chávez apparatus once again presents a test for Foreign Office ministers.

Washington's outriders characterise the decision as an affront to freedom of speech, yet the facts speak in louder tones. Over 80% of Venezuelan television and radio outlets are privately owned; this excludes a number of cable and satellite television networks that are widely available. Of this 80%, significant sections are owned by corporate groups. According to a recent New York Times editorial, this has led to a situation in which "even the best news outlets tend to be openly ideological...so the owners' views can permeate reporting".

Almost all Venezuelan newspapers remain in private hands. The press is free to report, and express opinions, without government interference. Most do so with considerable brio on a daily basis. No media outlet has encountered licensing problems for the expression of political views. No journalist has been imprisoned or punished for report or comment.

In RCTV's case, the broadcaster failed to meet basic public-interest standards. The criterion for this assessment is similar to that used by the US Federal Communications Commission. RCTV will be free to broadcast via cable and satellite, which are available across the country.

In the UK, if Channel 4 aided an attempted coup against the government that resulted in civil unrest and even death, would anyone be supporting the renewal of its licence? RCTV has lost its licence because its wealthy owners slanted news coverage to provide support to the April 2002 coup against Chávez and the elected government. This will not be news to those who gathered in parliament last week to view John Pilger's excellent documentary The War on Democracy, which shows footage of RCTV involvement.

As the coup failed and Venezuelans questioned Chávez's "resignation", RCTV prohibited correspondents from airing these developments.

So what hope that our representatives in the EU might withstand rightwing pressure and argue against a discriminatory move against Venezuela at a meeting in Strasbourg next week? If the Foreign Office's public strategy document Latin America to 2020 is anything to go by, not very much.

Lord Triesman, the document's main author and a Foreign Office minister, outlines an adherence to free-market liberalism and singularly defined democracy as the prerequisites for UK engagement in Latin America. The document shows our government remains committed to the neoliberal model as a means of tackling the highest levels of social inequality in the world. However, anyone interested in nations such as Venezuela or Bolivia can see that the "Washington consensus" trade and aid packages have failed the most desperate people of those nations.

In the document, many Latin American leaders are named and congratulated, yet Chávez receives no such recognition. The Foreign Office appears to ignore the reasons for the popularity of Chávez, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador: the failure of neoliberal policies imposed by Washington and endorsed by the EU.

It is not too late for a Labour government to engage with those who wish to achieve justice for their peoples. Events in Strasbourg next week provide an opportunity for the UK government to show reason and goodwill.

· Colin Burgon is Labour MP for Elmet and chair of Labour Friends of Venezuela

burgonc@parliament.uk

Colombia's Congress seeks peace observer's removal for ignoring paramilitary orgies

BOGOTA, Colombia

Lawmakers have called for the dismissal of the head of the Organization of American States' peace mission in Colombia, accusing him of standing by as paramilitary warlords held orgies in a government-granted safe haven set aside for peace talks.

Congress' lower house voted overwhelmingly late Wednesday to request President Alvaro Uribe "immediately remove for incompetence" Sergio Caramagna, head of the OAS mission in Colombia.

The Washington-based OAS facilitated the 2004 talks by verifying security, providing logistical support and making sure paramilitary members abstained from criminal acts in the 230 square mile (600 sq. kilometers) safe haven in northern Colombia.

Jose Castro Caycedo, the pro-government legislator who sponsored the nonbinding resolution, told The Associated Press that paramilitaries made a mockery of the peace talks by "holding orgies on the negotiating table," excesses which he said Caramagna should have denounced.

The resolution referred to media reports that paramilitaries held all-night, whiskey-fueled orgies with costly prostitutes and which soccer players and famous Mexican mariachi bands also attended.

Revelations made by respected weekly newsmagazine Semana earlier this month also describe how the warlords — who are accused of being among Colombia's biggest drug-traffickers — spent their days motocross racing, caring for exotic pet tigers and tending to business with unidentified Mexican partners.

The revelations were based on transcripts of phone conversations between paramilitary bosses and several madams, some of which Semana published.

Caramagna, who is from Argentina, declined to discuss with The Associated Press the congressional censure or the paramilitaries' alleged activities in the safe haven surrounding the cattle-ranching town of Santa Fe de Ralito, a longtime stronghold of the militias.

Caycedo said the excesses revealed by Semana were an affront to the thousands of victims of paramilitary violence during its decade-long reign of terror.

Uribe is the only authority allowed to dismiss Caramagna, who was appointed by the OAS but serves with the approval of the government. Uribe has not yet responded to Congress' action and a spokesman for his office would not comment.

The resolution also calls on the Roman Catholic Church to investigate ecclesiastical representatives who also were sent to oversee the talks, which lasted from May 2004 to August of 2005.

The talks led to Colombia's justice and peace law, the much-criticized framework by which more than 30,000 paramilitary fighters have laid down their weapons in exchange for a US$200 (€150) monthly stipend and other assistance.

The 60 or so paramilitary bosses who negotiated the pact must confess their crimes or risk losing benefits including maximum jail terms of eight years and protection from extradition to the United States on drug-trafficking charges.

The paramilitary groups emerged two decades ago to counteract leftist rebels who have been fighting the Colombian government since the mid-1960s. But the militias have since become heavily involved in drug trafficking and stand accused of some of the worst atrocities in Colombia's long-running conflict.

Rethinking Cuba - Taking Off Those Miami Sunglasses May Help Clear Up the Picture

The recent politicized dismissal of the indictment against Luis Posada Carriles by federal judge Kathleen Cardone has brought the historically thorny relationship between the U.S. and Cuba once again to the forefront of the news. With both governments presenting wildly contradictory scenarios in a confrontation that defies easy resolution of this case against one of the most ill-reputed mass terrorists of the day, it is difficult to reach an informed and unbiased opinion on the matter. The same can be said for generating educated insights on almost all other aspects of U.S. relations with Cuba. At the behest of White House ideologues and their Miami colleagues, information about life in Cuba has long been filtered and strained for public consumption, resulting in a general perception of Cuba that is massively distorted and divorced from reality.

The Debate Which Never Occurred
Washington’s standard take on Cuba is that long-time ruler Fidel Castro has always been an oppressive dictator and the country a veritable prison. As recently as April 29, President Bush yet again propagated this science fiction at a commencement address in Miami, calling Cuba’s political system a “cruel dictatorship that denies all freedom in the name of a dark and discredited ideology.” Yet there are a growing number of scholars and analysts who approach the subject of the Castro-era in much more measured terms, insisting that careful research would turn up any number of divergent findings from the White House’s conclusions. Approaching what will be fifty years of bitter hostility between Cuba and the U.S., it seems a highly appropriate moment to re-examine what has to be seen as Washington’s failed Cuba strategy – one that hasn’t produced meaningful rewards on either side.

Recent Anti-Cuba Initiatives in the White House
In 2006, the Bush administration allocated US$80 million in public funds to the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (CAFC), a controversial body of faithful bureaucrats and Miami political militants set up by the White House in 2003 to “explore ways the U.S. can help hasten and ease a democratic transition in Cuba.” Those familiar with the work of the CAFC know that it would be hard-pressed to pass a review by the Government Accountability Office for being balanced in its perspective, pluralistic in its make-up or professional in its approach. In other words, it is doomed to be simply one more boon-doggle aimed at pouring taxpayer funds into exile institutions to satisfy the wishes of anti-Castro proponents. Its first report, which totalled almost 500 pages, would have left little room for Cubans to have a say in the make-up of their government in a post-Castro era and was seen as being offensively arrogant, even to Cubans wishing to see changes in their political system. The commission, which was reconvened in 2005 by Condoleezza Rice, was subsequently granted more funding to issue a second report.

According to official government websites, one of the pillars of CAFC’s mission is to help Cubans “meet their basic needs in the areas of health and education.” This new infusion of federal funds and proclamations about the betterment of Cuban society reinforces the negative and chronically inaccurate perceptions of daily life in Cuba that U.S. authorities have disseminated for years. If one takes the time to look further into the actual living conditions for ordinary Cubans, the CAFC, though seemingly ebullient in its would-be crusade, reveals an initiative and policy hopelessly out of touch with modern day Cuban realities.

CAFC Funds Might Be Better Spent in the U.S. than Cuba
A good place to start in upholding the above thesis is to look at Cuba’s education system, one of the areas of “basic need” targeted by the CAFC. The fact is that 100% of Cuban children attend well-funded and adequately equipped elementary schools, where the student-teacher ratios are among the most favorable in the world (well below the average of even some of the most developed nations). In addition, university and professional training are accessible to all. Although this island nation is smaller than the state of Virginia, it contains 57 centers of higher education, with the government guaranteeing the right to free education at all levels in any of these institutions, provided that admission standards are met. This commitment has resulted in an exceedingly highly educated population. At 98%, the adult literacy rate in Cuba is on a par with the world’s most developed nations and averages 15 percentage points higher than the literacy rates found in other Latin American countries. This does not mean that the system is perfect; Cubans face a grievous shortage of resources, sometimes including food for mandated meals served during school hours. What it does demonstrate, however, is that the CAFC is seemingly divorced from reality in identifying Cuban education as a sector desperate for American succour.

In fact, with annual tuition at U.S. colleges skyrocketing into the tens of thousands of dollars - meaning that routinely, higher education in the U.S. is increasingly limited mainly to those who can pay for it - there are undoubtedly some beneficial pointers to be taken from Cuba’s educational methodology and its prioritization of formal learning within a societal matrix. The Latin American School of Medicine (LASM) in Havana, for example, epitomizes Cuba’s egalitarian educational approach, demonstrating that a population might be better served when education is viewed as a basic right and not as a purchasable commodity. LASM is the largest medical school in the world, with its current enrollment approaching 12,000 students.

The school is world-renowned for its high calibre of teaching, along with its provision of such services as free tuition, accommodation, board and a modest stipend for students from Cuba and 29 other nations. As of 2007, there were 91 students from underprivileged communities throughout the U.S. who were studying there cost-free. These students, like many of the other foreign students at LASM, would have most likely been unable to pay for their education in their own countries. It is rather ironic that the Bush administration now funds a commission – CAFC – to allegedly help a post-Castro Cuba meet basic education needs, when it is readily apparent that Cubans on average already have far better access to quality education than many Americans are able to obtain or afford.

Where the Left has got it Right - Healthcare in Cuba
Another sector targeted by the CAFC is Cuba’s healthcare system. Contrary to what one would expect of a “cruel dictatorship,” the Cuban government has been committed to the provision of universal health services since it first came to power. Prior to the advent of the Castro administration, Cuba had 6,286 practicing physicians, which meant that only a small elite sector of society had access to physician care, while health services in the countryside were virtually non-existent. By 2002, the number of doctors had meteorically risen to 67,079, with the physician-civilian ratio improving from 1 doctor for every 1,076 citizens in 1958 (pre-Castro) to an extraordinary 1 for every 168 in 2002 in revolutionary Cuba. Cubans today have an average life expectancy that exceeds that of other Latin Americans by 8 years and its mortality rate for children under 5 is staggeringly low compared to other countries in the region (in 2005, Cuba’s child mortality rate was lower even than in the U.S.). While these are not the genera of statistics that normally make their way into the American media, Cuba is viewed throughout Latin America and other parts of the world as providing an exemplary model for the provision of universal healthcare to its people. In Washington, however, anti-Castro imperatives continues to cloud the picture with heavily politicized information, generating misguided and sterile initiatives as epitomized by the CAFC.

To put matters into perspective, the recent death of Deamonte Driver, the 12-year-old American who passed away in Maryland from a dental infection, has drawn attention to the considerable financial difficulties plaguing the American poor in its attempt to access healthcare services. The Institute of Medicine, a body that advises Congress on health issues, estimates that 18,000 Americans die every year because they lack basic health coverage. One cannot help but wonder if the US$80 million boon-doggle assigned to finance CAFC in “helping [Cubans] meet basic needs in the area of healthcare” would not be more constructively spent improving the availability of medical services within U.S. borders. On May 24th, Washington’s own Greater Southeast Hospital was described by the Washington Post as being in “critical condition” and in desperate need of US$16 million.

What Happened When Cuba was on the Brink of Collapse
What is particularly significant about Cuba’s healthcare and education systems is that the services and public institutions heretofore discussed have been maintained in the face of a severe economic crisis producing draconian conditions in all aspects of Cuban national life. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 meant that overnight, Cuba lost 85% of its trade and its national GDP was reduced by more than one-third. Spare parts disappeared and agricultural production, which depended largely on Soviet oil to fuel its machinery, came to a near halt as transportation was frozen. The country appeared to be deconstructing and on the brink of collapse. With Cuba no longer allied with a menacing superpower or posing any security threat whatsoever to the U.S., one might expect U.S.-Cuban relations to have even slightly normalized during this period. This would be entirely plausible, given that Havana was introducing a number of political and economic reforms, usually in the direction of liberalization and amelioration. Yet the U.S. government took a very different stance, viewing the end of the Cold War as the opportune moment to step up its economic sanctions against the island and go in for the kill.

Bully to the North Ties the Noose a Little Tighter
The Torricelli Act was passed in 1992 in an effort to mortally damage Cuba’s trade relations with third countries. According to its provisions, subsidiaries of U.S. companies were prohibited from trading with Cuba and foreign ships that docked at a Cuban port were banned from entering U.S. ports for a period of six months. When Castro’s regime did not crumble as hoped, the Clinton administration, under increasing pressure from the exile community, again tightened sanctions, this time passing the notorious Helms Burton Act in 1996. The bill, which was ruthless in its quest to sever third country ties with Cuba, was energetically opposed by the European Union for its violation of international law and its members’ business interests on the island. Prior to the Castro revolution in 1959, a major part of Cuban wealth rested in the hands of rich Americans who, among a number of other things, owned much of the island’s sugar and rum producing land. These properties were seized by Castro and redistributed among the campesinos to be used as farm parcels. The Helms Burton Act states that any foreign investor currently engaged in business ventures involving property that once belonged to an American citizen (fifty years ago or more) could now be sued in American courts.

Although completely isolated by a continued U.S. policy aimed at hermetically sealing Havana from both diplomatic and economic contacts abroad, the Cuban authorities managed at enormous effort to maintain existing funding levels for their health services, viewing healthcare as a primary right of all of its citizens. Social unrest and extreme hardships were contained during the 1990’s precisely because the government devoted what few resources it had to maintaining the provision of basic food, healthcare and social services to the population. In 2002, just as Cuba began to emerge from this “special period” of enormous challenge, 99.2% of all Cubans were still under the care of a family physician, with the infant mortality rate remaining among the lowest even in the developed world. Considering the severity of Cuba’s recent economic crisis following the fall of the Soviet Union, these statistics are quite impressive. They are incongruous, however, with what Washington describes as a heartless system under the unyielding heel of a cruel bureaucracy.

Cuba-U.S. relations are not a Foreign Policy but a Domestic Policy
If the Bush administration has undergone a late-inning conversion when it comes to issues of poverty and social injustice, perhaps it should consider the consequences that the U.S.-initiated trade embargo have had on the health and welfare of the Cuban population. With the inauguration of the Helms-Burton Act, Cuba effectively has been banned from buying sweeping categories of equipment, medicines and laboratory materials produced in the United States or covered by U.S. patents. With increasing U.S. dominance of the international pharmaceutical industry, Cuba is forced to turn to more remote world suppliers where high prices greatly restrict Havana’s purchasing power.

In cases where patent-holding results in monopolizing the availability of a specific drug by a U.S. company, even remote supply sources may not be an option and Cubans are denied access to drugs essential to their health on a life-or-death basis. A recent and notorious case was when Cuba was barred from purchasing an isotope required to treat eye cancer in children. In other words, Cuban children today are paying the price in a neocolonial live battle that dates back to the overthrow of former dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1958, whose policies at the time were much more welcomed because they suited American commercial interests. The baleful consequences of the unrelenting restrictions on Cuban civilians imposed by Washington hardliners are absolutely unfathomable. It is one thing to impose economic sanctions on a nation; it is another to prevent a civilian population from having access to essential medicines, especially when the intended policies don’t work. Cuba has never been less isolated either diplomatically or politically than it is today.

The UN General Assembly has repeatedly condemned the longstanding U.S. embargo because of its unquestionable negative ramifications affecting ordinary Cuban citizens. It issued a comprehensive report in 2005 that highlighted the numerous instances in which the health of innocent Cubans was being adversely affected by U.S.-imposed economic sanctions. In November of 2006, for the 15th year in a row, the UN General Assembly called for an end to the embargo. This time, 183 countries voted against the embargo, with only 3, besides the U.S., supporting its position.

While the embargo is supposedly a means of ending perceived oppression, in actuality, it has done little to change Cuba’s political system but has effectively and without question, denied Cubans access to life-saving drugs and technologies. Few, if any other embargos in history have restricted medical commerce so severely, while violating the UN charter and international law which calls for the free movement of medicine, even in wartime, to civilian populations. The Bush administration, in maintaining this repressive trade embargo, has demonstrated itself to be more concerned with the radical goals of extremist anti-Castro Miami exiles with the best of White House connections, than with the health and welfare of the general Cuban population.

Accepting that the Cold War is Over
While the U.S. government is now expending significant funds to identify measures that would help Cubans meet their education and healthcare basic needs in a post-Castro era, the fact is that Cubans presently have much better access to what are considered essential services than many Americans. While some Castro opponents will continue to adamantly refute the quality of Cuban healthcare and education, the validated rate of infant mortality and literacy levels should carry far more credibility than the unsubstantiated claims of rabid anti-Castro proponents. The allocation of US$80 million to a body charged with identifying measures for the improvement of health and education in Cuba suggests that the U.S. government is either hopelessly misinformed, or obdurately insists on clinging to its own obsolete Cold War propaganda. Either way, the good people of CAFC are clearly in no position to make rational decisions regarding the welfare of Cuban islanders.

Most Americans would be very surprised by these favorable Cuban statistics, given the harsh terms in which Castro is continually characterized and the intensifying economic sanctions that have been imposed on Cuba for decades by successive U.S. administrations – both Democratic and Republican. U.S.-Cuban relations have, at the behest of administration Cold War ideologues, long been consigned to inadmissibility and simplified for public consumption. The result is that many Americans have been left ill informed and unaware of essential pieces of the matrix regarding actual living conditions in Cuba and the state of the Cuban public’s acceptance of the regime. In an era where this information is so readily accessible, one no longer has to accept media-propagated stereotypes and unexamined charges that are little better than propaganda, without looking below the surface and challenging the origins of what may be totally erroneous information and doctored claims.

The UN-generated facts presented in this article reveal a Cuba that is markedly different from the one which virulent anti-Castro rhetoric routinely portrays it to be in the U.S. media. Demonizing the Castro regime and demanding its abolition is counterproductive to resolving Washington-Havana’s eternal conflict. In fact, there may be valuable lessons to be learned from a nation that has kept its people fed, educated and healthy through the most chilling of diplomatic circumstances. There is no doubt that there are fundamental aspects of the Cuban political system that need to be changed, but if the U.S. government wishes to maintain its credibility in discussing these matters, it has to acknowledge the parts of the Cuban system that are working. On the eve of what soon will be fifty years of a bitter standoff between two nations, it is time to accept that Washington’s Cuba strategy is not only outdated but dysfunctional as well. There may be systematic shortcomings of socialist Cuba, but demonstrably, a lunar view of the Earth would discern some blemishes in the capitalist system as well. Until both sides can admit this, resources will continue to be squandered on unproductive and utterly wasteful initiatives such as the CAFC, which lampoon creative policymaking rather than emulate it.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Laura Wayne

Costa Rica, Too, Has Left SOA/WHINSEC

From School of the Americas Watch May 17:

Costa Rica to Cease Training at the SOA/WHINSEC

Colombian Warlord Confirms Collusion with SOA/WHINSEC Graduates

1. Costa Rican President Oscar Arias announced Wednesday that Costa Rica will cease to send police to train at the U.S. Army Ft. Benning facility after citing its history of involvement in military coups and human rights abuses throughout Latin America.

Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, made the decision after talks with a delegation of the School of the Americas Watch, including the Rev. Roy Bourgeois and Lisa Sullivan Rodríguez. The human rights advocacy group has campaigned since 1990 for the closure of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the School for the Americas (SOA), located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Costa Rica has no army but has sent approximately 2,600 police officers over the years to be trained at the school. Minor Masis, leader of Costa Rica’s former “Comando Cobra” anti-drug squad attended the School in 1991 and returned to Costa Rica, only to serve a 42-year jail term for rape and murder committed during a 1992 drug raid. Costa Rica currently has three policemen at the center. “When the courses end for the three policemen we are not going to send any more,” Arias said.

Costa Rica is the fourth country to announce a withdrawal from the SOA/WHINSEC. In 2006, the governments of Argentina and Uruguay announced that they would cease all training at the school, becoming the second and third countries to announce a cessation of training. In January of 2004, Hugo Chávez announced that Venezuela would no longer send troops to train at the school.

Costa Rica’s withdrawal from WHINSEC is a great victory for human rights in Latin America. With this major breakthrough, Costa Rica adds its name to the list of countries who are rejecting the destructive approach of institutions such as the SOA/WHINSEC. Combat training and military spending as a means to “solve” social problems do not bring peace and democracy.

Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, made the decision after talks with a delegation of the School of the Americas Watch, including the Rev. Roy Bourgeois and Lisa Sullivan Rodríguez. The human rights advocacy group has campaigned since 1990 for the closure of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the School for the Americas (SOA), located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Costa Rica has no army but has sent approximately 2,600 police officers over the years to be trained at the school. Minor Masis, leader of Costa Rica’s former “Comando Cobra” anti-drug squad attended the School in 1991 and returned to Costa Rica, only to serve a 42-year jail term for rape and murder committed during a 1992 drug raid. Costa Rica currently has three policemen at the center.

“When the courses end for the three policemen we are not going to send any more,” Arias said.

Costa Rica is the fourth country to announce a withdrawal from the SOA/WHINSEC. In 2006, the governments of Argentina and Uruguay announced that they would cease all training at the school, becoming the second and third countries to announce a cessation of training. In January of 2004, Hugo Chavez announced that Venezuela would no longer send troops to train at the school.

Costa Rica’s withdrawal from WHINSEC is a great victory for human rights in Latin America. With this major breakthrough, Costa Rica adds its name to the list of countries who are rejecting the destructive approach of institutions such as the SOA/WHINSEC. Combat training and military spending as a means to “solve” social problems do not bring peace and democracy.

2. Salvatore Mancuso, the former Commander of the right wing United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, testified Tuesday that the paramilitaries, branded “foreign terrorist organizations” by the U.S. State Department in 2001, were aided by high ranking Colombian military officers in training and logistics.

Mancuso, testifying in a closed hearing in the city of Medellín, said the Colombian state supported the paramilitaries since their creation in the 1980’s and that “paramilitaries are a state policy”.

Amongst the military and government officials signaled by Mancuso as collaborators are General Rito Alejo del Río, General Martín Carreño Sandoval, General Harold Bedoya Pizarro, General Fernando Landazabal, Colonel Alfonso Manosalva Flores, and the current Minister of Defense, Juan Manuel Santos. The six men received training or served as instructors at the U.S. Army School of the Americas and have been accused by Mancuso of inciting and promoting paramilitary intervention in certain regions of Colombia.

The strategy of using civilian paramilitary groups and death squads to avoid government oversight and accountability has been a common tactic of SOA / WHINSEC graduates throughout Latin America. Salvadoran SOA / WHINSEC graduate and ARENA party founder Roberto D’Aubussoin established the Death Squads that were responsible for much of the violence in El Salvador in the 1980’s. General Manuel B. Lucas García, who attended the school in 1965 and 1970, masterminded the creation of the Civil Defense Patrols in Guatemala. Mexico’s José Rubén Rivas Peña, who took the SOA/WHINSEC’s elite Command and Staff Course, called for the “training and support for self-defense forces or other paramilitary organizations in Chiapas” as a response to the Zapatista uprising in 1994.

The Colombian military is the largest recipient of US military funding and training in Latin America and holds over 60% of the seats available to attend courses at WHINSEC.

Axé.

Evo Morales: Indigenous Power

by Jubenal Quispe

New President, New Power

	1976, Orinoca. 17 year old Morales (in blue) poses with his mother (third from right), father (standing, second from left), brother, and others from his family. Courtesy of MAS.

Juan Evo Morales Ayma was born on October 26th, 1959, in the rural community of Orinoca, in the province of Sud Carangas, Oruro, in the midst of uncertainty and misery. He was born under the polleras (traditional skirts) of his mother by the light of a kerosene lamp. Of the seven children born to his mother, only three survived. This is the reality in extremely impoverished areas with few health services: death is a constant companion.

Evo recalls: “When I was four or five years old, my father, who was a sugar cane worker, took me with him to harvest cane in Argentina. There was no work to be found, so we walked for four or five days. There was nothing to eat except toasted macaroni with tea. That’s when I got my first job selling popsicles and earned a little money to help my family.”

“I first became acquainted with school in the middle of the Galilea sugar cane fields, in Jujuy (Argentina), but because I spoke only Aymara (an indigenous Andean language) and barely understood Spanish, I sat and watched, but was finally forced to quit school.”

This is how life was for Evo Morales, today the president of Bolivia, and this helps explain his sensitivity to the poor and excluded of his country. Indigenous children, like Evo and his brothers and sisters, continue to be born in poverty and continue to die before their time. Some years later, back in his home community, Evo began to herd llamas and accompanied his father on trips from the high plains, the Altiplano, to the valleys to barter agricultural products.

“We walked for days behind the llamas. I always remember the huge buses that roared down the highways, full of people who threw orange and banana peels out the windows. I gathered up those peels to eat them.”

Evo began to explore and cultivate his leadership abilities. Those who knew him then remember him as a restless youth, playing soccer and organizing tournaments among the various rural villages. To pay for his high school studies, he worked as a bricklayer, a baker, and a trumpet player.

In a soccer game with fellow coca farmers in the Chapare Province, 1983. Courtesy of MAS.

	In jail in Cochabamba, 1985. Courtesy of MAS.

Then in the 1980s, Evo Morales was forced to abandon the bone-chilling high-altitude existence of the Altiplano due to an acute drought. He moved down to the Chapare, a tropical region of Cochabamba Department, where he worked in the sweltering coca fields. Here is where he began his life as a union leader and a political leader.

He began as secretary of sports of the syndicate of San Francisco, a union of coca growers, and then in 1996 was elected head of the six coca grower federations of the Chapare. One year later, he was elected to the National Congress, and from that post he proclaimed to the world, “Coca is not cocaine!” He defended this sacred leaf until its meaning was restored as a symbol of the dignity and sovereignty of the people of Bolivia.

From that point, he was branded by the U.S. government.

Evo recalls: “I went through a difficult time in 1997 in Eterazama (a community in the Chapare), when a helicopter of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency strafed us, and five persons were killed in minutes. Then in the headquarters of the Human Rights office in Villa Tunari in 2000, there was a failed attempt to shoot me, but the bullet only grazed me.”

In 2002, under pressure from the U.S. Embassy, the National Congress expelled Evo for having defended the right of the people to resist “militarily,” in the name of democracy, a bloody massacre of civilians by the government. (Years later, this expulsion was found by the Constitutional Tribunal to have been unconstitutional). As he left the chambers of Congress, he pronounced, “I’m being thrown out, but I shall return!”

Galvanizing Social Movements
Evo’s speeches on national dignity and sovereignty, in the face of the continuous exploitation of Bolivia’s natural resources, brought together the social, indigenous, rural, and worker movements of Bolivia.

These were further fortified with support from professional sectors as well as leftist intellectuals and businesspeople who were dissatisfied with the failure of the neoliberal economic system. Thus many sectors were united, shirts and ties and ponchos, polleras and pants, Indians and mestizos, leftists and Christians, united in a single goal—to build a sovereign, multicultural Bolivia with dignity, so that all could live well together.

In the general elections of 2002, the MAS party (“Movement Towards Socialism”) won a surprising second place, with Evo as their presidential candidate. Then in 2005, Juan Evo Morales Ayma was elected president of Bolivia by a vote of 53.7 percent, with 84.5 percent of the electorate voting.

This was, and continues to be, the hardest blow dealt to the traditional political organizations, the kleptocrats of the country. They find it difficult to accept that an Indian (for them, the scum of the country) has conquered them politically, even when they had the open support of the U.S. government.

This blow hurts all the more as the victories continue to add up, not only in the political arena, but morally and intellectually as well. The opposition, allied with the mass media, and thus with a kind of monopoly on official discourse and official culture, cannot reverse the popularity of Morales, because he governs by obeying the will of the social movements.

On an economic level, the government of Evo Morales is teaching a lesson to all of his predecessors. In 2006, Bolivia’s economy ended the year with a record surplus. With the nationalization of the gas and oil industries, Bolivia now receives hundreds of millions in additional revenue that Morales is putting to work to help the poor.

With the cooperation of Venezuela and Cuba, he commenced an all-out attack on illiteracy and health deficits, motivated by his own personal experience of the darkness of illiteracy and ill health. Those who have lost their eyesight due to cataracts are receiving vision-restoring surgeries. The homeless are beginning to receive houses. Families with young children in school receive direct assistance from the government.

With his austere lifestyle, Morales has by force of example made public administration into a form of service, and led the initiative to lower the salaries of government functionaries by 50 percent.

Indigenous Power

La Paz, 2005. March to show indigenous solidarity. Photo by Indymedia Bolivia.

Now that he has been elected president, life has changed for the indigenous people of Bolivia. Our renewed awareness and pride in our indigenous and intercultural identity is irreversible. This is invaluable psychological capital for the sustainable development of Bolivia, together with the work ethic and discipline he imparts by example.

Now our Evo has moved beyond just a national symbol, to being an example throughout the region and around the world. The unfounded accusations that he was a communist, terrorist, or a narco-terrorist have been left behind. The empire of the North could not face down an Aymara Indian who came into the world under the skirts of his mother, to show the world that another Bolivia, another world, is possible.

In this short, 14-month process of historic change there have been political errors. And there are still many dreams to be realized, among them, rewriting the Bolivian Constitution, applying the agrarian reform laws that have already passed, continuing the struggle against poverty, illiteracy and corruption, and reversing the exploitation of Bolivia’s natural resources through the application of a sustainable national mining policy, and much more. All this so that all of us can live well.

---

Jubenal Quispe is a lawyer, theologian, and writer in Spanish and Quechua (an indigenous language). He is a university lecturer and researcher at the Maryknoll Center in Cochabamba, Bolivia. Translated by Julia Dunsmore.

Quotes attributed to Evo Morales come from Pablo Stefanoni and Hervé Do Alto’s book La revolución de Evo Morales: de la Coca al Palacio, La Paz: CI Capital Intelectual (2006/08)

Venezuela: Democracy or Dictatorship?

by Michael Fox

Free elections; elections; transparency. How would you rate Venezuela?

	Photo by Matt Pascarella.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said, “I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and I believe that there are significant human rights issues.” She did not, however, say what she meant by “democracy.” We’ve selected essential characteristics of democracy and supplied key facts about them from the Chávez era. Is Secretary Rice correct? You be the judge.

Participation
75% of registered voters participated in the December 2006 election. More than 15,000 Communal Councils formed in 2006 that give neighborhoods power to make local decisions. Massive community participation in government social missions.

Free and Fair Elections
Eleven internationally observed national elections in last eight years. Government promotes voter registration. Independent National Electoral Council oversees elections. Standardized voting machines nationwide produce paper trail. Opposition claims of fraud exhaustively investigated. Constitution provides for recall of any elected official.

Freedom of Press
Hundreds of new independent community media outlets. 2005 reform increased state control of airwaves. Media highly polarized. Private media strongly critical of Chávez, supported coup in 2002 and oil lockout in 2002-2003. Public media strongly supportive. Non-renewal of RCTV license widely criticized; decision is constitutional.

Varied Political Parties
77 parties participated in December 2006 election. Chávez wants to consolidate support in one “United Socialist Party,” says parties that don’t join “can leave.”

Freedom of Assembly, Expression, Speech
No extralegal retaliation by Chávez after 2002 coup. Political repression much decreased. Freedom to demonstrate highly respected. PROVEA, Venezuelan NGO, reports 4.5% of 1300 demonstrations in 2006 were “repressed, blocked, or obstructed,” a 70% decrease from 1997–98.

Private Property
Constitutional requirement of payment for nationalization honored. Opposition fears of unpaid expropriation not borne out. 2001 Land Law calls for unused state land and large, unproductive latifundio holdings to be redistributed to campesinos. Government promises to compensate at market rate for land.

Equality
Constitution covers gender, rights for the poor, campesinos, and indigenous, but omits race. Tremendous improvements for poor. Society still machista, individualist, and discriminatory. Treatment of non-Chávez supporters questionable: some government institutions do not employ people who supported 2004 Recall Referendum.

Checks and Balances
Five independent, autonomous branches of government. Grant of temporary “rule by decree” power criticized by opposition and U.S., but is constitutional; used by at least three other presidents. Chávez criticized for reform of Supreme Court; critics claim court stacking.

Transparency
Chávez fairly transparent, but many government officials are not. Little progress curing government and police corruption inherited from past. One of highest crime rates in the world; no improvement under Chávez. Prison conditions still abusive.

Constitution
1999 Constitution written with massive popular participation; passed with 72% support in referendum. Protects human rights and democracy; promotes social justice. Chávez has explicitly followed the Constitution. Constitutional Reform can start in National Assembly or at request of 15% of registered voters.

Economic Human Rights
Poverty and unemployment down, minimum wage and social spending up. Venezuela declared itself free of illiteracy in October 2005. Free universal education, including university. Free universal health care and drug rehabilitation. More than 180,000 cooperatives registered since 1998.

Community and Workplace Democracy
Chávez requires communities to organize to receive government aid. Co-ops, community councils, and co-managed factories promoted with state incentives. Government encourages endogenous development based on democracy and collective production.

Source: Latinobarometro 1995-2006. YES! Magazine Graphic 2007

Democracy Rising

by Nadia Martinez

Grassroots movements change the face of power.

	Inauguration Day in Chile represented people taking back power, especially women. A Chilean woman watches the ceremony wearing a replica of the presidential sash. Photo by Patricio Valenzuela Hohmann. www.patriciovalenzuela.cl

As the people of Latin America build democracies from the bottom up, the symbols of power are changing. What used to be emblems of poverty and oppression—indigenous clothing and speech, the labels “campesino” and “landless worker”—are increasingly the symbols of new power. As people-powered movements drive the region toward social justice and equality, these symbols speak, not of elite authority limited to a few, but of power broadly shared.

The symbolism was especially rich last year in Cochabamba, Bolivia, when the new minister of justice made her entrance at an international activists’ summit. Casimira Rodríguez, a former domestic worker, wore the thick, black braids and pollera, a long, multilayered skirt, of an Aymara indigenous woman. As she made her way through the throng, Rodríguez further distinguished herself from a typical law-enforcement chief by passing out handfuls of coca leaves.

Throughout the region, marginalized people are rising up, challenging the system that has kept them poor, and pursuing a new course. In country after country, people are selecting leaders who strongly reject the Washington-led “neoliberal” policies of restricted government spending on social programs, privatization of public services such as education and water, and opening up borders to foreign corporations.

Of course, there are exceptions, most notably Mexico, where conservative Felipe Calderón claimed power after a bruising battle over disputed election results. But the growing backlash has driven old-guard presidents out of power in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Venezuela, and Bolivia. And, while there are sharp differences among the new leaders, there is no question that what put all of them in power was a growing outcry against economic injustice. Over 40 percent of the region still lives in poverty, and the gap between rich and poor is the widest in the world.

No longer willing to accept perpetual poverty, Latin America’s poor are redefining their societies and, in the process, redefining democracy. They are organizing large segments of society into strong, dynamic social movements with enough power to drive national politics. The challenge, of course, is to hold their new leaders accountable, to maintain the strength of the grassroots democratic power, and to go beyond symbolism to make real change.

Bolivia’s Indigenous President
In Bolivia, where indigenous people are the majority, there are already some concrete signs of progress. Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous president, took office in 2006 with the strongest mandate of any Bolivian leader. Catapulted onto the national political stage by his struggles as a union leader defending the rights of coca growers, Morales came to power on the heels of massive popular uprisings that ousted three presidents in as many years.

Despite sitting on the region’s second largest natural gas reserves, Bolivia is South America’s poorest country. In tandem with a wave of privatizations that swept Latin America in the 1990s, the oil and gas industry in Bolivia was opened for business to foreign oil companies, which garnered 82 percent of the profits, while leaving a scant 18 percent for Bolivia’s coffers. Shortly after taking office, the Morales government set out to rewrite contracts with private companies. Negotiators increased the country’s share of the profits to 50-80 percent by renegotiating contracts with 10 different companies, which will yield billions in additional revenue for the government to sustain its new social agenda.

Spurred by his experience as a coca grower, Morales has introduced new policies that challenge the U.S. approach to the “drug war.” Coca, the base ingredient of cocaine, has special ancestral significance for Bolivia’s indigenous people and in its raw form is widely used to treat maladies such as stomach upset, altitude sickness, and stress, in addition to being a part of many Bolivians’ daily routine. Under pressure from the U.S. government, previous Bolivian administrations tried coca eradication. Kathryn Ledebur of the Andean Information Network in Bolivia, says that “local farmers who planted coca as a means of subsistence would often face violent confrontations with the military and security forces who were mandated to destroy their crops, which in essence devastated their only means of livelihood.”

The Morales government has developed a farmer-friendly program that allows small farmers to grow small amounts of coca for domestic consumption, while also implementing a zero-cocaine policy that includes interdiction and anti-money laundering efforts to prevent drug trafficking.

In Brazil, a Metalworker is President
The political shift in Brazil is also steeped in powerful symbolism. When Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, a metalworker with an elementary education, rode a wave of popular support to the presidency in 2002, it inspired working-class people around the world. He was re-elected with a comfortable 60 percent of the vote in October 2006. Although his first term was tainted by corruption scandals and accusations from many on Brazil’s left that he acquiesced too much to the demands by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for strict fiscal policies, he fulfilled some of his campaign pledges to the poor who form his political base.

According to the Center for Economic Policy Research, some 11 million families have benefited from the “bolsa família”—a monthly cash payment made to poor families in exchange for ensuring that their children stay in school. Signaling more pro-poor policies to come, one of the first acts of Lula’s second term was announcing an 8.6 percent rise in the minimum wage.

Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution
President Hugo Chávez is best known in the United States for his overblown rhetoric against President Bush. But in Latin America, the Venezuelan president is fond of conjuring up the symbolism of Simón Bolívar, the “liberator” of South America from Spanish rule, who dreamed of uniting the region in a strong bloc. And while it has garnered little attention here, Chávez has used oil windfalls to advance Bolívar’s dream. Venezuela has purchased big chunks of Argentina and Ecuador’s debts to the IMF, for example, and sold discounted oil to several of its neighbors and even to poor communities in the United States. And Venezuela has signed trade pacts with several countries that include novel bartering arrangements, such as agricultural products in exchange for doctors and other technical personnel. Chávez has devised a regional trade plan to counter the Bush-favored Free Trade Area of the Americas. The Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America (ALBA, for its Spanish acronym) aims to benefit the poor and the environment, and to advance trade among countries within the region.

In January, Venezuela and Argentina took another step towards breaking the region’s dependence on such neoliberal institutions as the World Bank, IMF, and Inter-American Development Bank, which have conditioned lending on “free market” policy reforms and harsh austerity measures. They pledged more than $1 billion to jump-start a new “Bank of the South.” Bolivia and Ecuador have since signed on.

Within Venezuela, Chávez has made impressive progress in boosting literacy levels and providing health and other services to the poor. He has teamed up with Cuba in cosponsoring a program called Operation Miracle to provide free eye surgery to poor residents from Venezuela, Panama, Jamaica, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and a growing list of other countries. The Venezuelan government is also investing heavily in creating a model of local economic development through cooperatives.

On the other hand, Chávez’s fossil-fuel-based development plans—including a proposed gas pipeline from Venezuela to Argentina—are hardly visionary. As currently planned, the 5,000-mile pipeline will traverse areas of extreme ecological and cultural sensitivity. Several possible routes are being evaluated, but all run through the Amazon. Environmental and indigenous rights groups throughout Latin America have voiced opposition to the behemoth project, and have asked the Venezuelan government to halt all plans until they can be publicly debated.

Social Movements Redefine Democracy
Some of the most hopeful democratic advances in Latin America are not the result of official policies, but of social movements harnessing their own power. The thousands of poor peasants who make up the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil have claimed the right to settle on and farm close to 7 million hectares, or 43,000 square miles, of unused land—a territory a little larger than the state of Ohio. For millions of people who are largely outside of the mainstream economic system, access to land is of paramount importance, as they depend on it for subsistence.

Miguel Carter, of the Oxford-based Centre for Brazilian Studies, explains that groups like the MST contribute to the democratic process in important ways. “By improving the material conditions and cultural resources of its members” he says, “the landless movement has fortified the social foundations for democracy in Brazil.”

Indigenous movements, too, have gained ground. In the Amazonian region of Ecuador, after witnessing multinational oil companies for decades cut through the jungles of their ancestral lands in search of petroleum, indigenous women put their bodies on the line against the armed soldiers sent to escort oil workers. Known for fierce resistance to oil exploitation on their lands, the remote community of Sarayacu has so far succeeded in keeping the oil companies out.

Throughout Latin America, scores of indigenous peoples have demonstrated that marginalized populations can organize and mobilize effectively enough to topple governments—as they have done in Ecuador and Bolivia—despite their lack of material resources and political power.

A new characteristic of Latin American politics is greater collaboration among countries with the goal of breaking dependence on the North. In the past, countries were largely in competition for U.S. markets and development aid. Now they increasingly focus on complementing the strengths and weaknesses of one another, and seeking common solutions to their shared problems.

One example is the newly formed South American Community of Nations (CSN, in Spanish), an attempt by the 12 countries of South America to create an “area that is integrated politically, socially, economically, environmentally, and in infrastructure.” Because the initiative is new, it is unclear whether it will simply become a trading bloc that improves the region’s competitive position in international markets, as is the case with the Southern Common Market (Mercosur). Alternatively, it could establish minimum social and environmental standards and the infrastructure not only to link to international markets but also to trade within Latin America.

Similarly, in a radical departure from a traditional market-based approach, the Morales government has developed a “People’s Trade Agreement,” an innovative economic alternative based on principles of fair trade, labor, and environmental protections, and active state intervention in the economy to promote development.

Although still in an embryonic stage, “it is unique,” says Jason Tockman of the Bolivia Solidarity Network. “It has both a strong resonance with the alternative visions for social, economic and political integration proposed by the region’s social movements, and the weight of state authority.”

The response to President Bush’s visit to five Latin American countries in March is yet another sign that Latin Americans are choosing their own path, independent of the United States and its political and economic interests. Along Bush’s route, thousands of people in the streets carrying colorful signs and “Bush Out” banners sent a clear message: people’s movements are alive and well in Latin America, and they aren’t falling for the White House’s attempt to repackage the same unpopular U.S. policies under the guise of poverty alleviation.

At the same time, Chávez was able to gather and rouse into a fervor an estimated 40,000 people at an anti-Bush rally in Argentina, where he announced that Bush was a “political cadaver”—alluding to the president’s increased irrelevance in Latin America.

After two centuries of the United States treating Latin America as if it were its backyard, organized popular movements across Latin America are changing the dynamics of the hemisphere. By electing more popular governments in eight countries and by organizing tens of millions of people, they have put up strong resistance to the U.S. agenda of corporate-led globalization, and they have created real alternatives on the ground. These efforts, combined with the Venezuela-led effort for alternative regional integration, not only provide the strongest counter-weight to the U.S. agenda anywhere in the world, but also offer multiple paths towards a better future for millions of people in the Americas.

---

Nadia Martinez was born and raised in Panama. She co-directs the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies (www.ips-dc.org) in Washington, D.C. Her focus is on Latin America, where she works with environmental, development, human rights, and indigenous organizations.

Venezuela to Lower Phone Rates 20% Following Nationalization

With the swearing in of the new board of directors for Venezuela’s main telecommunications company CANTV, which was recently nationalized, President Hugo Chavez declared that phone rates would be lowered by as much as 20%, among a number of other changes.

“We have nationalized [CANTV] after so many years [after privatization], but it will not become what it was prior to privatization, when it was a company of a capitalist state. Now we have to make a leap from a private capitalist company to a socialist state-owned company, which is not seeking profit, even when with a good management there will not be economic losses,” declared Chavez during yesterday’s ceremony, which was broadcast on all TV channels.

“More important than economic gain is the social gain – social service for the integral development of all inhabitants of Venezuela,” added Chavez.

The lowering of the phone rates will affect the company’s cell phone network, whose rates will be lowered in two phases, by 10% as of June 15 and another 10% as of August 15. Also, phone rates from land lines to cell phones will be lowered by 20% and rates between CANTV’s cell phones and the cell phone networks of other company’s will be lowered by 30%.

Chavez explained that this means that the current rates of $0.16 per minute for calls from land lines to cell phones would thus be lowered to $0.13 per minute. Local and long distance phone rates of land lines will also be lowered by 10% and 15% respectively.

According to Andreas Faust, an analyst with Banco Mercantil in Caracas, “In a way, the government, instead of paying a dividend to shareholders, will pay a dividend to customers,'' Faust said, according to Bloomberg. “It's a very populist move and will likely slow inflation a bit.”

As of January 2008 the newly nationalized company will expand its service into currently underserved and low-income areas with lower “solidarity” pricing for these areas. Currently Venezuela’s land line network reaches only 45% of the country’s households, whereby there is a large class divide, so that 80% of upper and middle class households (so-called sectors A,B, and C) have phone service and only 20% of working class and poor households (sectors D and E).

“Rest assured that since this government is socialist, we will include the maximum number of families possible [in the phone network],” said Chavez. Households with land line phone service are thus to be increased by 50%, from currently 2.7 million households to 4 million in the next year and a half. In the next few years 93% of Venezuelans would have access to land line phone service.

“CANTV will be present in all population centers with more than 500 inhabitants,” said Chavez. This expansion will be related to the rail system that Venezuela is constructing throughout the country, he added.

Cell phone service, though, will also continue to expand, so that in the next 18 months another two million cell phone customers will be added, for a total of 10.5 million by the end of 2008.

Chavez explained that under privatization CANTV focused mainly on expanding its cell phone system, at the expense of its land lines, which Chavez blamed on capitalist profit-seeking, at the expense of any social considerations. “The path of capitalism is the destruction of society, of division, of violence and beyond, the path of the destruction of the human species,” he stated.

Also included in the new business plan for CANTV is the supply of internet connections to all Venezuelan schools, so that by the end of 2007 5,200 Bolivarian schools will have internet access with a minimum of three computers each. By the end of 2008 all school will have access.

Finally, Chavez announced that as of early 2008 coin operated public telephones will be reintroduced in all of Venezuela. Over the past ten years CANTV had completely eliminated coin operated public phones, in favor of pre-paid card phones. The new coin phones will come with the monetary conversion that is planned for January 2008, whereby three zeros will be eliminated from Venezuela’s currency.

The three main new directors of CANTV are women, with Socorro Hernandez as president, Jacqueline Faria, the former Minister of the Environment, heading up the cell phone division Movilnet, and Annie Monage heading up the phone directory system Caveguias.

Communal Telecommunications Committees

Chavez also explained that in order to achieve the expansion plans he outlined, CANTV will need the help of the communal councils, which should form technical telecommunications committees. “Only with community participation will we achieve that these companies will be truly socialist,” said Chavez.

Tens of thousands of communal councils, which represent neighborhoods of 200 to 400 families, have been created in the past year and a half throughout Venezuela. Each communal council has a variety of committees that work on improving the neighborhood’s public services, such as water supply, health care, and community education programs. These work in conjunction with various state institutions, such as the water company, the community health mission Barrio Adentro, or the educational missions, such as Missions Ribas and Robinson.

In connection with this Chavez also mentioned that the new law on a national police, which will be passed soon, will not only create a national police force, but communal police as well, which would work in conjunction with the communal councils.

Venezuelan Authorities Warn of Destabilization Plans

by: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Former Vice-President José Vicente Rangel warned of destabilization plans during his television talkshow, "José Vicente Today" Credit: Televen

Mérida, May 23, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— In recent days, Venezuelan government officials have increasingly warned of plans to destabilize the country in the lead up to the May 27th protests in support of the private TV station RCTV. Authorities have warned of a U.S.-organized plan to infiltrate the country with Colombian paramilitaries, among other rumored plots. But President Chavez assured yesterday that the government would not allow them to achieve their goals.

Speaking in Caracas yesterday, Chavez made reference to rumors of destabilization plans that have circulated in recent days. Talk of plots against the government by opposition groups has increased as the date of the May 27th opposition protest approaches.

"There are groups that keep thinking that with riots, with Colombian paramilitaries, with rumors and media campaigns against the National Armed Forces that they will destabilize the country, but they won't do it, we won't allow it," assured Chavez during his speech yesterday.

Among the rumored plots is one revealed by Ex-vice president Jose Vicente Rangel last Sunday. Talking on his television show Jose Vicente Today, the ex-official reported that a joint U.S.-Colombian operation has been detected to infiltrate Colombian paramilitaries, including some expert snipers, into Venezuela. According to Rangel, the plot has the intention of assassinating government leaders and leaders of the opposition to create general instability in the country in what he called "a new phase in the dirty war against Venezuela."

Rangel also spoke of a second plan to infiltrate into Venezuela a Colombian drug lord to later be captured by Colombian authorities in order to accuse the Venezuelan government of providing him protection and to create "an international scandal." A similar plan to this one was carried out two years ago when a high official of the Colombian guerrilla group FARC was captured in Venezuela with the intention of accusing the Chavez government of providing aid to the FARC. In the ensuing crisis, Chavez temporarily broke off relations with the neighboring country.

Those behind the plans are Colombian drug-traffickers along with the "warlike elements of the North American government, headed by John Negroponte, the second-highest in the U.S. State Department, who recently visited Colombia," explained Rangel. Also involved in the plots is Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos who recently provoked a crisis between the two countries when he made declarations in Spain criticizing Venezuelan counter drug trafficking.

The Colombian government has denied the claims, assuring that the Colombian government is a friend of Venezuela and desires good relations with the neighboring country. Minister Foreign Affairs Fernando Araujo, speaking to the press on Monday, defended Santos, explaining that he "is totally respectful of Venezuelan institutions and the internal affairs of Venezuela."

Nevertheless, Venezuelan state intelligence has been on the lookout in order to diffuse any plans before they take place. On Monday, intelligence groups found various firearms and weapons that they say are connected to a destabilization plan motivated by the RCTV case.

Venezuelan Minister of the Interior Pedro Carreño announced at a press conference on Monday the arrest of two individuals in the possession of various weapons. Among the weapons were several sub-machine guns, three shotguns, and parts to a 762 caliber machine gun.

In addition, Carreño said that in a raid in the Caracas sector of Altamira another individual was detained under charges of "plotting against the security and defense of the nation."

Authorities found four rifles, three shotguns, six pistols, two revolvers, a rifle scope, four bombs, bullet-proof vests, among other related items. In the house of the subject authorities also found more rifles and shotguns, a crossbow, and a laptop computer with information of other weapons.

Carreño assured that the intelligence agencies are on alert and are prepared to diffuse "any situation that could hurt the political stability of the country, the security of the citizens, the stability of the institutions and, therefore, the internal peace of the Republic."

Fueling the Debate: Biofuels, Biodiversity, and Our Energy Future

From Colombia's experience with Palm Oil Biodiesel to Brazil's proposed role in supplying the world with ethanol, Americas Program analysts shed light on the biofuels debate and the effects of a U.S.-Brazil ethanol alliance.

Reflections of President Fidel Castro: Nobody wants to take the bull by the horns

ON March 28, less than two months ago, when Bush proclaimed his diabolical idea of producing fuel from food, after a meeting with the most important U.S. automobile manufacturers, I wrote my first reflection.

The head of the empire was bragging that the United States was now the first world producer of ethanol, using corn as raw material. Hundreds of factories were being built or enlarged in the United States just for that purpose.

During those days, the industrialized and rich nations were already toying with the same idea of using all kinds of cereals and oil seeds, including sunflower and soy which are excellent sources of proteins and oils. That’s why I chose to title that reflection: “More than 3 billion people in the world are being condemned to a premature death from hunger and thirst.”

The dangers for the environment and for the human species were a topic that I had been meditating on for years. What I never imagined was the imminence of the danger. We as yet were not aware of the new scientific information about the celerity of climatic changes and their immediate consequences.

On April 3, after Bush’s visit to Brazil, I wrote my reflections about “The internationalization of genocide.”

At the same time, I warned that the deadly and sophisticated weapons that were being produced in the United States and in other countries could annihilate the life of the human species in a matter of days.

To give humanity a respite and an opportunity to science and to the dubious good sense of the decision-makers, it is not necessary to take food away from two-thirds of the inhabitants of the planet.

We have supplied information about the savings that could be made simply by replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent ones, using approximate calculations. They are numbers followed by 11 and 12 zeros. The first corresponds to hundreds of billions of dollars saved in fuel each year, and the second to trillions of dollars in necessary investments to produce that electricity by merely changing light bulbs, meaning less than 10 percent of the total expenses and a considerable saving of time.

With complete clarity, we have expressed that CO2 emissions, besides other pollutant gases, have been leading us quickly towards a rapid and inexorable climatic change.

It was not easy to deal with these topics because of their dramatic and almost fatal content.

The fourth reflection was titled: “It is imperative to immediately have an energy revolution.” Proof of the waste of energy in the United States and of the inequality of its distribution in the world is that in the year 2005, there were less than 15 automobiles for each thousand people in China; there were 514 in Europe and 940 in the United States.

The last of these countries, one of the richest territories in hydrocarbons, today suffers from a large deficit of oil and gas. According to Bush, these fuels must be extracted from foods, which are needed for the more and more hungry bellies of the poor of this Earth.

On May Day 2006, I ended my speech to the people with the following words:

“If the efforts being made by Cuba today were imitated by all the other countries in the world, the following would happen:

“1st: The proved and potential hydrocarbon reserves would last twice as long.

“2nd: The pollution unleashed on the environment by these hydrocarbons would be halved.

“3rd: The world economy would have a break, since the enormous volume of transportation means and electrical appliances should be recycled.

“4th: A fifteen-year moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants could be declared.”

Changing light bulbs was the first thing we did in Cuba, and we have cooperated with various Caribbean nations to do the same. In Venezuela, the government has replaced 53 million incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent in more than 95% of the homes receiving electrical power. All the other measures to save energy are being resolutely carried out.

Everything I am saying has been proven.

Why is it that we just hear rumors without the leadership of industrialized countries openly committing to an energy revolution, which implies changes in concepts and hopes about growth and consumerism that have contaminated quite a few poor nations?

Could it be that there is some other way of confronting the extremely serious dangers threatening us all?

Nobody wants to take the bull by the horns.

Fidel Castro Ruz

May 22, 2007

5:10 pm

Horizontalidad: Where Everyone Leads

by Marina Sitrin

Argentina's workers took over factories, citizens took over the streets--no one seemed to miss having a boss.

	After the Argentine economy collapsed in 2001, the workers of the closed Zanon ceramic tile factory in the province of Neuquén, Patagonia, organized themselves and restarted the factory. What was once a business of 262 workers, today has more than 400. And no bosses. From the start, the factory has nurtured its relationship with the surrounding community. In 2005, FaSinPat voted to build a community health clinic. The community had been demanding such a clinic from the provincial government for two decades; FaSinPat built it in three months. (CC) Oriana Eliçabe www.orianaelicabe.tk

The autonomous social movements in Argentina are part of a global phenomenon. From Latin America to South Africa to Eastern Europe and even in the United States and Canada, people are creating the future in the present. These new movements are built on direct democracy and consensus, and they make space for all to be leaders.

Within Argentina, they are also a “movement of movements.” They are working class people taking over factories and running them collectively. They are the urban middle class, or those who have recently lost that status, working to meet their needs in solidarity with those around them. They are the unemployed, like so many unemployed around the globe, facing the prospect of never finding regular work, yet collectively finding ways to survive and become self-sufficient, using mutual aid and love. They are autonomous indigenous communities struggling to liberate stolen land.

Horizontalidad is the word that has come to embody these new social arrangements and principles of organization in Argentina. Horizontalidad implies democratic communication on a level plane and involves—or at least strives towards—non-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian creation rather than reaction. It is a break with vertical ways of organizing and relating.

The social movements in Argentina describe themselves as autonomous to distinguish themselves from the state and other hierarchical institutions. Autonomy also describes a politics of self-organization called autogestion, and direct, democratic participation.

Simply put, they reject the very idea of anyone having power over someone else. Instead, they work toward the goal of creating “power with” one another. They organize themselves in every aspect of their lives, both independently and in solidarity with others. It is a process of continuous creation, constant growth and the development of new relations, with ideas flowing from these changing practices.

Unemployed Workers Movement
Argentina has a long, rich history of rebellion, resistance, and self-organization. The recent movements developed in two cumulative waves that spread the new organizational concepts broadly in Argentina. The first, a movement of unemployed workers that emerged in the 1990s, adopted consensus decision-making early, but had little support from the Argentine middle class. The collapse of the Argentine economy in 2001 sparked a second wave of popular rebellion, during which the Argentine middle class, rapidly losing its status, linked up with unemployed and underemployed workers. Horizontalidad thus took hold across class lines.

The emerging rejection of old political ways gained public notice in the 1990s, when unemployed workers’ movements and other popular movements began organizing against local governments and corporations. Generally led by unemployed women workers, they took to the streets by the thousands, blocking major transportation arteries to demand unemployment subsidies from the government. In a decisive break with the past, this organizing was not led or brokered by elected leaders, or by any leaders at all. Instead, those in the streets decided day-by-day and moment-to-moment what to do next.

During the road blockades, people used direct forms of decision-making, and began creating new social relationships. Both the people and the movement are referred to informally as piqueteros, a name taken from “piquete,” the tactic of blockading roads. Distinct from previous forms of organizing, where there was always a person speaking for the group (most often without consent), in these early piquetes, people decided they would negotiate at the blockade itself. There are some cases of government officials being helicoptered onto the road to negotiate directly with the assembly at the blockade.

(CC) Oriana Eliçabe www.orianaelicabe.tk

Rebellions and Assemblies
The definitive moment for the second wave of change occurred in the popular rebellion of the 19th and 20th of December of 2001, often referred to as the “nineteenth and twentieth.” Millions spontaneously took to the streets across Argentina and, without leaders or hierarchies, forced the government to resign, and then, through continuous mobilizations, proceeded to expel four more governments in less than two weeks. The precipitating incident was the government’s freezing of people’s bank accounts.

These protesters were not demanding something new, but were creating it. These days, many refer to this moment as a rupture with the past, a break from the deeply instilled fear and silence that was a legacy of the most brutal dictatorship in Argentine history, one that “disappeared” 30,000 people, often torturing them in the most horrific ways.

The popular rebellion of 2001 was comprised of workers and unemployed, the middle class, and those who had recently lost their middle-class status. It was a rebellion without leadership, either by established parties or by a newly emerged elite, a fact which formed part of the foundation of horizontalidad and other new organizing forms. It precipitated the birth of hundreds of neighborhood assemblies involving many tens of thousands of active participants.

People in neighborhood assemblies first met to try to discover new ways to support one another and meet their basic needs. Many explain the organization of the first assemblies as an encounter, as finding one another. People were in the streets, they began talking to one another, they saw the need to gather, and they did so, street corner by street corner, park by park. In many cases someone would write on a wall or street, “neighbors, let’s meet Tuesday at 9 p.m.” and an assembly was begun.

New Groups Replace Assemblies
The years after the rebellion have witnessed a significant decrease in neighborhood assemblies. Many early members predicted an eventual decline in participation and even felt it would not be a significant loss. Something, they explained, had changed in them as people, in how they related to one another. These changes could not be undone, even if the structures of organization changed.

The remaining assemblies work on a variety of projects, helping facilitate barter networks, creating popular kitchens, planting organic gardens, and sometimes taking over buildings—including the highly symbolic takeover of abandoned banks, which they turn into community centers. These occupied spaces house many things, including kitchens, small print shops, and day care areas. They may offer after-school help for kids or free internet access and computer usage—one even has a small movie theater.

A number of new groups have emerged, including political prisoner support groups, anti-repression organizations, collectives of street artisans, and high-school student groups. All of these began with the basic consensus that they would organize based on horizontalidad and autonomy. Like earlier groups, these new formations absolutely reject political parties and hierarchical organization. The experience of the neighborhood assemblies continues as a living part of an overall continuity.

Relationships Among Movements
Just as the popular rebellion sparked the growth of neighborhood assemblies, it also inspired the unemployed workers movements. A network grew among those in various autonomous movements, a network that crossed class lines and class identification.

Before the 2001 rebellion, the middle class considered the piqueteros’ use of road blockades an annoyance, at best. There was a general consensus that the unemployed were to blame for their own economic and social condition, and that drastic methods were justified in suppressing them. After the rebellion, joint actions with middle class groups were organized, including bridge and road blockades. The same middle class people who had hated the piqueteros for disrupting daily life were now supporting blockades as a necessary action for re-establishing economic viability. At the same time, many piqueteros, who in the past had seen the middle class as partly responsible for the dire economic situation, were now organizing side by side with them.

	The Zanon ceramic factory was renamed FaSinPat - Factory Without Bosses. (CC) Oriana Eliçabe. www.orianaelicabe.tk

Recuperated Workplaces
The dozen or so occupied factories that existed at the start of the 2001 rebellion grew in only two years to include hundreds of workplaces, taken over and run by workers, without bosses or hierarchy. Almost every workplace sees itself as an integral part of the community, and the community sees the workplace in the same way. As the workers of Zanon, a ceramic factory say, “Zanon is of the people.”

Workplaces range from printing presses and metal shops to medical clinics, from cookie, shoe, and balloon factories to a four-star hotel and a daily newspaper. Participants in the recuperated workplaces say that what they are doing is not very complicated, despite the challenges, quoting the slogan: “Occupy, Resist, and Produce.” Autogestion is how most in the recuperated movements describe what they are creating and how.

This movement continues to grow and gather support throughout Argentina, despite threats of eviction. So far, each threat has been met with mobilization by neighbors and various collectives and assemblies to thwart the government’s efforts. In the example of Chilavert, a printing press, the retirement home across the street came out and not only defended the factory from the police, but insisted on being the front line of defense. The recuperations are hugely popular, and many outside the movements explain them quite simply, saying that there is a lack of work and these people want to work.

Over time, recuperated workplaces have begun to link with one another, creating barter relationships for their products, and collective links to the global workplace. For example, a medical clinic will service members of a printing factory in exchange for the free printing of their material. This has happened on a global level, as well.

New Movements Internationally
While movements of such rapid growth, diversity, and popularity are not unprecedented, the most significant innovation in Argentina may be that disparate groups are creating global networks of exchange and communication. Argentine movements have made significant connections to the MST (Landless Workers’ Movement) in Brazil, with each sharing experiences and strategies for land take-overs, forms of traditional medicine, and tools for democratic practice.

The Zapatistas have also consistently engaged in exchanges. Since the 2001 rebellion, a number of people from unemployed workers movements have been invited by the Zapatistas to spend time in the autonomous communities in Chiapas, exchanging ideas and experiences. Despite limited resources, dialogue between various movements has been long and varied.

During the past three years in Buenos Aires, autonomous movements have held an annual gathering called Enero Autonomo (Autonomous January). Groups came from all over Latin America, including Mujeres Creando from Bolivia, and autonomous groups from Brazil. Participants also included various collectives and community-based organizations from Europe and the United States. This linking process has gained momentum over the past few years, and all signs indicate that this growth is accelerating.

Horizontalidad and direct democracy are important models for building a new society, one basis for which is the creation of loving and trusting spaces. From this space of trust and love, using the tools of horizontalidad, a new person—who is a protagonist in her or his own life—begins to take shape. This is not random, it is a conscious process of social creation. Women, in particular, have created new roles for themselves. Based on this new individual protagonist, a new collective protagonism appears, which changes the sense of the individual, and then the sense of the collective. From this relationship arises the need for new ways of speaking, a new language.

Ideas and relationships cannot occur in a vacuum. They take place in real places, in “territories” that are liberated from hierarchical structures, and involve real people. These territories are laboratories of social creation. The new movements in Argentina are examples of these laboratories.

---

Marina Sitrin is a writer, teacher, student, dreamer, and self-described militant, who has participated in numerous anti-capitalist and visionary movements and groups. She is working on a new book, Insurgent Democracies: Latin America’s New Powers (Citylights Press, 2007).

This article is based on the Introduction to Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina (AK Press, 2006), a collection of first-person narratives of the people who lived through, and created, the events recounted here. Horizontalism was published first in Spanish by Chilavert, a recuperated print house in Argentina.

Immigration Bill Withers on the Vine

by Eli Clifton

The immigration bill introduced in Congress last week is the first attempt at a wide-ranging compromise designed to give legal status to 12 million undocumented workers in the United States, but stiff opposition from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers has left an uphill battle for proponents of the legislation.

The bill, at its core, is a compromise between those who seek a more lenient immigration policy and amnesty for undocumented workers living in the United States, and lawmakers who want to see stricter enforcement of existing legislation.

These diverging interests would, presumably, be reconciled in a combination of tradeoffs which include a path to legal status for current undocumented workers, a new so-called "guest worker" programme, and expansive new enforcement provisions.

On Wednesday, the Senate voted to cut the number of temporary guest workers in half, from the proposed 400,000 a year -- as sought by the White House -- to 200,000. A final vote on the bill is expected in June.

The bill, a "grand bargain" between Republican and Democratic senators, has been touted by key negotiators Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Jon Kyl, a Republican from Arizona, as a compromise which they will band together to protect from amendments on the floor of the Senate.

"The bill isn't exactly the way I would have written it, but it is a strong compromise and the best chance we will have to finally fix this broken system," said Kennedy in a statement. "The price of inaction is too high."

Opposition to the bill has been intense on both the right and the left, with both sides claiming that the bill fails to take into account their concerns about immigration and gives away too much to the other side.

Opposition from the right has focused on the perceived "amnesty" being granted by the bill as a form of reward for people who have entered and/or stayed in the country illegally.

"I voted for amnesty more than 20 years ago. I believed at the time that by giving illegal aliens blanket citizenship, we would solve the problem. I was wrong. We've now got at least 12 million people illegal aliens thumbing their nose at our laws," said Republican Senator Chuck Grassley in a statement. "We found out that by rewarding illegality, we only get more illegality."

"Under the bill, all permanent resident applicants must apply from the back of the line, from their home country, pay higher fines than in last year's bill, pass a criminal background check and show a nearly perfect work history, English proficiency and familiarity with American civics," wrote Kyl in an op-ed on Sunday in the Arizona Republic. "Those with the best records would have the highest priority for a green card, but none could earn citizenship in less than 13 years."

On the left, strong opposition was voiced by both Democratic lawmakers and immigrants and civil liberties groups.

"This bill is completely unwieldy, unworkable and unrealistic," said the director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Caroline Fredrickson, in a press conference with journalists on Tuesday. "The way the (guest worker system in the bill) is structured, it will be very difficult for people to claim their rights."

Others have claimed the bill will create an underclass of temporary guest workers, who will be denied the ability to claim their rights and benefits and live at the mercy of the companies who bring them into the country.

"If you're going to bring in foreign workers, you need to