July 31, 2007

Ecuador first lady asks Belgian officials not to deport mother and daughter to Ecuador

BRUSSELS, Belgium: The wife of Ecuador's President Rafael Correa appealed to Belgian authorities Monday not to deport an 11-year-old girl and her mother back to Ecuador, away from family and friends.

The two_ Ana Cajamarca and her daughter Angelica — were under orders to be deported on Monday because police said they had been living illegally in Belgium for four years.

However, a Brussels court imposed an interim injunction against their immediate deportation after a fresh appeal was made by lawyers for the two.

Geert De Vulder, an interior ministry spokesman, told Belgian media that authorities would respect the injunction and would release the two from custody, pending an appeal.

The two were already on their way to Amsterdam with a police escort to catch a flight to Quito, Ecuador, when the court order was issued.

They were immediately returned to Belgium, De Vulder said.

Their case was taken up by human rights groups and Ecuador's First Lady, Anne Malherbe, a Belgian, who called for an amnesty and for the two to remain in Belgium, where Angelica's estranged father still lives.

The two were taken into custody a month ago and have been detained at an asylum center where they awaited a flight back to Ecuador.

"It is really shocking to see an 11-year-old girl locked up," Malherbe told VRT Television. "I am ashamed to call myself Belgian."

Malherbe visited the two detainees Sunday. "Mother and daughter are traumatized," she said. "This is a terrible case."

Supporters of the mother and daughter claim the two are established in Belgium and say the girl has been going to school for four years, despite never having claimed residency or asylum.

The two, along with the girl's father, came to Belgium in 2003 seeking a better life.

The father split with Cajamarca and is now in a relationship with a Belgian national.

The mother is engaged to a Belgian national and intends to marry soon, after finalizing her divorce with Angelica's father, her lawyer, Valentin Henkinbrant, told Belgian daily De Standaard.

Last week, another court threw out an appeal to stop the deportation. Supporters of the mother and daughter appealed to government ministers and King Albert II to stop the deportation.

Venezuela Onwards! Stuart Munckton reports

10 Mb. 11mins.

Stuart Munckton of Greenleft Weekly talks about the after effects of the denial of licence renewal of CNRT; and some of the astounding spinoff of Venezuela's socialisation program.

Mp3





Venezuela: The struggle for workers’ power

VENEZUELA:
The Venezuelan revolution, led by socialist President Hugo Chavez, has captured the imagination of millions of people around the world with its increasingly successful challenge to US imperialism and US-backed neoliberal policies that have caused widespread impoverishment across Latin America. Since Chavez’s re-election in December on an explicitly socialist platform, there has been a struggle to significantly “deepen” the revolutionary process towards creating a “socialism of the 21st century”. »

Other stories:

Uncomfortable Coincidences

Latest Evidence that Ties Colombia’s President to the Paramilitaries

Colombia’s compliant editorialists refer to the revelations as ‘incómodas coincidencias’ (uncomfortable coincidences). President Álvaro Uribe claims the accusations are ‘insinuaciones malévolas’ (malevolent insinuations) and has, as usual, attacked the messenger, criticising American newspapers, Colombian opposition politicians and even México in an attempt to divert attention from the latest evidence that ties him to the paramilitaries.

The first is a video that shows Álvaro Uribe at a private meeting on 31st October 2001 to organise support for his 2002 presidential campaign. According to the Colombian political magazine Semana, five of the 13 people present were associated with the paramilitaries in the far right AUC militia, and one of them, Frenio Sánchez Carreño, was a notorious narco boss whose militia name was Comandante Esteban.

Comandante Esteban had been complicit in at least 80 assassinations and also the forced displacement of more than 3000 peasant workers, according to Colombia’s DAS intelligence service, whose agents were actively searching for him at this time. He had threatened local journalists as far back as December 2000, and just twelve days before meeting with Álvaro Uribe, he had signed an AUC communiqué that declared union and worker organisers to be ‘military targets.’

The meeting pledged to support Uribe’s presidential campaign, and also other rightist candidates in the 2002 Senate and Congress elections, in the hope that legislation promoted by these politicians would ‘legitimise’ the paramilitaries. These militias succeeded in electing their candidates in 2002 — AUC national boss Salvatore Mancuso has since admitted that intimidation and bought votes, or threats and assassinations, allowed many rightist candidates to be ‘elected’ unopposed — and soon received a payback from the politicians in the form of virtual impunity for their crimes.

The DAS arrested Álvaro Uribe’s supporter, Comandante Esteban, just six weeks after the 31st October meeting, and charged him with aggravated homicide and attempted homicide, among other crimes. For ‘reasons that are still not clear’, according to Semana, and after Uribe became president, he was freed from jail in 2005. Now, as Frenio Sánchez Carreño, the authorities have offered a $5,000 reward for his arrest, accusing him of leading supposedly ‘demobilised’ paramilitaries reprised as criminal gangs.

An interview in México revealed more details about the president’s ties to the paramilitaries. Fabio Ochoa Vasco is a narcotics cartel boss who is one of the United States’ most wanted criminals — he has a $5 million price on his head — and he claimed to Colombian journalists that the paramilitaries’ boss of bosses, Salvatore Mancuso, had financed Álvaro Uribe’s presidential campaign in 2002.

It is suspected that Mancuso, in jail and expecting a lenient sentence while avoiding extradition to the US, has not revealed all about the paramilitaries’ ties to Colombia’s political elite for this reason. Ochoa, lacking Mancuso’s political protection to avoid his fate, has decided to detail his part in the parapolítica scandal in an attempt to be worth more to Colombian investigators and avoid an American jail.

Ochoa claimed that he took thousands of dollars in cash — paramilitaries’ narcotics profits — in suitcases to the capital, Bogotá, to finance rightist candidates in the 2002 elections. He claimed that the paramilitaries and Mancuso contributed $2 million to the president’s campaign, and that he also organised campaigns to intimidate voters in Medellín to ensure Álvaro Uribe was elected.

Mancuso said ‘that the paramilitaries should finance the (presidential) campaign because one of the promises is that there will be a law that should anyone be accused or suspected of being in the paramilitaries, they will be saved,’ Ochoa related, ‘so we made sure that all the votes had to be for Uribe.’ In Medellín’s barrios, people confirmed that the paramilitaries patrolled the streets that election day, demanding to see residents’ identification cards, and warning opposition supporters ‘not to show at the polls if you’re not going to vote for Uribe,’ as one barrio activist recalled.

The third revelation came in another video, this time posted on the opposition Polo Democrático Alternativo internet site that showed another paramilitary boss, Ernesto Báez, acclaiming Uribista politicians in the 2002 elections as ‘his candidates.’ The Colombia Democrática and Convergencia Popular Cívica parties that the paramilitaries supported succeeded in electing Senators and representatives to Congress in 2002, who subsequently went on to approve laws that gave the paramilitaries their virtual impunity.

The Colombia Democrática party was established by Álvaro Uribe’s first cousin, Mario Uribe, and one of the Congress reps that paramilitary boss ‘Ernesto Báez’ supported was the CD’s Rocío Arias. After the connections between the far right militias and the president’s Congressional supporters became known, Arias revealingly said, ‘No-one can blame us if the paras, for ideological reasons, supported us.’

The president responded to all the revelations with characteristic disdain, at first refusing to ‘make comments or give explanations about each photograph or video recorded’ during his political career. As the accusations mounted, he even resorted to criticising the Méxican police for not arresting Fabio Ochoa Vasco, rather than counter the narco boss’s allegations.

In the end the president was forced to make a US President Richard Nixon ‘I am not a crook’ style live television broadcast to all Colombia, claiming ‘I have never abused my position… I never sought to be president using illicit money, and I have never used illicit money to remain as the Republic’s president.’

Editorials and newspaper columnists, rather than investigate further, predictably echoed the president’s line, claiming the most recent revelations were ‘a disgrace’, not because of the details, but because they were published at all. ‘Against Colombia,’ declared the country’s single national newspaper, El Tiempo, commenting on the allegations, and taking up the elite’s favourite tactic of deliberately equating the president with the country in order to curtail debate, continued, ‘the campaign against Colombia is implacable, devastating and unjust.’

‘Implacable, devastating and unjust’ are adjectives that could more appropriately be applied to the terror the narco paramilitaries have inflicted on Colombia in recent times, but ‘a disgrace’ is too complaisant a term to describe a president supported, financed and bought by such terrorists.

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.

This article was posted on Saturday, July 28th, 2007 at 5:00 am

July 30, 2007

Brainstorming in the Lacandon: Zapatista Intergalatica Lands on Earth

By JOHN ROSS

Ejido Morelia, Chiapas

In the annals of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), the 1996 "Intergalactica "was a high water mark of international solidarity. Formally dubbed a "Forum In Defense of Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism", the conclave drew 6,000 activists from five continents to the wilds of Chiapas's Lacandon jungle to brainstorm on the growing menace of the corporate globalization of the Planet Earth (the World Trade Organization had just been formulated the previous year). The event is often considered to have been the seedbed for historic demonstrations against the WTO in Seattle 1999 from which the anti-globalization movement blossomed.

The gathering in a jungle clearing on a Zapatista ejido with the haunting name of La Realidad ("The Reality") 11 years ago was nicknamed the "Intergalactica" because in his convocation the rebels' spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos invited all sentient life forms from other planets in the galaxy to participate in the event. "We don't know if they actually came to the first Intergalactica" Zapatista Lieutenant Colonel Moises mused recently, "at least they never identified themselves."

After more than a decade of anti-globalization struggles and World Social Forums, the Intergalactica has literally returned to earth. The scaled-down version of the event pitched as an "Encounter of the Peoples of the World with the Peoples of the Zapatista Communities" to defend indigenous territories throughout the Americas staged July 20-28 at three rebel "caracoles" or public political/cultural centers in Mexico's southernmost state of Chiapas, zeroed in on the land and those who work and live upon it.

Whereas Intergalactica I attracted such literary luminaries as Eduardo Galeano and European intellectuals Yvon Lebot, Danielle Mitterand, and Alain Touraine (Nobelist Jose Saraamgo and Susan Sontag would soon follow), the 2007 edition brought together representatives of poor farmers from 13 mostly-southern countries to swap experiences with Zapatista base communities in the highlands, the canyons, and the jungle of Chiapas, and develop mechanisms for mutual self-defense against the ravages of neo-liberalism.

The privatization of communal lands, the destruction of native crops, and the forced migration of millions of poor farmers constitutes a declaration of "the fourth world war again humanity", Marcos charged in welcoming 3000 activists and Zapatista bases to the caracol "Resistance and Rebellion Before The World" at Oventik in Los Altos of Chiapas.

Much as at last New Year when the EZLN celebrated its 13th year on public display, the interchanges at Oventik, on the Ejido Morelia (the Caracol "Whirlwind of Our Word") and La Realidad ("The Mother of the Sea of Our Dreams") featured presentations by civil Zapatismo (as opposed to the rebels' political-military structure) as local health and education promoters laid out the nuts and bolts of building autonomous communities. Other lay Zapatista leaders delineated the rebels' justice system and how land is distributed and cultivated in the autonomous zones.

In response, farmers invited under the aegius of Via Campesina, an international grouping of millions of poor farmers with affiliates in over 70 nations, spoke to the struggle for land and justice in their own countries. Among the participants: Yudhmir Singh of India's Bartya Kissan Union who described Ghandian civil disobedience by poor farmers to resist neo-liberal agrarian policies foisted on those who work the land, and representatives of the Thai Assembly of the Poor who farm the jungle along the Cambodian border.

First world farmers were represented by George Naylor, outgoing director of the U.S. Family Farm Association, who told the Zapatistas of the resistance of small corn farmers in Iowa to the dissemination of genetically modified seed. Dong Uk Min of the Korean farmers union, invoked the memory of the campesino Lee Kwang Hai who committed suicide at the 2003 World Trade Organization assembly in Cancun.

From further south, Soraya Soriana, a leader of Brazil's militant Movimento Sem Terras (MST) and speakers from Venezuela's Wayuu nation cautioned encounter-goers against the "neo-imperialist" policies of such left-wing leaders as Lula and Hugo Chavez. The Zapatistas share a similar distrust of Latin America's social democratic left.

The colloquy between farmers in defense of indigenous lands unfolded against an appropriate backdrop of spiring "milpas" (cornfields) and the deep green of surrounding hills at the height of Mexico's bountiful rainy season - uniformed militia men and women in their green and black uniforms seemed almost to organically blend into the abundant vegetation.

The encampments in the caracoles thrummed with conviviality. Nightly cultural presentations brought the campers together under the stars. Nuns chatted with ski-masked rebels and rangy Nordic punksters danced in the mud with pint-sized Mayan companeras while horses grazed placidly in nearby pastures. In contrast to the 1996 Intergalactica when Mexican immigration authorities sought to prevent foreign activists from attending the encounter under threat of deportation, access to the Zapatista zone was unrestricted.

In a world where five live shooting wars dominate front pages with daily doses of death and destruction, and in a country where an infuriated underclass's demands for justice are met by brutal government repression, the Zapatista caracoles for once seem to be pockets of peace.

It wasn't always that way.

During the first days of the rebellion in January 1994, the Mexican military invaded the Ejido Morelia. They forced the men to lie flat on the basketball court, kicking and torturing them for hours under the jungle sun. Three of the community's leaders were taken away and never seen alive again. Their bones were found by hunters months later. No one has ever been prosecuted for the murders.

In classic Zapatista fashion, these gristly events were depicted on a mural painted on the schoolhouse wall here while 13 years later, inside the school, Zapatista women told of how they organize their autonomy.

It has been eight years since the last armed confrontation between the Mexican government and the EZLN but the peace that seems to thrive in the Zapatista autonomous zone, is an uneasy one. Skirmishes over land taken in the 1994 rebellion between Zapatistas and other Mayan Indian campesinos (the rebels characterize them as "paramilitaries") are endemic and thousands of troops continue to occupy sprawling bases at strategic points in the EZLN geography.

A just-issued study by the San Cristobal-based Center for Political Analysis and Socio-Economic Investigation (CAPISE), "The Face of War", indicates that the nature of the occupation has changed in recent years with elite brigades now stationed in the conflict zone reporting directly to Mexico City rather than regional commands. As Mexico joins the U.S.-directed War on Terror, the border region with Guatemala where many key Zapatista autonomous municipalities are located, attract enhanced attention from security forces.

Despite the "Santa Paz" (Sainted Peace) the "Mal Gobierno" (Bad Government) claims to reign in Chiapas, the EZLN remains an armed organization. Certainly, of its two weapons - "El Fuego" (The Fire) and "La Palabra" (The Word) - the latter now predominates. But the fire is not forgotten. "We will never give up our arms or remove our pasamontanas (ski masks) until our demands for justice are satisfied" Comandante David pledged to a packed auditorium to close the Oventik segment of Intergalactica II as the rain fell in sheets outside from the bountiful southern sky.

Note: Intergalactica II was only one of several upcoming international events to be programmed by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation and The Other Campaign in 2007. Indigenous peoples from throughout the Americas will gather next October at Vicam Sonora in the heart of Yaqui Indian Territory, and an all-woman's international gathering is being planned for next December in Chiapas.

John Ross is in Mexico City, plotting a new novella. If you have further information contact johnross@igc.org

“A Voice Cries Out for Justice; May all of Humanity Hear Itself in our Cry”: Elisa

Members of the Morelia, La Garrrucha, and Roberto Barrios caracoles present the work-table topics on Indigenous autonomy: health, education, women, collective work and self governance

By Juan Trujillo, Special to The Narco News Bulletin

July 29, 2007

Morelia, Chiapas, July 21, 2007. The second Encuentro of Zapatista communities and the communities of the world continues on its course in this caracol called “The Whirlwind of our Words” in the Tzojchoj and Tojolabal ethnic region. The activities organized by Zapatista support bases, local and municipal authorities were formally inaugurated last Sunday, before more than two-thousand people, with an opening welcome from Elisa, member of the autonomous municipality Ernesto Che Guevara, Ofelia, member of the Good Government Council (JBG) of this caracol, and Comandante Zebedeo of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.

Afternoon fell in this corner of the Chiapaneco geography; the cool came down from the two mountains cloaking this rebel space, while militiapersons descended the left hand side of the mountain giving way to members of the Indigenous Revolutionary Clandestine Committee General Command of the EZLN; through the commentary and bustle of the participants the night listened, as Lieutenant Colonel Moises, Comandante Zebedeo, and Subcomandante Marcos made themselves present for the welcoming. Rain and a slight chill intermittently refreshed the visitors from more than 80 countries: hundreds of collectives and social organizations, sympathizers, members of the Other Campaign and adherents of the Sixth Declaration of the Lancandon Jungle (La Sexta).

In one of the chairs, this columnist exchanged words with Oligario, a support base who, since 1987, has actively participated in the movement along with his wife Monica and his family originally from Altimirano. “It is really important for the Sexta and the Other Campaign that people from all over the world,” he explains.

In the pavilion, soldiers, comandantes, and support bases appeared behind Mexican and Zapatista flags. Compañera Elisa, a support base, gave the formal welcome declaring, “these are the rebel territories and with a blazing and rebellious heart we welcome you, you who are here with us, as we walk, writing the history that we deserve.”

Before of an attentive audience, Elisa recognized “the rebellious and conscious individuals” and went on to say, “A voice is crying out for justice, from every place where there is struggle… may all humanity hear itself in our cry.”

For her part Ofelia, member of the Good Government Council, commented with notable emotion, that “the most important thing is to unite our struggles and thoughts against the capitalist system that continues to steal our labor. Our voice and our struggle is one that as we walk we learn and as we walk we teach… so that we can recuperate what the system has stolen from us.” Finally, she asked all the participants for “concentration, respect and discipline in the activities of the Encuentro.”

In the name of the EZLN, Comandante Zebedeo said that the 2, 335 attendees in this caracol come from: “Without nation,” Argentina, Australia, Austria, Basque Country, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, El Salvador, Ecuador, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Holland, England, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Luxemburg, Mexico, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

The collectives and identities that come together reflect the ample spectrum represented in the multicolor cloth that Comandante Ramona gave to the Other Campaign in September of 2005: Zapatistas, Anarchists, Communists, punks, Libertarians, homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, nationalist organizations from the Basque country and Cataluña, the world organization Via Campesina, other organizations from Latin America, as well as indigenous Venezuelans.

With these words and with a multicolored and popular folk dance the Encuentro activities in this Tzetzal and Tojolabal Zapatista caracol were inaugurated.

Originally published in Spanish July 25
Translation: Tessa Landreau-Grasmuck

July 29, 2007

Zapatista Intergalactica in Chiapas

Julie Webb-Pullman
27 July 2007

Although slated to run on July 20-28, the Zapatista “Intergalactica” gathering really began on July 19 in Tuxtla Gutierrez, with an event in the main square in support of the People in Defence of the Land. Several busloads of Zapatistas from Mexico City arrived to join those already there in demanding indigenous land rights.

The indigenous peoples of Chiapas are traditional owners of large tracts of hardwood forests and there has been an upsurge in attempts to drive them off their land, by fair means or foul. “Fair” means amount to theft through the courts — either paying off judges, ignoring their judgements, or both. Foul means include murder, paying some community members to attack (and often kill) their Zapatista neighbours refusing to sell or leave — such as occurred last November in Montes Azules — or the more usual and ever more frequent kidnappings, beatings, and roadside abandonment.

Even ambulances are not exempt from this treatment — I met a woman waiting outside the Zapatista health clinic in Oventic for follow-up treatment from her recent hospitalisation who had a startling story to tell. The Zapatista ambulance taking her to hospital from Oventic to San Cristobal de las Casas on July 8 was set upon by two truckloads of civilian men, who dragged the driver and health promoter from the ambulance and beat them. The valiant driver and health promoter still managed to get her to hospital, despite their own injuries. She considered herself lucky to have been unconscious at the time, or she too may well have suffered at least as bad, if not worse a fate. In Veracruz in February, for example, Indigenous woman Ernestina Asencio was raped by up to nine soldiers, then murdered — yet another of the growing numbers of indigenous Mexicans murdered with impunity.

As the ambulance incident shows, Zapatista medical personnel are spared neither attack nor imprisonment. As a result of events in Sal Salvador Atenco last May, when thousands of police unleashed a wave of terror, Dr Guillermo Selvas and his daughter Mariana are among 28 of those still being illegally detained. Mariana had accompanied her father to provide medical treatment for student Alexis Benhumea, who was dragged to a house unconscious after being hit in the head by a tear gas cannister fired by the Preventive Federal Police (PFP). When Mariana’s father left the house to find an ambulance for him, after waiting several hours for one to arrive, he was detained and beaten by police. When Mariana went into the street to see what had become of him, she too was detained, beaten, and sexually assaulted. Like the ambulance driver and health promoter, their sole crimes were to be Zapatistas providing medical care. Benhumea did not survive.

The fallout from Atenco is not limited to those still imprisoned. Jorge Salinas (see ) told me that his “case” is still ongoing. His physical injuries have largely healed, although he has permanent damage to his hands. He cannot close his right hand, of which two fingers are immobilised. Like most of those detained, he was eventually charged with blocking a public road, but was later released on 15,000 pesos bail (the daily wage is 50 pesos so that is about a year’s wages).

Salinas must report to an audiencia every 15 days to sign a form, and although in the last month the reporting place has changed and is now a little closer than the prison he has had to report to for the last year, it is still about 100km from his home. He has to be present from 10am until often 11pm at night for this process, and when asked when his case will be finalised, he said there is no end in sight, and it could go on for years. “It is not a legal process, it is a political process”, he said, pointing out that the sanctions will be either a fine or a prison sentence. The only three Atenco defendants to have been sentenced so far received sentences of 67 years, however not one member of the municipal, state, or federal police have been charged, despite the wealth of evidence against them and several national and international human rights reports documenting a litany of abuses.

Although the National Commission of Human Rights made damning comments and produced several recommendations, and the Supreme Court of Mexico subsequently announced an investigation into the events at Atenco, Salinas holds out little hope that anything will come of either. “They are both just part of the total apparatus of the state.” But he also had some good news — the defendants are using every available legal resource and recourse, with several successes. Four amporros found in favour of Magdalena Garcia (who nevertheless still remains imprisoned). Garcia, an indigenous woman selling food in Atenco, was swept up in the events, but her continued detention has more to do with her poltical activism as a member of an indigenous women’s organisation than anything she did at Atenco.

According to Salinas, there are more than 500 political prisoners currently in jail from several states. The tally of Zapatista dead stands at more than 40, with many more imprisoned and disappeared, while the attempts continue on a daily basis to wrest from them control of natural resources such as forests and water.

Unsurprisingly, political prisoners and the protection of natural resources are high on the second Intergalactica Encuentro agenda, receiving special mention in the speech of Zapatista leader Subcommandante Marcos. He concentrated on the problems of indigenous people in Mexico, in particular the Yaqui, who in October will host the Indigenous Encuentro of the American Continent in Sonara.

It is ironic that the year that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is opened for signing, the country with the presidency of the United Nations Council of Human Rights is providing such a backdrop of exploitation, forced relocation, repression and death of its own indigenous peoples — almost always with total impunity for the perpetrators.

However, the Zapatistas continue building their communities from below and to the left, and several thousand people have again come from all parts of the world to see firsthand and experience how they are going about it, not least because the only improvements to date in health and educational status reported in Chiapas indigenous communities are in the Zapatista autonomous communities, which provide their own health care and education, as well as dispute resolution systems.

Chiapas Mexico, A relatively Unknown Magical Corner of Mexico

Norm Goldman

Today, Norm Goldman Publisher & Editor of the travel site SKETCHANDTRAVEL.COM is excited to have as our guest, Carl Lee-McLellan who is an expert on Chiapas, Mexico. Carl is here today to share his expertise and experiences concerning Chiapas.

Good day Carl and thanks for participating in our interview.

No problem Norm I'm always exited to talk about southern Mexico and its vast potential for both tourism and eco-tourism.

Norm:

Carl, please tell our readers where is Chiapas Mexico and why is it considered to be Mexico exotic last frontier?

Carl:

Chiapas is Mexico's most southern state. It boarders Guatemala on the southeast, Oaxaca state to the west and to the north it boarders the state of Tabasco.

It is Mexico's least populated state and also it's poorest. Chiapas is populated primarily by indigenous peoples with the Maya making up the largest segment.

In 1996 an indigenous group calling themselves the Zapatistas fought with the Mexican government over their rights to the states vast natural resources.

Prior to the uprising most monies derived from resource extraction left Chiapas and found it's way to Mexico City with very little staying within the state. Since the uprising the political situation has become much more stable and the people of Chiapas have faired better and tourism has gained in popularity with the international community. Understandably the uprising kept tourist numbers low and people are just now learning about this secret spot that is now wide open for exploration and enjoyment.

Norm:

How and why did you become interested in Chiapas?

Carl:

My wife/guiding partner and I had just finished putting the final touches on *Austin-Lehman Adventure's (ALA) Oaxaca Mexico adventure and had some time to explore Chiapas on our own. While we were in Oaxaca we kept hearing two things about Chiapas;

San Cristobal and it's intoxicating blend of Spanish Colonial influences mixed with ancient Maya animism and Palenque with it's proximity to numerous ancient Maya ruin sites and awe-inspiring natural wonders. We spent three weeks on a whirlwind tour of these two areas and decided that this was a place we absolutely had to return to.

A few months later I was helping out at the ALA office in Billings, Montana and Dan Austin asked me, if I were to build a trip anywhere in North America where would it be?

Chiapas was still fresh in my mind and the more I had been thinking about the infrastructure of the state and its ability to offer our guests an ALA top-shelf experience; I had to give Chiapas as my reply.

Dan said that he and Paul Lehman had been looking for new adventures to offer our guests and they were interested in me writing a few pages outlining why Chiapas would make for a great trip. I did and that got the ball rolling. Working with state tourism agencies and local tour operators we ran a two week in-depth scout of San Christobal and Palenque. My wife and I then spent another month in San Cristobal putting the final touches on the itinerary. It was such a treat to be able to explore Chiapas in depth and we look forward to adding other locations and programs in the near future.

Norm:

I understand your arrange trips to Chiapas. Could you tell us something about these trips and what can one expect from such a trip?

Carl:

The trips I guide for *Austin-Lehman Adventures are 8 Days & 7 Nights in length. They begin in Villa Hermosa and end in Tuxtla Gutierrez, both served by reliable commercial air service.

They are equal parts active and cultural. Guests will experience hiking, biking, and take cultural walking tours of Maya villages in the Sierra Madre Sur. They'll tour ruins and pyramids (be prepared to do some moderate step climbing). We'll boat into Sumidero Canyon to observe crocodiles, spider monkeys, cormorants and herons.

There's swimming and exploring the rich blue waters of Agua Azul Falls. And we'll witness up close astonishing frescoes and ornamented building facades, roof combs and impressive stone lintels in the Maya ruins of Palenque, Yaxchitlán and Bonampak and visit a native women's paper making collective and a textile co-op.

Lodging is upscale in distinctive haciendas, resorts and hotels. Everything is included, even the meals which are as authentic to the region as possible. The price for 2007 is $2,998 per person, based on double occupancy. Dates for the remainder of the year are; September 23-30, October 28-November 4 (Day of the Dead Festivals), and December 23-30 (Christmas). The best thing is that we only take 12 guests max with 2 experienced guides and a driver.

For more info contact ALA at 1.800.575.1540 or ONLINE

Norm:

Would you recommend Chiapas as a romantic and/or honeymoon destination and if so why? As a follow up, could you name and briefly describe the most romantic venues in Chiapas?

Carl:

Personally Norm, I find Chiapas incredibly romantic for a number of reasons. Exploration has to be my first reason.

It seems everything one does in Chiapas feels like an exotic experience. Strolling remote Maya ruin sites or Spanish Colonial cobblestone streets one has the opportunity to pop into situations that are unique to most travel experiences.

For example; when we visit the ruin sites of Bonompak and Yaxchilan we are escorted through these sites by one of the lead Mexican archeologists who did some of the initial diggings. His insight and personal wit make this day seem like you are there for the initial excavation.

My six romantic venues in Chiapas would be:

* Exploring the cobbled streets of the Spanish colonial city, San Cristobalde Las Casas, is heady with romance. During the day popping into markets, shops, museums, indigenous artesian co-operatives, street cafes and restaurants, is a colorful and eye-opening way to get a feel for the unique history of this city. Follow this with dinner at one of the many wonderful regional or internationally inspired restaurants, then an unhurried stroll back to your meticulously restored 18th century hacienda.

A quick after dinner aperitif while gazing at the stars from your veranda, before heading off to a comfy bed, finishes the day in excellent romantic form.

*A visit to Agua Azul is a must. This vast system of cascades and waterfalls allows for both spectacular views and the chance to wander up river and find your own little private hideaway. Pick up some lunch to go at one of the many restaurants and unpack your picnic on the banks of a quite pool and you have the makings of a romantic interlude to add to your day of exploring.

*An early morning visit to the ruin site of Palenque. By getting there early you beat some of the day's heat and crowds that show up on buses. The air is generally still and ruins mist-filled. As the sun melts the mist away the Howler monkeys begin their morning serenade. The sounds of the jungle and the howling blended with the spectacle of Palenque, makes for an intoxicating and primordial moment; one that is guaranteed to be talked about for years to come.

*Take a morning boat ride up the Grijalva River into the Sumidero Canyon. The scale of this place is vast. At times the walls of the Canyon soar to as much three thousand feet above the river! We have seen Crocodiles from the boat as well. Follow that with lunch on the Zocalo\town square of Chiapa de Corzo in a bustling local restaurant. The Marimba is a popular musical instrument in this town and you will hear its sounds drifting out of many of the local eateries. After, the drive up to San Cristobal de Las Casas is a scenic way to end the day.

*Traveling up the Usumacinta River to the remote ruin site of Yaxchilan. One arrives at this site after a 45 min. boat ride down river. All the while Central America lies on the opposite river bank. Guatemala beckons on one shore as one looks for Crocodiles and Jaguar on the river's banks. Ruins start to become visible through the jungle and soon you are at Yaxchilan. This ruin site has been described as one of the most beautiful of the Maya world.

There are plenty of structures to visit and explore. The whole visit takes on a very Indiana Jones feel. Narrow trails through the jungle lead to different buildings and mixed with the sounds of the jungle and the fact there are far fewer visitors make for intimate explorations. Sitting alone on the steps of a temple imagining what this place may have looked like in the past is high on the romance scale.

The people of Chiapas have been struggling to find their place in the modern world. They steadfastly hold to their ancient ways. Tourism is important to them in that they can continue to practice the old ways and customs for the people who visit with them and earn an income at the same time. How romantic is that. To be able to help the people, through just visiting a region, find their place in the modern world while still being able to embrace their past.

Norm:

How safe is travel to Chiapas?

Carl:

Travel to Chiapas is very safe. Both the Mexican government and the Zapatista rebels understand that tourism is the best way to keep revenues in Chiapas. When I was doing the initial ALA scout in Chiapas the Zapatistas implemented a two day blockage of the major roads of Chiapas.

This was done as a solidarity movement to show support for protesters in a nearby state. We arrived at the first roadblock at 6am not knowing what to expect. After twenty minutes of waiting, all tourism vehicles were allowed to pass freely while other vehicles were restricted. This happened over five more road blocks throughout the day. By day's end it was quite obvious that tourism is both highly valued and protected by the people of Chiapas.

The roads are modern as are the vehicles that transport tourists. There are modern hospitals in all urban areas and as part of an ALA scout we cover access to medical care in great detail.

Mexico often gets a bad rap, (at times deservedly so), over water and food handling. If you are only going to be in Chiapas for a short while, do avoid eating in markets and off of street vendors. If you can't resist local charms, eat at the places where there are a lot of people.

The food turns over more quickly and doesn't sit around as long. Most restaurants have very clean kitchens and they wash vegetables with purified water. At ALA we pre-inspect and experience all of the restaurants we use during a tour and discuss in detail our needs with hotel and restaurant managers.

Common sense and some research are always prudent when visiting any foreign place. Dangerous situations can be found anywhere people travel even in the U.S. The people of Chiapas are very proud and in my travels through this wondrous state I have never been made to feel unsafe or threatened.

Norm:

Can you tell us something about the different cultural groups that inhabit Chiapas?

Carl:

The majority of the ethnic makeup of most Chiapanecos is Meztiso, a mix of Spanish and Indigenous blood lines.

Ten percent of the state's population belongs to the following ethnic groups;

Zoques, who have been linked to the pre-maya Olmec culture;

Tzotziles, who practice religious ceremonies that are a blend of Catholic and animistic rites. They open their church in Chamula for visitors to view these practices and believe me they are an eye-opener. They involve Shaman, many candles, chickens etc.;

Tzeltales, who are the born craftspeople of the state, they work primarily with textiles and handcrafts;

Tojolabals, who speak the Chuj language of the Cuchumatanes of Guatemala, again these people blend Catholisism with ancient pre-Hispanic practices;

Choles, who have been accredited with the construction of site of Palenque;

Lacondones, this group is one of the most mysterious in the Maya culture. To this day they live in isolated jungle communities for the most part away from the rest of Chiapas. Their relative isolation has allowed them to preserve their language and customs more so than other groups within Chiapas;

Mames, who represent about 26% of the total indigenous population of the state. They are primarily involved in agriculture, cacao and coffee; and finally the Mochos, who are strongly linked to nearby Guatemaltecan groups. They share the same territory as the Mames.

Norm:

What kind of accommodations can one expect in Chiapas?

Carl:

Accommodations in Chiapas cater to all types of travelers. From exquisitely restored haciendas and monasteries that receive five- star ratings to award-winning eco-lodges, to quaint hostels and inns, Chiapas offers something for every travel budget.

Norm:

Could you tell us something about the cuisine in Chiapas?

Carl:

The food of Chiapas is quite simple. The majority of the people live with corn as the primary food in their diet. They supplement corn with eggs, chicken, pork or fish but because the average annual income in Chiapas is about $1500 USD a year, any meat they come by is generally sold at the local market.

The barbecue or assado is the primary way they cook meat and there are a number of restaurants that specialize in this style of cooking. Most hotels and restaurants fuse traditional foods with international styles to make meals more palatable to tourist tastes.

Those with vegetarian leanings can find much to satisfy their palate but ordering some foods like soups or salsas should be avoided as stocks used to prepare these things generally are chicken, pork or beef based. One needs to ask before sampling if they want to maintain a strict vegetarian diet.

Chiapas and Tabasco are where most of the Cacao, (cocoa), is grown so there are a number of dishes that incorporate chocolate, i.e., Moles.

Norm:

I understand that Chiapas is known for eco-tours. Could you elaborate?

Carl:

Chiapas is home to vast tracts of virgin jungle still. The Lacondon forest has a number of eco-resorts from which guests can do guided day trips to explore the surrounding eco-systems. 40% of the wildlife that lives in Mexico resides in Chiapas. There are over 600 species of birds alone that live in Chiapas.

The Guacamayas eco-tourist center is a preserve for the endangered Scarlet Macaw and at sunrise and sunset they become a noisy spectacle as they leave and return to this site in great numbers.

As one travels from Palenque to Yaxchilan there are countless unexcavated ruin sites along the side of the road. There are numerous bio-reserves, waterfalls, lakes and jungles to take guided tours in. In the two months we have spent touring Chiapas we feel we have only scratched the surface of the eco-tourism opportunities the state has to offer.

The Chiapanecos see their natural world as a valuable resource and are taking the necessary steps to ensure these natural places will stay protected and unaltered for future generations of their families and tourists to enjoy.

Norm:

When is the best time to visit Chiapas?

Carl:

The best time to visit is just after the rainy season, (late September/early October), when things are greenest and the rivers and waterfalls are at their peak. San Cristobal de Las Casas is at a higher elevation, (6000 ft), things do get chilly at night so bring warmer cloths for this part of the visit to Chiapas. Most of the nicer hotels have fireplaces in each room so that is also a good way to chase away the evening chill.

During the summer while the rest of Mexico is under a hot sun, places like San Cristobal are quite nice due to their elevation.

Starting about March places like Palenque and Comitan start to get uncomfortably hot because they are about 4500-feet less in elevation than the highlands.

Norm:

Is there anything else you wish to add that we have not covered?

Carl:

Just that words, can't begin to capture how magical this tiny corner of Mexico really is. Travel affects everyone a bit differently but no one will walk away from Chiapas unchanged. It happened to me and it has happened to everyone I've had the privilege to lead on a guided trip through this remarkable region.

Thanks again and bon voyage!

Note on Austin-Lehman Adventures

*Austin-Lehman Adventures specializes in upscale multisport adventures to iconic destinations throughout the Americas. Most of their small group vacations are six days and five nights in duration, and combine guided outdoor activities such as hiking, biking, rafting, canoeing, and horseback riding with nights spent at a series of distinctive inns and lodges. Lunch is usually served gourmet picnic-style along the trail, and breakfast and dinner take place at the finest cafés and restaurants the region has to offer. Prior experience is not a prerequisite and adventures cater to a wide range of abilities. On adult adventures participants need to be 16 years old or above. Expressly designed family adventures are suitable for children as young as seven (7) years of age.

Norm and Lily Goldman are a husband and wife team that meld words with art focusing on romantic and wedding destinations. To read more of their articles and interviews click on

SKETCHANDTRAVEL.COM

July 28, 2007

[Undocumented] Immigrants: Uncle Sam Wants You


for undocumented immigrants


From: http://detodos-paratodos.blogspot.com/
[Undocumented] Immigrants: Uncle Sam Wants You

Latino teenagers, including illegal immigrants are being recruited into the military with false promises.

In 1996, Jesus Alberto Suarez del Solar was a 13-year-old boy, up from Tijuana on a family shopping trip, when he stopped at a Marine Corps recruiting table at an open-air mall in Chula Vista, Calif.

Jesus had been an easy mark for the recruiter-a boy who fantasized that by joining the powerful, heroic U.S. Marines, he could help his own country fight drug lords. He gave the recruiter his address and phone number in Mexico, and the recruiter called him twice a week for the next two years, until he had talked Jesus into convincing his parents to move to California
...

No Borders Camp, November 2007 // Calexico/Mexicali

NO BORDERS CAMP NOVEMBER 2007 CALEXICO/MEXICALI, TURTLE ISLAND

As long as the US/Mexico border has existed, people having been struggling against it. The border itself is a colonial war monument and it continues to be the site of a not-so-low intensity war. It is a boundary marking an internal space of fear, control and domination over people, while simultaneously allowing for the unrestricted movement of capital and wealth. This border regime--like the border regimes in Mexico, Israel, Spain and more--is a system of apartheid.

For years around the world people have been tearing down fences, freeing detainees and fighting for autonomy. A global movement against borders and migration controls is rising. One of many tactics in this movement is the no borders camp - a space for direct action and building community. Join us for a transnational no borders camp on the Mexico/US border. Celebrate global days of action for freedom of movement on the 18th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall...

We are currently an informal network of collectives, working groups, and individuals, in many cities, on both sides of the border. We are planning a no borders action camp for the second week of November 2007, in the region of Calexico and Mexicali.

The PGA hallmarks are the basic points of unity for the mobilization. See below.

The camp is intended to be a spectacular intervention in a discourse that at times ignores, and at other times justifies, the systematic violence, indignity and exploitation experienced by migrants in the United States, Mexico, and across the world. The mobilization will bring many of us together in one place to share, learn and take action. It is of equal importance that it not be just one isolated event that lasts a few days in one location. We view this mobilization as a process and we hope to further link this mobilization with other powerful events and processes such as the G8, the Other Campaign, the US Social forum and the Anti-RNC organizing. It is also intentionally, and somewhat inevitably, a process of creating an anti-capitalist network for freedom of movement.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

For this mobilization to be a success, groups and individuals from a diversity of locales and experiences must make this project their own. Groups and individuals are encouraged to take initiative and start now. For instance you could: organize an encuentro in your city. Go to an upcoming one that is already planned. Distro what we have, or make new propaganda. Organize a fundraiser. Start working on media and art. Start talking strategy and action with your affinity group. Contact us and come visit some collectives and individuals working in the region. Maybe stay for a while.
Check the email contact page to get more info.

HALLMARKS:
A very clear rejection of capitalism, imperialism and feudalism; all trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive globalisation;
We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human beings.
A confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organisations, in which transnational capital is the only real policy-maker;
A call to direct action and civil disobedience, support for social movements' struggles, advocating forms of resistance which maximize respect for life and oppressed peoples' rights, as well as the construction of local alternatives to global capitalism;
An organisational philosophy based on decentralisation and autonomy.

July 27, 2007

Did Guerrillas Strike at the Heart of Mexico's Oil Industry?

Bombing Pemex--Or Not?

By JOHN ROSS

The flames jetting 300 meters into the night sky and the black smoke billowing over the fertile flatlands of central Mexico's Bajio were not a good omen. According to a spokesperson for the national oil monopoly PEMEX, the two explosions that rocked installations in Guanajuato and Queretero states July 5th and 10th were caused by a sudden drop in pressure in two natural gas pipelines due to "pinchazos" or illicit perforations in the ducts to siphon off fuel.

The explosions, which shredded aging, poorly-maintained infrastructure underscored the urgent need for private investment in the nationalized enterprise argued PEMEX director Jesus Heroles Jr., mimicking President Felipe Calderon's take on the subject. Calderon, who was elected a year ago in a fraud-marred vote taking, has pledged to privatize PEMEX.

But were the explosions just further mishaps in an endless skein of pipeline blowouts and toxic spills that have plagued the state oil company for years?

On July 11th, newspapers in Mexico City began receiving a series of communiqués under the rubric of the "Military Zone Command of the Popular Revolutionary Army and State Committee of the Party of the Popular Democratic Revolution" claiming credit for blowing out two 36 inch natural gas pipelines in Guanajuato (July 5th) and a key valve house in Coroneo Queretero (July 10th) that shut down gas distribution to millions in central Mexico.

The Popular Revolutionary Army or EPR for its initials in Spanish, a long dormant guerrilla whose home base is usually in the conflictive states of Oaxaca and Guerrero, explained that the two explosions had been "surgical strikes against the oligarchy" and signaled the initiation of a "national campaign of harassment" that would continued until two disappeared EPR leaders are presented by the Calderon government "with life."

Although the Mexican government refrained from using the T-word, it was definitely in the air. "EPR ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA!" whooped the headlines on newspapers hanging from the kiosks. Indeed, a purported Al Qaeda document emerged in 2006 encouraging attacks against U.S. allies that supply Washington with oil - Mexico exports 1.6 million barrels of petroleum to the U.S. daily, without which George Bush would be hard pressed to wage war in Iraq.

With the terrorist alert heating up to hot orange, President Calderon convoked an emergency meeting of his security cabinet. The military has 30,000 troops in the field fighting Washington's drug war and elite units had to be re-deployed to protect strategic installations. Machine-gun nests blossomed outside PEMEX gates, along energy pipelines, at dams, and electricity generating facilities. Navy patrols around offshore platforms in the Caribbean were stepped up.

Washington has a proprietary interest in the Mexican oil flow and news of the bombings furrowed brows in the U.S. capital. As a signatory to the euphemistically named North American Agreement for Security and Prosperity (ASPAN), Mexico is designated as the U.S.'s southern security perimeter, potentially invoking military action by the United States North Command housed in Colorado should terrorist activity be detected in the neighborhood. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security regards Mexico as a potential terrorist staging area.

The EPR bombings were the first here since last November when a previously unknown guerrilla formation - the Army of the Insurgent Popular Revolution (ERIP) - took credit for taking out the nation's top electoral tribunal, a bank, and the national headquarters of the once-ruling PRI party.

The Popular Revolutionary Army's successful July jamboree shut down more than 90 manufacturing plants in central Mexican cities, sending tens of thousands of workers at such transnationals as Nissan, Honda, Vitro (Mexican owned), Kellogg, and Ideal Standard, the world's largest toilet maker, home for the day.

The precision location of the plastique charges (plastique is popular in Europe but not much used here) points to an inside job and disgruntled PEMEX workers are one object of an on-going investigation. If the EPR is really responsible for the explosions than their technical skills and ability to strike close to the heart of the economy have taken a qualitative leap since the group was last heard from.

The Popular Revolutionary Army made its public debut June 28th 1996 on the first anniversary of the massacre of 17 dissident farmers at Aguas Blancas Guerrero under the guns of a corrupt governor, Rubin Figueroa. In documents distributed to the press, the EPR identified itself as a Marxist-Leninist military organization composed of 14 little-known guerrilla "focos" that seemed to revolve around an alliance between a clandestine clique of Maoists with a predilection for bombing - the PROCUP - and the Party of the Poor, founded by the long-dead guerrilla martyr Lucio Cabanas along Guerrero's Costa Grande in the 1970s.

The EPR is said to have bankrolled its uprising with the kidnapping of Banamex president Alfredo Harp Helu in 1994 for which they received a reported Latin America record ransom ($12 million USD.) With a hefty arsenal at its command (tons of weapons were alleged to have been delivered to Guerrero in 1994), the EPR repeatedly attacked military and police installations during the summer of 1996, killing and wounding dozens of troops. A synchronized six-state shooting spree on August 28th took 24 lives, many in Oaxaca.

The EPR quarreled with the other Mexican guerrilla, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), accusing its charismatic, pipe-smoking spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos of trying to make a revolution with poetry. The Sup, in turn, lambasted the EPR as only being interested in taking state power and refused suggestions of an alliance between the two armed organizations.

After the August 1996 attacks, the Popular Revolutionary Army seemed to become unglued. Military pressure and internal dissension led to fragmentation and a handful of split-offs such as the EPR-Democratic Tendency, the Revolutionary Army of the Insurgent People (the ERPI as opposed to the ERIP), and the FARP (the Armed Front of the Popular Revolution) have staged sporadic attacks for several years.

But following last summer's much-questioned presidential election, the EPR issued a rare communiqué announcing its intentions to vindicate the popular vote in favor of leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador - AMLO quickly rejected the guerrilla's intervention and the rebels held off their promised campaign.

Rather than marking the first anniversary of the Great Fraud against Lopez Obrador, the Bajo bombings probably obey a more immediate calling: the arrest of two top EPR comandantes May 24th in Oaxaca when Eduardo Reyes Amaya and "Raymundo Rivera Bravo" AKA Gabriel Alberto Cruz Sanchez were taken into custody in a hotel in the city's market. Cruz Sanchez is described by guerrilla historian Carlos Montemayor as a 30-year veteran of clandestine armed movements in Mexico and is thought to be the brother of Tiburcio Cruz Sanchez also known as Francisco Cerezo, a maximum EPR leader and patriarch of a clan that includes three activist sons, two of whom are serving long prison sentences for bombing banks in 2001.

According to the Oaxaca daily Noticias, which the hated governor Ulises Ruiz has tried to shut down repeatedly, the two men were severely beaten at the state prosecutor's offices and transported in a military ambulance up to Mexico City where they are thought to be still alive and imprisoned at the notorious Military Camp #1. State and federal authorities claim they have no record of the two guerilleros in any Mexican prisons.

In Mexico's hothouse political ambiance where Calderon's credibility is constantly questioned, news of the EPR's purported assault on PEMEX was met with deep skepticism. Failure of the nation's top intelligence agency, the CISEN (now run by Calderon's favorite political pollster) to anticipate EPR resurgence is compared to the CIA's blackout prior to 9/11. AMLO describes the bombings as "a smokescreen" to privatize PEMEX and reinforce the criminalization of social protest.

But whether the attack was a government ruse to reign in social discontent, induce terrorist paranoia as a tool of control, and underscore the need for opening up PEMEX to private investment or a legitimate initiative by the armed resistance, the bombings have spiced up a pot already over boiling with upheaval.

On Monday July 17th, for the second year in a row, dissident teachers and militants of Oaxaca's Popular Peoples' Assembly (APPO) sought to take back the "Guelaguetza", a traditional cultural interchange between Oaxaca's multiple indigenous peoples that Governor Ruiz has turned into a tourist-only commercial spectacle. 45 people were arrested and 42 hospitalized when celebrants were attacked by heavily armed state and federal police. The APPO and its allies have vowed to shut down Governor's version of the dance festival set for July 23rd and 30th.

Ruiz has repeatedly tried to tie the APPO and dissident teachers to the EPR. A year ago last July during the protestors' successful efforts to shut down the Guelaguetza, the EPR's initials were painted on a hill overlooking the city. Similarly, both Ulises and Calderon's PAN Party accuse Lopez Obrador's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), which is on track to win big in the Oaxaca state legislature later this summer, of being infiltrated by the EPR.

Those skeptical of the Popular Revolutionary Army's involvement in the Bajio bombings point out that the EPR has no social base in states like Queretero or Guanajuato, the home state of ex-president Vicente Fox and the mysterious religious right formation "El Yunque" which has had so much influence in both the Fox and Calderon administrations. Moreover, guerrilla watchers like Montemayor underscore that bombings are not the EPR's usual Modus Operandi (although the PROCUP were skilled bombers) - during its 1995 rampage, the EPR staged direct attacks on military bases and personnel.

Others such as the left-leaning daily La Jornada analyst Carlos Fazio scoff at the bombing as a "hoax." "Why would the left try to destroy PEMEX when we are fighting to defend it from destruction by neo-liberal privatization?"

What surprised Felipe Canseco, a former leader of the PROCUP and uncle of the Cerezo clan was how long it took the EPR to respond to the disappearance of its leaders in Oaxaca on May 25th. "When I went down, he comrades took action the next day," he recalls. Canseco, who served eight years for guerrilla activities, estimates that there are 30 armed groups operating in 22 out of Mexico's 32 states.

One of the hottest pirate DVDs on the Mexican street these days is "The Violin", which depicts the military's "dirty war" in Guerrero in the 1970s in brutal detail. The disappearance of the two EPR leaders and the government's claim that it is not holding them is painfully reminiscent of those terrible years when an estimated 650 Cabanas supporters along the Costa Grande were forcibly disappeared and held in secret lock-ups where they were tortured and eventually killed and thrown into the Pacific Ocean from Mexican air force planes near Acapulco.

If recent events are any indicator, Mexico's dirty war is not just a movie.

John Ross is in Mexico City, plotting a new novella. If you have further information contact johnross@igc.org

The Revolution’s most important weapon: the people

Fidel engaging in increasingly intense and valuable activities Willing to hold talks, on an equal footing, with the United States Cuba will accept foreign investment: capital, technology and markets
Strengthening our defensive capacity A special effort must be made in food production to save on imports Our people will never give in to pressure or blackmail from any country or group of countries

(Translated by ESTI)

Friends accompanying us here today;

People of Camagüey, good morning;

Compatriots:

Exactly one year ago, as we were listening to the speeches given by the Commander in Chief in Bayamo and Holguín, we could hardly even suspect what a hard blow was awaiting us.

Next July 31 will be the first anniversary of Fidel's Proclamation, and to the delight of our people he is already taking on more and more intense and highly valuable activities, as evidenced by his reflections which are published in the press, even though, not even during the most serious moments of his illness, did he fail to bring his wisdom and experience to each problem and essential decision.

THOSE WHO ARE AMAZED AT OUR PEOPLE’S CAPACITY TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF EVERY CHALLENGE, NO MATTER HOW GREAT, DO NOT KNOW THEM VERY WELL

These have truly been very difficult months, although with a diametrically different impact to that expected by our enemies, who were wishing for chaos to entrench and for Cuban socialism to collapse. Senior U.S. officials even made statements about taking advantage of this scenario to destroy the Revolution.

Those who are amazed at our people’s capacity to rise to the level of every challenge, no matter how great, do not know them very well, since this is really the only behavior consistent with our history.

The battle waged by many generations of Cubans is well-known, from La Demajagua and Moncada, right up to the present, always facing enormous obstacles and powerful enemies. So much sacrifice and difficulties! How many times did we have to recommence the struggle after each setback!

Suffice it to recall that in the years following that July 26, 1953, we spent years in prison, the exile, the Granma, the guerrilla and the clandestine struggles, until five years, five months and five days after the attack on Moncada, victory was attained on the first day of January, 1959.

In those days, much like what is happening today even within the very United States, lies could not hide reality, although our people then were much less educated and less politically aware than they are now.

The vast majority of Cubans joined the cause headed by a leader who brandished the truth like his main weapon against the enemies of his people, who instead of making demagogic promises warned them, from his very first speech in Havana, that perhaps everything would be much more difficult in the years ahead.

The conclusion of the U.S. government hierarchy at that time was also consistent with its history: they had to destroy this people who dared to dream of justice, dignity and sovereignty, and if not, make them suffer to the utmost. The example set by Cuba was far too dangerous in a poor, subdued and exploited continent.

But they were unable to bring us to our knees. Our response was to massively transform ourselves into combatants; to stoically withstand shortages and difficulties; to sweat in the fields, factories and trenches; to wage countless victorious battles and to establish landmarks in internationalist aid.

Before the mortal remains of each of the 3,478 victims of terrorist acts directly organized, supported or allowed to happen by the United States authorities; before the fallen in defense of the Homeland or in the fulfillment of their internationalist duty, our people confirmed their commitment to their heroes and martyrs, to their Mambi heritage and to the examples of Martí, Céspedes, Maceo, Gómez and Agramonte, perpetuated by men such as Mella, Martínez Villena and Guiteras, symbols of the ideas and actions of an infinite number of anonymous patriots.

In essence, this has been the last half century of our history. There has been not one minute of truce in the face of the policies of the United States government, aimed at destroying the Revolution.

HEROIC DEEDS TAKE PLACE EVERYDAY, IN EVERY CORNER OF THE COUNTRY

In this forging of effort and sacrifice, the morale and conscience of this people has reached new heights; sons with the stature of Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, Fernando González and René González have been born, able to assume with serenity, valor and dignity the duress of an unjust imprisonment, scattered in different prisons of the United States.

They are examples, but they are not exceptions, since millions of Cuban men and women are not intimidated by danger or hardship.

The exploit occurs daily in every corner of this land, as our brave athletes are demonstrating at the Panamerican Games.

And so it has been during the more than 16 years of the Special Period, of sustained effort by the entire country to overcome the difficulties and press onwards –and so it must still be, since we have not yet come out of the Special Period.

Thus, it is twice as commendable that a province attains the status of Outstanding, which as we all know is bestowed after evaluating the results obtained in the main fields.

This year, the provinces of Ciudad de La Habana, Granma, Villa Clara and Camagüey attained this distinction, and we congratulate them on behalf of the Commander in Chief, of the Party and of all the people, for having reached this important triumph. Also to Cienfuegos, Matanzas and Sancti Spiritus for the acknowledgement received, and to Las Tunas for displaying heartening advances.

In order to decide which of them would be the venue of this main celebration, the Political Bureau especially considered the day-to-day efforts, silent and heroic in the face of difficulties. And in this way, the people of "El Camagüey", as the Mambi used to call it, achieved these results.

The advances are the fruit of the efforts of hundreds of thousands of comrades; of the laborers, peasants and the rest of the workers; of the indispensable contributions of intellectuals, artists and workers in the cultural sector; of the heroic housewives and retirees; of the student members of the Middle-level Education Students Federation and the Federation of University Students; of our children; of the Cuban Women Federation, the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, the Association of Combatants and the community Party cells who make such an important contribution to society.

Without them, without the daily work, study and sacrifice of so many men, women and children, the bugle of the Agramonte cavalry would not be resounding anew on these great flatlands.

Well then, it should not happen as it does in baseball, where the victories go only to the players and the defeats go to the team manager. It would not be fair to fail to publicly acknowledge the important role played by the leaders of the Party, the Government, the UJC and the mass and social organizations at every level, as well as the numerous administrative cadres to attain this success.

In particular, I should like to stress the good work of comrade Salvador Valdés Mesa, the current Secretary General of the Workers Union Central, who for a long time and up to 13 months ago, was the First Secretary of the Provincial Party Committee, and the excellent relief provided until the present by comrade Julio César García Rodríguez.

WE NEED TO BRING EVERYONE TO THE DAILY BATTLE AGAINST THE VERY ERRORS THAT AGGRAVATE OBJECTIVE DIFFICULTIES STEMMING FROM EXTERNAL CAUSES

It is only fair and necessary to acknowledge what has been achieved in recent years, in these provinces and in the rest of the country, but with a clear conscience about our problems, our inefficiencies, our errors and our bureaucratic and/or slack attitudes, some of which gained ground in the circumstances deriving from the Special Period.

Pointing out the important results attained in these provinces does not mean that we ignore that the rest of the country is working. In the eastern provinces, for example, it has been necessary to do this under very difficult conditions, with a shortage of resources resulting from both objective and subjective reasons.

Nevertheless, efforts do not always bring the results hoped for. Efficiency largely depends on perseverance and good organization, especially of systematic controls and discipline, and in particular on where we have succeeded in incorporating the masses to the struggle for efficiency.

We need to bring everyone to the daily battle against the very errors which aggravate objective difficulties derived from external causes, especially those induced by the United States' economic blockade which really constitutes a relentless war against our people, as the current administration of that country is especially bent on finding even the slightest of ways to harm us.

One could point to a myriad of examples. I shall limit myself to mentioning the obstacles to the country’s commercial and financial transactions abroad, often directed at the purchase of food, medicines and other basic products for the people, and the denial of access to banking services through coercion and the extra-territorial imposition of its laws.

There are also the almost insurmountable obstacles imposed by that government that goes to ridiculous lengths to prevent its people from traveling to Cuba and also on the Cuban residents there coming to visit their relatives; the denial of visas not just to our officials, but to artists, athletes, scientists and, in general, to anyone who is not willing to slander the Revolution.

As our Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently denounced, we can add to all of this the obstacles to the fulfillment of what is established in the migratory agreements with regards to the minimum number of visas to be granted annually.

This policy encourages those who turn to illegal emigration and are received there as heroes, often times after endangering the lives of children, and in spite of the fact that such an irresponsible behavior puts at risk not only the safety of Cubans, but also of Americans, the ones who the government constantly claims to be protecting, since whoever risks trafficking with human lives for money, would probably not hesitate in doing so with drugs, arms or other such things.

Cuba, for her part, will continue to honor her commitments to the migratory accords, as she has done until today.

The past twelve months have constituted a remarkable example of our people’s maturity, steadfast principles, unity, trust in Fidel, in the Party and above all in themselves.

Despite our deep sorrow, no task was left undone. There is order in the country and a lot of work. The Party and the Government bodies are functioning on a daily basis in the collective search for the most effective response possible for every problem.

There is not one issue pertaining to the development of the country and the people’s living conditions that has not been dealt with responsibly, working to find a solution. There is no task in the Battle of Ideas, the Energy Revolution and others promoted by the Commander in Chief that is paralyzed. As it is always the case in matters of such magnitude, we have had to make adjustments and postponements, and others might be needed in the future, due to material imperatives and the threats we are all aware of.

OPERATION CAGUAIRÁN HAS MADE IT POSSIBLE TO SUBSTANTIALLY STRENGTHEN OUR COUNTRY’S DEFENSIVE CAPACITY

At the same time, our people have continued since then, with serenity, discipline and modesty, to prepare themselves to face up to any enemy military adventure.

Hundreds of thousands of militiamen and reservists of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, together with officers, sergeants and soldiers in the regular army have carried out Operation Caguairán, allowing for a substantial increase in the country’s defense capability, attaining levels of combat readiness that are superior to those of any other period.

It is a great effort in moments when our resources are scarce, but it is simply essential. It shall continue, as it has up till now, with the greatest of rationality, both from the material point of view as well as in the use of our people’s time.

We cannot fool around with defense! The Commander in Chief directed and reaffirmed it yet once again just a few days ago. For us, as I have said so many times, avoiding a war is tantamount to winning it, but to win it by avoiding it, we must sweat a lot and invest quite a few resources.

The resounding popular response to the Proclamation of the Commander in Chief threw all the enemy plans into crisis mode; but the enemy, far from evaluating the reality and correcting its errors, insists on stubbornly crashing into the same rock. They speculate about an alleged paralysis in the country and even about a "transition" in progress. But no matter how hard they close their eyes, reality shall take care of destroying those stale, old dreams.

As the press has reported, Operation Caguairán will carry on in the next months. It will allow us to train about a million compatriots and will have as its crowning glory the Bastion 2008 Strategic Exercise which will take place at the end of the year.

By that date, therefore, we shall be better prepared to resist and win on all fronts, including defense.

OUR PEOPLE WILL NEVER GIVE AN INCH BEFORE PRESSURE OR BLACKMAIL BY ANY COUNTRY OR GROUP OF COUNTRIES

By that time the elections will also have taken place in the United States and the mandate of the current president of that country will have concluded along with his erratic and dangerous administration, characterized by such a reactionary and fundamentalist philosophy that it leaves no room for a rational analysis of any matter.

The new administration will have to decide whether it will maintain the absurd, illegal and failed policy against Cuba or if it will accept the olive branch that we offered on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the landing of the Granma. That is, when we reasserted our willingness to discuss on equal footing the prolonged dispute with the government of the United States, convinced that this is the only way to solve the problems of this world, ever more complex and dangerous.

If the new United States authorities were to finally desist from their arrogance and decide to talk in a civilized manner, it would be a welcome change. Otherwise, we are ready to continue confronting their policy of hostility, even for another 50 years, if need be.

Fifty years seem like a long time, but soon we will be celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Triumph of the Revolution and the 55th anniversary of Moncada, and among so many tasks and challenges those years have gone by and we have hardly noticed. Furthermore, practically 70% of our population was born after the blockade was imposed, and so we are well trained to continue resisting it and finally defeating it.

Some who have been influenced by enemy propaganda or are simply confused, do not perceive the real danger or the undeniable fact that the blockade has a direct influence both on the major economic decisions as well as on each Cuban's most basic needs.

Directly and on a daily basis, it weighs heavily on our food supply, transportation, housing and even on the fact that we cannot rely on the necessary raw materials and equipment to work with.

The enemy established it half a century ago for this reason, as we were saying, and today it still dreams of forcing us to submit to its will. President Bush himself insists on repeating that he will not allow the Cuban Revolution to continue. It would be interesting to ask him just how he intends to do that.

How little they have learned from history!

In his Manifesto published on June 18, Fidel said to them once again what every revolutionary on this island is convinced of: "They shall never have Cuba!"

Our people will never give an inch of ground under the attempt of any country or group of countries to pressure us, nor will it make the slightest unilateral concession to send any kind of signal to anybody.

WE HAVE A DUTY TO PRECISELY IDENTIFY AND PROFOUNDLY EVALUATE EVERY PROBLEM WITHIN OUR RANGE OF ACTION

With respect to the economic and social tasks ahead of us, we know the tensions that Party cadres are subjected to, especially at the base, where there's hardly ever a balance between accumulated needs and available resources.

We are also aware that, because of the extreme objective difficulties that we face, wages today are clearly insufficient to satisfy all needs and have thus ceased to play a role in ensuring the socialist principle that each should contribute according to their capacity and receive according to their work. This has bred forms of social indiscipline and tolerance which, having taken root, prove difficult to eradicate, even after the objective causes behind them are eradicated.

I can responsibly assure you that the Party and government have been studying these and other complex and difficult problems in depth, problems which must be addressed comprehensibly and through a differentiated approach in each concrete case.

All of us, from the leaders to the rank-and-file workers, are duty-bound to accurately identify and analyze every problem in depth, within our working areas, in order to combat the problem with the most convenient methods.

This differs greatly from the attitude of those who use existing difficulties to shield themselves from criticisms, leveled against them for not acting with the necessary swiftness and efficiency, or for lacking the political sensitivity and courage needed to explain why a problem cannot be solved immediately.

I will limit myself to drawing your attention to these crucial issues. A simple criticism or appeal will not solve these problems, even when they are made at a ceremony like this. They demand, above all else, organized work, control and dedication, day after day; systematic rigor, order and discipline, from the national level down to the thousands of places where something is produced or a service is offered.

I REMIND YOU THAT NOT ALL PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED OVERNIGHT

This is where the country's efforts are headed, as they are in other areas of similar importance and strategic significance. We are working hastily but not desperately, avoiding unnecessary public statements so as not to raise false hopes. And, again, speaking with the sincerity which has always characterized the Revolution, I remind you that all problems cannot be solved overnight.

I am not exaggerating when I say that we face a very trying international economic situation, where, in addition to wars, lack of political stability, the deterioration of the environment and the rise in oil prices —apparently an irreversible trend— we now face, like comrade Fidel has recently denounced, the decision made primarily by the United States, to transform corn, soy and other food products into fuel. This move is bound to make the price of these products, and those directly dependent upon these such as meats and milk prices, climb dramatically as it has been the case in recent months.

I will just mention some figures. Today, the price of an oil barrel is around 80 dollars, nearly three times what it was only 4 years ago, when it was priced at 28 dollars. This has an impact on practically everything, for, to produce anything or to offer any kind of service, one requires a given quantity of fuel, directly or indirectly.

Another case in point is the price of powdered milk, which was 2,100 dollars the ton in 2004. This already placed great strains on our ability to make this product available, as its import meant an investment of 105 million dollars. A total of 160 million dollars were spent to purchase the needed quantities in 2007, as prices shot up to 2,450 dollars the ton. In these four years, nearly 500 million dollars have been spent in these purchases.

Currently, the price of powdered milk is over 5,200 dollars the ton. Therefore, should domestic production not continue to increase, to meet consumption needs in the next 2008, we would have to spend 340 million dollars in milk alone, more than three times what was spent in 2004. That is, if prices do not continue to rise.

In the case of milled rice, it was priced at 390 dollars a ton in 2006 and is sold today at 435 a ton. Some years ago, we were buying frozen chicken at 500 dollars a ton. We made plans on the assumption its price would go up to 800; in fact, it went up to its current price of 1,186 dollars.

This is the case with practically all products the country imports to meet, essentially, the needs of the population, products which, as it is known, the people purchase at prices which have practically remained unchanged in spite of the circumstances.

And I am talking of products that I think can be grown here --it seems to me that there is plenty of land-- and we have had good rains last year and this. As I drove in here I could see that everything around is green and pretty, but what drew my attention the most, what I found prettier was the marabú (a thorny bush) growing along the road.

NOBODY — NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN ANY COUNTRY— CAN AFFORD THE LUXURY OF SPENDING MORE THAN THEY HAVE

Therefore, any increase in wages or decrease in prices, to be real, can only stem from a greater and more efficient production and services offer, which will increase the country's incomes.

No one, no individual or country, can afford to spend more than what they have. It seems elementary, but we do not always think and act in accordance with this inescapable reality.

To have more, we have to begin by producing more, with a sense of rationality and efficiency, so that we may reduce imports, especially of food products --that may be grown here-- whose domestic production is still a long way away from meeting the needs of the population.

We face the imperative of making our land produce more; and the land is there to be tilted either with tractors or with oxen, as it was done before the tractor existed. We need to expeditiously apply the experiences of producers whose work is outstanding, be they in the state or farm sector, on a mass scale, but without improvising, and to offer these producers adequate incentives for the work they carry out in Cuba's suffocating heat.

To reach these goals, the needed structural and conceptual changes will have to be introduced.

We are already working in this direction and a number of modest results can already be appreciated. As demanded by the National Assembly of the People's Power, all debts to farmers were settled; in addition to this, there has been a discrete improvement in the delivery of inputs to some productive sectors and a notable increase in the prices of various products, that is to say, the price the state pays to the producer, not the price the population pays, which remains unchanged. This measure had an impact on important production items, such as meat and milk.

PRODUCING THE MOST MILK POSSIBLE

With respect to milk production and distribution, we are aware that the material resources we have managed to secure for the livestock industry are still very limited. However, in the last two years nature has been on our side and everything indicates that we will reach the planned figure of 384 million liters of milk, which is still far lower than the 900 million we were producing when we had all the fodder and other required inputs.

In addition to this, since March, an experiment has been underway in six municipalities —Mantua and San Cristóbal in Pinar del Rio, Melena del Sur in La Habana, Calimete in Matanzas, Aguada de Pasajeros in Cienfuegos and Yaguajay in Sancti Spiritus—where 20 thousand liters of milk have been directly and consistently delivered by the producer to 230 rationed stores and for social consumption in these localities every day.

In this fashion, we have eliminated absurd procedures through which this valuable food product traveled hundreds of miles before reaching a consumer who, quite often, lived a few hundred meters away from the livestock farm, and, with this, the product losses and fuel expenses involved.

I will give you one example or maybe two in order to mention one from Camaguey. Currently, in Mantua, one of the western most municipalities in Pinar del Rio, 2,492 liters of milk, which meet established consumption needs, are being distributed directly to the municipality's 40 rationed stores and 2,000 liters of fuel are being saved every month.

What was the situation until four months ago?

The closest pasteurizer is located in the Sandino municipality, 40 kilometers away from Mantua, the most important town in the area. Thus, in order to deliver the milk to that plant, a truck had to travel a minimum of 80 kilometers –because distances are different-- each day to make the round journey. I say "a minimum" because other areas of the municipality are even farther away.

The milk that children and other consumers in Mantua receive on a regulated basis, once pasteurized at the Sandino plant, returned, shortly afterwards, on a vehicle which, as it is logical to assume, had to return to its base of operations after delivering the product. In total, it traveled 160 kilometers, a journey which, as I explained, was in fact longer.

I don’t know if at the moment this is still the case but some time ago, as I was touring the southeast of Camaguey and in a place known as Los Raules –my namesake-- I asked a few questions. It happened that all the milk produced at Los Raules was brought to Camaguey for pasteurizing, and the milk assigned to the children at Los Raules had to be taken back there after that. Is that still the case?

On one occasion, not long ago, less than a year, I asked if that insane and absurd crisscrossing had been eliminated. I assure you that I was told it had, and now we are finding out this.

Try thinking about things like these and you’ll see the spending they mean.

The commendable aim of all of this crisscrossing was, as we can see, to pasteurize all milk. This measure makes sense and it is necessary in the case of large urban centers —even though it is customary in Cuba to boil all milk at home, whether the milk is pasteurized or not— and all milk needed to supply cities will thus continue to be stocked and pasteurized, but it does not prove viable for a truck --or hundreds of trucks-- to travel these long distances every day to deliver a few liters of milk, to places which produce enough of it to be self-sufficient.

As from the victory of the Revolution, the Cubans have learned to travel from west to east, mostly from east to west really, but our wishes to travel have led us to make the milk travel as well.

In addition to the municipalities participating in this experiment, which I mentioned already, another 3,500 rationed stores in other municipalities and provinces are also directly distributing milk, and over 7 million liters of milk have already been distributed.

This procedure will gradually begin to be applied in more and more places, as expediently as possible but without any rash attempts at making it a general formula. In all cases, its application will be preceded by a comprehensive study that demonstrates its viability in a specific place and reveals the existence of the needed organizational and material conditions.

We will continue to work in this direction until all of the country's municipalities that produce the needed quantities of milk become self-sufficient and can complete, within their jurisdiction, the cycle which begins when a cow is milked and ends when a child or any other person drinks the milk, to the extent that present conditions allow.

That is to say, the chief aim of these efforts is to produce as much milk as possible, and I say this is possible in the overwhelming majority of municipalities, except for those in the capital of the country, that is, those which are not in the outskirts of the city, because there they can produce milk too. There are already some capital cities in various provinces that can produce enough in their main municipalities; such is the case of Sancti Spiritus. And, we must definitely produce more milk!

I mean, the main purpose is to produce more milk to first ensure what we need for our children. We are talking about a basic food for children, and for the ill people; we cannot fool around with that either. But we should neither renounce the possibility that others may also receive it in the future.

Additionally, this program intends to continue increasing fuel savings; something very important, too.

This program responds to today’s existing situation, where dreams of the vast imports of fodder and other inputs of decades past, when the world was very different from what it is today, are just that: dreams.

This is but one example of the abundant resources that become available when we organize ourselves better and analyze an issue as deeply as required, mindful of all the involved factors.

WE ARE STUDYING THE POSSIBILITY OF SECURING MORE FOREIGN INVESTMENT

I reiterate that our problems will not be solved spectacularly. We need time and, most importantly, we need to work systematically and with devotion to consolidate every achievement, no matter how small.

Another nearly endless source of resources —if we consider how much we squander—is to be found in saving, particularly, as we said, the saving of fuel, whose price is increasingly prohibitive, and very unlikely to decrease.

This is a task of strategic importance which is not always undertaken with the necessary care, and wasteful practices have not yet been halted. The example with the milk is enough.

Wherever it is rational to do so, we must also recover domestic industrial production and begin producing new products that eliminate the need for imports or create new possibilities for export.

In this connection, we are currently studying the possibility of securing more foreign investment, of the kind that can provide us with capital, technology or markets, to avail ourselves of its contribution to the country's development, careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past, owed to naivety or our ignorance about these partnerships, of using the positive experiences we've had to work with serious entrepreneurs, upon well-defined legal bases which preserve the role of the State and the predominance of socialist property. ¡

We shall step up our cooperative efforts with other nations more and more, aware that only united, and on the basis of utter respect for the path chosen by every country, will we prevail. Proof of this are the steps we are taking forward next to our brothers in Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, and our solid ties to China and Vietnam, to mention but a few noteworthy examples of the growing number of countries in all continents with which relations of all kinds are being re-established and extended.

We will continue to make a priority of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the growing international movement of solidarity towards the Revolution. We will also continue to work with the United Nations Organization and other multilateral organizations of which Cuba is a member, which respect the norms of international law and contribute to the development of nations and to peace.

THE ONLY THING THAT ANY CUBAN REVOLUTIONARY SHOULD NEVER QUESTION IS OUR UNWAVERING DECISION TO BUILD SOCIALISM

Many are the battles we face simultaneously and which require us to bring together our forces to maintain the unity of the people, the Revolution's greatest weapon, and to take advantage of the potential of a socialist society like ours. The coming People's Power elections will be a new opportunity to demonstrate how extraordinarily strong our democracy —a true democracy—is.

It is the duty of each and every one of us, of Party cadres especially, not to allow ourselves be overwhelmed by any difficulty, no matter how great or insurmountable it may seem to us at a given moment.

We must remember how, despite the initial confusion and discouragement, we managed to face up to the first, harsh years of the Special Period early the last decade, and how we managed to move forward. What we said then we can more justifiably repeat today: Yes, we can do it!

In response to bigger problems or challenges, more organization, more systematic and effective work, more studies and predictions on the basis of plans where our priorities are clearly established and no one attempts to solve their problems at any cost or at the expense of others.

We must also work with a critical and creative spirit, avoiding stagnation and schematics. We must never fall prey to the idea that what we do is perfect but rather examine it again. The one thing a Cuban revolutionary will never question is our unwavering decision to build socialism.

It was with the same profound conviction that, in this very place, on July 26, 1989, exactly 18 years ago to this day, Fidel historically and prophetically affirmed that, even in the hypothetical case that the Soviet Union were to collapse, we would continue to move forward with the Revolution, determined to pay the steep price of freedom and to act on the basis of dignity and principles.

History has offered abundant proof that our people’s determination is as hard as rock. To honor this determination, we are duty-bound to question everything we do as we strive to materialize our will more and more perfectly, to change concepts and methods which were appropriate at one point but have been surpassed by life itself.

We must always remember — and not to repeat it from memory like a dogma, but rather to apply it creatively in our work every day—what comrade Fidel affirmed on May 1st, 2000, with a definition which embodies the quintessence of political and ideological work:

"Revolution means a sense of our moment in history, it means changing all that ought to be changed; it is full equality and freedom; it is being treated and treating others like human beings; it is emancipating ourselves by ourselves, and through our own efforts; it is defying powerful and ruling forces inside and outside of the social and national spheres; it is defending values that are believed in at the cost of any sacrifice; it is modesty, selflessness, altruism, solidarity and heroism; it is fighting with audacity, intelligence and realism; it is never lying or violating ethical principles; it is the profound conviction that there is no force in the world capable of crushing the strength of truth and ideas. Revolution is unity, it is independence, it is fighting for our dreams for justice for Cuba and for the world, it is the foundation of our patriotism, our socialism and our internationalism."

The best tribute we can pay the Commander in Chief today, the greatest contribution to his recovery we can make, is to ratify the decision to make a guide of those principles and, most importantly, to act in accordance with them every day, at whatever post has been assigned us.

True to the legacy of our glorious dead, we will work tirelessly to wholly meet the directives of his Proclamation, the many he has given us since then and as many as he gives us in the future.

There is no room for fear of difficulties or danger in our country, which shall never lower its guard before its enemies. That is the essential guarantee that, in our squares and, should it be necessary, in our trenches too0, these are the cries that shall always resound in our land:

Long live the Revolution!

Long live Fidel

State Repression Continues Unabated More than One Year into Oaxaca Uprising

Tensions remain high in Oaxaca, Mexico more than a year after the state's bloody crackdown on striking school teachers led to a popular uprising against Governor Ulises Ruiz. This week the Oaxacan state began staging its official celebration of Guelaguetza, the most important indigenous folk festival in Oaxaca. Since last year this festival has become a flashpoint of the struggle between popular movements and the state. Last month the teacher's union and APPO, the popular assembly of the people's of Oaxaca, voted to reclaim the event from corporate and state control. They planned to hold a free celebration early last week as an alternative to the official Coca-Cola sponsored event aimed at tourists.

Thousands of people marched down the streets last Monday demanding the resignation of the deeply unpopular state governor. Governor Ruiz is widely held responsible for leaving the violent deaths of some 25 protestors last year unpunished. In response to last week's gathering the governor sent in hundreds of heavily armed state police to prevent the popular celebration from taking place. The police attacked the crowds and reports indicate that at least 70 people were arrested and 40 were seriously wounded. Emeterio Cruz Vasquez, a 46 year old plumber and spouse of a striking teacher, died from his wounds. Human Rights Watch urged Oaxacan state officials to investigate allegations of excessive police violence against the demonstraters.

Today we find out more about the popular struggles and demands in the embattled region of Oaxaca.

  • Gustavo Esteva. Founder of the Universidad de la Tierra in Oaxaca and author of many articles and books. Gustavo is an independent writer and grassroots activist and has been a columnist for La Jornada.
  • Damian Lopez. Oaxacan filmmaker and media activist with Mal de Ojo TV, a collective that came together during the 2006 popular uprising in Oaxaca. He was a collaborator on "Compromiso Cumplido" or "True to My Pledge" the first of a two-part documentary about human rights violations by the state during the current conflict in Oaxaca.
  • Simon Sedillo. Activist and filmmaker. He has been working in and out of Oaxaca for the last eight years documenting and teaching community based video documentation in indigenous communities. Simon collaborated with the Austin Independent Media Center on the 2005 production of “El Enemigo Común” which documents paramilitary activity in Oaxaca from 2001 through 2005. He maintains a blog at Elenimogocmun and is working on a new film project called “El Machete,” a Proyecto Autogestion documentary, filmed and edited by indigenous community members in Oaxaca.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: Tensions are high in Oaxaca -- Mexico, that's where Oaxaca, the site of the tension, is -- more than a year after the state's bloody crackdown on striking school teachers led to a popular uprising against Governor Ulises Ruiz.

This week, the Oaxacan state began staging its official celebration [of Guelaguetza], the most important indigenous folk festival in Oaxaca. Since last year this festival has become a flashpoint of the struggle between popular movements and the state. Last month, the teacher's union and APPO, the Popular Assembly of the People's of Oaxaca, voted to reclaim the event from corporate and state control. They planned to hold a free celebration early last week as an alternative to the official Coca-Cola-sponsored event aimed at tourists.

Thousands of people marched down the streets last Monday demanding the resignation of the deeply unpopular state governor. Governor Ruiz is widely held responsible for leaving the violent deaths of some twenty-five protesters last year unpunished.

In response to last week's gathering, the governor sent in hundreds of heavily armed state police to prevent the popular celebration from taking place. The police attacked the crowds, and reports indicate at least seventy people were arrested, forty were seriously wounded. Emeterio Cruz Vasquez, a forty-six-year-old plumber and spouse of a striking teacher, died from his wounds. Human Rights Watch urged Oaxacan state officials to investigate allegations of excessive police violence against the demonstrators.

Today we find out more about the popular struggles and demands in the embattled region of Oaxaca. We'll be joined in the firehouse studio by Oaxaca-based activists and filmmakers Damian [Lopez] and Simon Sedillo, but first we turn to veteran independent journalist, activist and intellectual, Gustavo Esteva, who joins us on the phone from Oaxaca. He's the founder of the University of the Earth in Oaxaca, Universidad de la Tierra, and has been a columnist for the Mexican newspaper La Jornada. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Gustavo Esteva.

GUSTAVO ESTEVA: Good morning. How are you?

AMY GOODMAN: Very good. Explain what is happening now in Oaxaca.

GUSTAVO ESTEVA: Well, basically, my feeling is that the mood of the people today is that we are hoping for the best, but we are preparing for the worst, because the last Monday the people gave magnificent, magnificent signs of courage and restraint, and at the same time we got signs of incompetence, irresponsibility and a very dangerous attitude in the state and the president government.

What we are seeing basically is that they have been training the police, both of the municipal, the state and the federal police, in an exercise of clear impunity. This was very clear, very open in the repression fifteen days ago in July 16, when they were very vicious in the open repression of the people, even with journalists there, in front of journalists that were also beaten, and telling them, “You can do whatever you want. You can take photos. You can do whatever they want.”

And they have this feeling of impunity because they know very well -- we all know -- that, for example, the killers of Brad Will, those that we had in the video, are in their public offices. They are officers. There is not one single case of any police or any person even accused of doing anything against them, in spite of the fact that we have all kind of documentation proofs. The local organizations of human rights, the international organizations, we have all kind of elements.

The federal government are still saying that they will not intervene, that this is a local affair. But at the same time, it is only the federal government that can authorize the use of the army. And the army, in this occasion, last Monday, they stopped buses in the road, and they were in the hills where the events happened. Then the federal government is intervening, is still supporting this psychopathic governor and supporting this repression of the social movements. Apparently, they continue trying to give the lessons to the people of Oaxaca and to the people of the whole country that they are ready to pay the political price of this open violations of human rights, this obscene treatment of the social movements to keep the people in control.

AMY GOODMAN: Gustavo Esteva, with us in Oaxaca. We are also joined by two Oaxaca-based activist filmmakers, Damian [Lopez] and Simon Sedillo. Damian is a media activist, works with a collective that came together during the 2006 popular uprising in Oaxaca. He was a collaborator on Compromiso Cumplido, or True to My Pledge, the first of a two-part documentary about human rights violations by the state during the current conflict in Oaxaca. Simon Sedillo is an activist and filmmaker who’s been working in and out of Oaxaca for the last eight years, documenting and teaching community-based video to indigenous communities. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

Why don't we start off with Damian? Can you describe what your film collective is attempting to do right now? And I also want to alert our viewers and listeners, you can go to our website at democracynow.org to see some of the video of what's taking place on the ground right now in Oaxaca. Damian? Simon, can you translate for Damian? Thank you.

DAMIAN LOPEZ: [translated] So my collective, Mal de Ojo TV, began since 14th of June, 2006, when Ulises began his repression against the popular movement. We began documenting this social uprising and social organizing around these issues and have been doing so since then.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain the name, Mal de Ojo.

DAMIAN LOPEZ: [translated] So, Mal de Ojo came out of a collective process. It’s Spanish for “the evil eye.” And we just collectively came together and came up with that name.

AMY GOODMAN: How hard is it to film in the streets?

DAMIAN LOPEZ: [translated] So, at first, it was obviously very difficult, and it's always very difficult, but at first the people on the streets didn't know the difference between necessarily independent media activists and regular media. So people had very little trust of mainstream media, because they had been kind of manipulating the story in the mainstream media. And then we also have the constant issue of deciding whether or not to use an independent media press badge, because it's good to have that for the people to identify you as an independent journalist, but it's bad for the police to identify you as an independent journalist.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Simon, you, yourself, are working on a film now that is edited by indigenous communities. Can you talk about the role of communities, the media in the communities? I mean, a community last year, APPO, taking over a radio station so they have some means to speak unfiltered to the people.

SIMON SEDILLO: Absolutely. I think, more than anything, it's important to understand that it's a very broad-based movement, not just the teachers movement, but indigenous movement, workers, students, housewives, a lot of different people involved. And everybody traditionally has noticed the manipulation of mass media in Mexico. It’s very blatant. It’s very easy to point out and recognize. So independent media and taking back the media was an integral component of the APPO’s uprising.

One of the most important tools that they utilized was radio. A radio station that was controlled by the Section 22 teachers movement was actually shut down by the police on June 14. Immediately, the APPO occupied the university radio station, Radio Universidad, and held it for the entirety of the popular uprising. They also occupied the state-run TV and radio station, Canal Nueve, and at one point had occupied eleven commercial radio stations, which little by little were returned. But all this became a very, very integral component to the entire uprising.

AMY GOODMAN: Gustavo Esteva, Brad Will, you mentioned the American journalist who was killed last year in Oaxaca as he was covering the conflict. Other Oaxacans were also killed, not as well known in this country. And this year, the person who was just killed now in this latest conflict.

GUSTAVO ESTEVA: Yeah, and in this specific case -- well, in fact, as in most of the other twenty-six cases that we have documented and those that we cannot document because the people are intimidated to report the deaths, those disappeared -- but the fact is that this last case, we have very, very serious, serious photos and a video showing very clearly that when the police got this guy, he was in perfect condition. He was walking, and he has not any sign of any kind of problem, meaning that it was not in a conflict, it was not in a battle, that he was not attacking the police. He was just captured, and then after capturing him they started beating him.

AMY GOODMAN: Gustavo Esteva, I want to end with a clip from the documentary Compromiso Cumplido, or True to My Pledge, just released. Damian [Lopez] worked on the production. This is an excerpt.

    UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Everything started in these neighborhoods due to insecurity. People started setting up their barricades. One day my husband said, “We're just sitting here resting, and these people are risking their lives and losing sleep in the barricades.” He said, “Why don't you make a pot of coffee, and we'll take it there.” On October 14, he said, “Why don't you make an oatmeal atole with bread, and we'll take it to our friends in the barricade?” When it was around 2:30, he said, “Well, let's get going.” And I said, “Yes, let's go.”

    We were just turning here to go home, when suddenly we heard the sirens of an ambulance. He said, “Let's go open a path for the ambulance to get through.” He went back to do it, and I just stood there. I saw a truck that had been parked for a while in front of a bar got ahead of the ambulance and went over to the barricade. I heard the shots while they were shouting, "Long live Ulises Ruiz!" They started firing. I went back to see what had happened, and they told me that my husband was wounded. I found him on the ground in the middle of the street, drowning in his own blood.

AMY GOODMAN: Excerpt of Compromiso Cumplido. You can go to maldeojotv.net.

Ecuador’s Quest For A Coherent Foreign Policy

Quito’s Rocky Foreign Relations: Two Separate Issues Point in One Direction

Ecuador is currently handling two major foreign affairs questions – recent proposals to join OPEC and a contentious flap over UNITAS Pacific, a naval exercise that has been hosted annually by the U.S. Navy since 1959. The naval exercise involves Peru, Panama, Colombia and Chile, and is staged to encourage positive inter-American military ties and to augment naval cooperation. UNITAS Pacific is part of phase one of Partnership of the Americas, a 6 month naval mission sponsored by the Pentagon.

Almost simultaneously with the deployment of UNITAS Pacific, the twelve member nations of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) were discussing the possible return of Ecuador to its fold, after Quito submitted an official request to rejoin the organization in June. Ecuador was a member of OPEC from 1973 until 1992, when the difficulty of keeping up with overhead payments to the organization induced it to withdraw. Since that time, Ecuador’s economy has struggled even more fitfully than it had before, as the lack of refining facilities forced the country to depend upon costly imported gasoline in spite of its ample crude reserves. In 2006, Quito ousted its largest foreign investor, Occidental Petroleum of Los Angeles, after the government claimed that the company was not adhering to its contractual arrangement with the country. This led to a harmful decline in output. It is becoming increasingly clear that the consequences of both the OPEC and UNITAS Pacific gatherings could extend to a level beyond naval, petroleum, and military collaboration.

Rafael Correa, the left-leaning president of Ecuador, is the country’s eighth chief executive in ten years. The unstable nation appears open to Correa’s plans to improve the economy and its petroleum-based energy sector by strengthening Petroecuador and becoming an active OPEC contributor; but questions have surfaced among some non-OPEC governments (notably the U.S.), based on Correa’s close relationships with Bolivia’s Evo Morales and, especially due to Quito’s kinship with Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, as of now Latin America’s only member of OPEC.

In aspiring to rejoin OPEC, President Correa is assuming an opposite role than was the case with UNITAS Pacific, as the headquarters for this year’s exercises were abruptly moved from Ecuador to Colombia. According to officials with the U.S. Southern Command, the shift was due to an unsettled maritime border dispute involving Ecuador and Washington. Consequently, Quito decided to no longer contribute its resources to the U.S.-sponsored wargame. Pulling out of UNITAS Pacific conveyed the resentment felt by Ecuador towards participating next to the U.S. Ecuador’s Foreign Minister, María Fernanda Espinosa, commented, “in the face of this unusual, unilateral, unsolicited, and unacceptable decision, Ecuador has decided not to participate in UNITAS in 2007.” On the surface, the issue of OPEC appears unrelated to UNITAS Pacific, yet under closer examination it is clear that both initially reveal similar traits, namely, their potential to recalibrate Ecuador’s foreign relations in a direction away from Washington.

A Decade of Economic Turmoil
While the 1980s and early 1990s saw several attempts at democratic governance in Ecuador, the nation’s economy and political infrastructure have encountered sustained turbulence since 1996. A lack of stable leadership created substantial political chaos, and the absence of predictable access to natural resource production (especially petroleum) led directly to Quito’s economic crisis of 1999.

In that year, just one year after a new constitution was being drafted, Ecuador plunged into an economic free-fall. With the curse of El Niño – the periodic and devastating warming of offshore waters that, in 1999, damaged much of the country’s agricultural land – as well as an acute drop in world oil prices, Ecuador’s GDP fell 7.3 percent, and the national currency was devalued by about 70 percent. To cope with this collapse, Quito decided to dollarize in 2000, causing petroleum prices to climb. Moreover, refining capacity still remains a pertinent concern, and the future of Ecuador’s steadiness rests largely in the hands of Correa. With support from across Latin America, and with some fresh economic ideas – especially prospects of rejoining OPEC – perhaps Ecuador’s president will be able to firmly guide the nation into the international mainstream.

President Correa’s attempts to guide the nation to prominent stature in the global market could, however, be spoiled by the UNITAS Pacific controversy. From the U.S. perspective, Ecuador has been in a maritime dispute with both the U.S. and Peru. The U.S. recognized Ecuador’s jurisdiction of twelve nautical miles of territorial waters, while Ecuador insisted on a 200 mile limit. In addition, a parallel border was drawn between Ecuador and Peru based on an agreement signed in 1952. However, Peru had never accepted this decision. Peruvian President Alán Garcia dismissed this claim and denies any dispute, “border or maritime,” with Ecuador. For her part, Minister Espinosa similarly insisted that such a disagreement had been settled years earlier, verifying that it could not be used to explain the U.S. Southern Command’s decision regarding Ecuador’s nautical minutes. From Quito’s perspective, the relocation of the UNITAS Pacific headquarters was entirely unforeseen. Colombian Defense Minister Juan Miguel Santos understood that the maneuvers were moved from Ecuador because Ecuador and the U.S. had failed to come to an accord regarding the configuration of the UNITAS Pacific naval drills, further revealing the ambiguity clouding the decision.

A Trip Follows Disaster: Negroponte’s Attempt to Reduce Tension
In May 2007, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte traveled to Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru intending to meet with Latin American heads of state and discuss policy issues. The U.S. has recently turned down a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Colombia, and has set back by several months the forging of FTAs with Panama and Peru, which had been in the works. This put Ecuador in an unsurprising outsider position, considering that President Correa recently declined the U.S.’s offer to enter into such a bilateral pact. On top of Ecuador’s already rocky relations with the U.S. due to the UNITAS Pacific decision, it is no surprise that Negroponte’s trip could have provoked some awkward moments. Upon meeting with Negroponte, the Ecuadorian leader verbalized a subtle but provocative reference when he said, “Ecuador has a government which loves democracy and liberty deeply but, like the U.S., it also loves its sovereignty.” The value and concern Ecuador has placed recently on its national sovereignty has been a vehicle in helping to trigger increasingly chilled feelings between the U.S. and Ecuador.

Latin American “Brothers and Sisters”: Harmful or Beneficial?
The consequences of Ecuador’s UNITAS Pacific decision surface when Ecuadorian officials compare their relationship with neighboring Latin American countries to their relationship with the U.S. Support from the U.S. for leftist political leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez is nonexistent; yet, the tri-lateral relationship between Venezuela, Ecuador, and the U.S. generates an enticing illogicality. Although a healthy relationship seemed to exist separately between both Ecuador and the U.S., and Ecuador and Venezuela, Washington has repeatedly challenged the policies of the Chávez administration and its counter-hegemonic tendencies. Ecuadorian officials should consider this contradiction when expressing support for the Chávez administration while simultaneously anticipating that the U.S. will support them when it comes to other pressing issues like the Andean Trade Protection and Drug Eradication Act (ATPDEA). While it is possible that Correa is allying his administration with specific Chávez policies in order to give his own government more leeway, caution remains essential for Ecuador to ensure comfortable relations with Washington, as it pursues membership in OPEC.

The Correa-Chávez Equation
In its mission statement, OPEC identifies two goals for its member nations: “[To] coordinate their oil production policies in order to help stabilize the oil market and to help oil producers achieve a reasonable rate of return on their investments.” During Ecuador’s previous involvement in the cartel, it produced very little petroleum in comparison to most of OPEC’s members – only the small African nation of Gabon exported less. With the recent encouragement and support from Chávez, Ecuador can potentially fulfill more of the first objective in an effort to maximize the second.

Correa is not the only Ecuadorian president to foster oil-based relations with Venezuela. In May 2006, Chávez visited Quito and signed several energy agreements, including one contract to refine as much as 100,000 barrels of crude oil per day. Ironically, while the U.S. and other developed nations balk at high gas prices and hunt around the Middle East in hopes of acquiring new petroleum production, Ecuador sits on reserves that it cannot afford to exploit. Meanwhile, Quito’s petroleum industry is horrendously prone to accidents and lost production, quickly wilting away the treasured Amazon by its casual environmental standards while alienating Ecuador’s relatively large population of indigenous peoples. Between 1990 and 2005, over 20 percent of Ecuador’s forest coverage was destroyed because of oil operations. Additionally, Texaco’s massive oil operations spilled nearly 17 million gallons of crude oil into Ecuador’s waterways in the 25 years that it held an oil stake in the country.

It is nearly inevitable that Ecuador will join OPEC – an occasion that is expected to provide a considerable economic boost to the struggling nation. However, it is also certain that any increase in oil extraction is likely to be extraordinarily deleterious to the surrounding environment. In attempts to counteract the expansion of pollution, Correa has made a novel appeal to the international community by asking for funds to refrain from opening new oil fields in the Ecuadorian Amazon: “Ecuador doesn’t ask for charity, but does ask that the international community share in the sacrifice and compensate us with at least half of what our country would receive, in recognition of the environmental benefits that would be generated by keeping this oil underground.” It is virtually hopeless that the petrol-hungry industrialized world will accommodate such a radical, if logical, form of preservation, and therefore it is inherently necessary that the world acknowledge Ecuador’s cries: Quito is unable to afford much of its own refining. Meanwhile, its environment has suffered immeasurably. With the untapped fields of the Yasuni National Park estimated to contain between 900 million and one billion barrels of crude oil, the question arises: is the international community willing to pay in order to prevent this irreplaceable resource from being destroyed by exploitation?

Washington’s Position on Ecuador; Manta Base to Expire in 2009
The relationship between Ecuador and Venezuela is important to evaluate because close ties may have strong implications both within OPEC and across the international community. Prior to his election, Correa announced that he greatly anticipated closer relations with Venezuela, but adamantly denied any need for Venezuelan assistance. Chávez quietly supported Correa throughout the campaign, and at Correa’s January inauguration, Chávez presented Correa with a replica of Simón Bolivar’s sword.

While this may seem inconsequential, it is not so for the Bush Administration, which loses no love over Chávez’s leftist government. The election of Correa may have significant implications for Washington: Ecuador is the U.S.’s second-greatest supplier of South American makeshift oil and is the home of the only U.S. military base in South America. In January, Correa announced that Quito will not renew its leasing arrangement with Washington for its Forward Operating Location (FOL) situated in Manta, Ecuador, which ends in 2009. The basis for this action is that it is not aligned with Ecuador’s national sovereignty.

The Eloy Airfield in the northern city of Manta was originally intended to provide a site from which the U.S. could regulate and provide surveillance of drug trafficking flights in the region as a counter-narcotics component of Plan Colombia. The lack of emphasis by the U.S. on the renewal of the Manta base may clarify the rather fuzzy explanations for the motivation behind the UNITAS Pacific controversy; it could be maintained that the decision of the U.S. Southern Command to move the headquarters was a form of retaliation for the refusal of upholding Manta as an FOL. The U.S. push for a military base in Manta reaches beyond its anti-drug trafficking itinerary. Its closure highlights the possibility that Ecuador will be less keen on welcoming Colombian refugees, a fear now rooted in the hearts of the vulnerable group. Nonetheless, Minister Espinosa has made Ecuador’s intentions quite clear: “Ecuador is responding to feelings and desires of the Ecuadorian people who do not support the presence of foreign armed forces; from where these armed forces are is irrelevant.” Clearly, Correa is aiming for Ecuador to play a stronger role in regional politics while steering away from relations with Washington, a position that could be greatly accelerated by Quito’s acceptance into OPEC.

A Change of Course: Logistical Problems
Some OPEC member states have expressed a desire for Ecuador to repay the $5 billion debt it owed OPEC upon its withdrawal from the organization in 1992. Correa, however, seems set on the prospect of re-joining, despite the country’s inability to compensate its creditors: “the decision to return to OPEC has been taken and this will open up a lot of opportunities, among them access to credit in Middle East banks.” The outlook became even more positive for a hopeful Quito, as the OPEC Secretary General, Abdullah Al-Badri, expressed the conviction that he “expects” and “hopes” that Ecuador will be accepted as a member at the September meeting of OPEC states in Vienna, Austria.

It is an intrinsic necessity that the developed world not only applauds and encourages the advancement of Ecuador in the hemispheric market, but that it also is mindful of the warnings and dangers of environmental and humanitarian dereliction. The major imperative for the U.S. is pursuing energy dependence before it will consider helping a small player like Ecuador. As the Bush Administration continues to claw for an alternative fuel agenda, perhaps a more logical route is for it to acknowledge Correa’s help and pleas to prevent the destruction of one of the world’s most treasured natural habitats by purchasing pre-production rights from Quito. In 2006, the U.S. accounted for 54 percent of Ecuador’s exports, the primary being petroleum. While OPEC should help to bolster Ecuador’s economy and increase its presence in the world market, the receiving market needs to heed Quito’s warnings and seek alternative agendas. Surely Ecuador’s acceptance into OPEC could help foster more positive relations that may have been tarnished from the UNITAS Pacific matter. The UNITAS Pacific decision has the potential to stoutly affect the bigger geopolitical picture: Ecuador’s position in the eyes of its neighboring countries and the U.S. Ramifications of the UNITAS Pacific decision may manifest themselves in formally unrelated issues, such as OPEC, and likely will play a significant – if not central – role in Ecuador’s future.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Anna Gangadharan and Erin Nagy

July 26, 2007

Immigration Compromise Too Little Too Late: The Gates Should Be Opened To All Who Wish To Come

The following opinion piece on the U.S. Immigration Issue provides a somewhat radical assessment of the question, “Who should be allowed to enter the country?” It does not have the official imprimatur of either COHA or a number of the author’s colleagues who feel that its thesis will be considered to be too controversial. Though some may see it as radical, the essay is being presented here because of the clarity and intellectual merit of its argument, the boldness of its position, and the courage of its thesis.


The immigration issue will net the GOP little, remember that the compromise that was recently shot down in the Senate had both bi-partisan support and opposition, a fact that best illustrates how little U.S. policymakers understood the issues over which they squabbled so tenaciously. Many arguments have been made against illegal immigration to this country, especially by the more conservative anti-immigration activists and Hill lawmakers.

Instead of taking a moral and logical stand in support of America’s rich heritage of immigration, even some of the more “liberal” politicians have practically ceded the issue to their ideological foes and are being led in circles around watered-down guest worker programs and other tepid substitutes to a full-throated immigration strategy which this nation patently requires and which is inherently humane. It is hard to blame humble citizens however, given the massive amount of misinformation and heavy duty propaganda being thrown against the most controversial aspects of immigration. In the absence of a level-headed coverage of the issue, many Americans have fallen back upon crude nativism to guide their understanding of immigration; a dangerous pattern of simplification that politicians help to fuel with paranoid soundbytes reminiscent of the worst sci-fi films such as “no amnesty for criminals!,” and an “alien invasion is occurring around you.”

What then is the truth about the immigration invasion? No matter what scare tactics have been employed to caricature the debate up to now, regulated immigration is good for the United States. Open door immigration - the legalization of any and all immigrants who wish to come to the country, (which is what I am advocating), is a policy that has become so far removed from the recent political trends as to appear at first glance to be impossible to attain or unwise to seek. Yet open unrestricted immigration was the U.S. law of the land from its founding up until 1924, and is the only policy that is both ethically acceptable and which is financially beneficial to the United States. As reader Walter Lippmann points out, Congressmen on both sides of the aisle have long understood the concept of open door immigration, “There’s already an open door for all immigrants, but they have to come from only one country: Cuba.” Yet the demonization of immigrants has sharpened as the debate has heated up, fueled not only by illegal immigrants but by legal ones as well.

Five Myths about Immigration:
Though it might seem that the ethical dimensions behind maintaining our American heritage as a melting pot would be self-evident and therefore given priority, there are an unfortunate number of straw-man arguments that deserve to be properly burned down. The following are the five most prominent anti-immigrant bromides and a refutation of each of them.

“Immigrants take jobs from American workers!”
This is perhaps the most commonly cited rationale for anti-immigrant sentiment which was cynically mobilized by the foes of open immigration. The oversimplified logic behind this claim asserts that an unrestricted ingress of any alien wanting to come here would dangerously increase competition for jobs as well as cause grave social unrest. This presumption is predicated on the assumption that not only is competition bad for an economy, but that an influx of immigrants would take jobs away without providing any new employment opportunities. In reality, jobs are not sacred or reserved for anyone in particular. In a capitalist society, one which conservatives claim to uphold, free competition is the lifeblood of economic prosperity. The irony of supposedly “protecting” American jobs by denying free competition is that it inevitably encourages U.S. corporations to move the jobs out of the country in a process of outsourcing. If a nation is to remain competitive, it has to be based on a meritocracy – how well a worker can work at a job, and not on naked xenophobia.

The main problem over job “loss” to illegal immigrants is not due so much to their being immigrants, as much as their illegal status. Fearful of being deported, and usually in a desperate daily search for a job, illegal immigrants are not protected by minimum wage laws and thus become attractive targets for employers looking to cut costs by paying inhumane salaries. If the illegal immigrants were legalized, and not in constant fear of deportation, they would be able to join labor unions, make investments, participate in civic society and work in relative security - just like other Americans. If all immigrants were legalized, the threat of losing one’s job to an immigrant who would work for next to nothing, would be nullified by the intrinsic protections they have as citizens, such as banning sub-minimum wage salaries, and eliminating any incentive employers might have to favor immigrants.

Moreover, an influx of legalized immigrants into the American economy will likely create as many new jobs for legal employees, as would be occupied by the new immigrants. Consider the beneficial results of a large pool of legal and naturalized immigrants: suddenly there will be millions of new Americans who will be buying food, consumer goods, furniture, housing, insurance, cars, electronics and appliances, not to mention creating a new generation of jobs in the service sector. Immigrants will need to be employed, but at the same time their mere presence will lead to the creation of still additional jobs.

Anti-immigrant militants who claim they want to “protect” American jobs from foreigners rarely take the above factors into consideration, and often propose the most radical “solutions” to the supposed problems that await being cured. For example, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California claimed in one of his speeches, “Why don’t we use our brains and use those people who are available to the United States, for example, the millions of young men, who are prisoners throughout our country, can pick the fruit and vegetables. I say, let the prisoners pick the fruits, let’s not bid down the wages of the American worker with the guest worker program.” Forgetting entirely that the supposed point of his rabid anti-immigrant stance was to protect American workers, Rohrabacher’s proposal in fact had nothing to do with protecting workers from having their jobs stolen, but instead sought to deny immigrants from working at unoccupied jobs by turning American prisoners into slaves! Hostile lawmakers like Rohrabacher don’t seem to understand what they are fighting for, because it certainly isn’t the public weal of American workers. If anything, they would be supporting a counter-intuitive nativist policy of “protecting” unoccupied jobs from foreigners simply because they are foreign, and would rather see those fruits and vegetables rot than let an immigrant do a job no native or naturalized American was inclined to do.

“Immigrants depress our wages and are bad for the American Worker!”
This argument is usually used in tandem with the fear that immigrants will steal Americans’ jobs. Much as is the case with claims of job theft, the problem is not that illegal immigrants are immigrants, but that they are illegal. Wages are depressed by illegal immigration because in most instances such refugees are not protected by labor laws or minimum wage regulations. If the immigrants were legalized and future immigrants registered with an open door immigration mechanism, then they would be protected by the law, and would no longer be a threat to prevailing wages by working for less than minimum pay. What is truly a burden on American workers today is the current status quo: the maintenance of a de facto underclass of illegal immigrants who are unable to join labor unions or seek other protections under the law for fear of being outed.

Keeping the immigrants in constant fear and denying them the protections other workers automatically get is not only keeping the illegals more vulnerable, but is also threatening American workers whose labor protections make them less desirable to unscrupulous employers. The legalization of all immigrants would kill two birds with one stone, protecting both current American workers from the unbeatable competition from illegal immigrants and the immigrants from being manipulated and exploited by employers.

“But they are criminals! How can you grant them amnesty?”
“Illegal immigrants” are considered criminals because U.S. nativists and Washington policymakers have intentionally criminalized them in order to degrade their status and justify that an entire swath of the population is being stripped of protections and a political voice. As evidenced by past injustices perpetuated by skewed legal systems, one cannot be a true criminal in the context of unethical laws. If a slave escaped from the anti-bellum south he/she was legally a criminal, but that was just because of the racist laws that had been set up to maintain the slave-owner’s hegemony. The solution then, as now, is not to assault the immigrants as criminals, but to amend our laws to decriminalize those who are unjustly lumped with real wrongdoers.

Immigration Restrictions of Recent Ancestry
It is important to remember that up until the 20th century the U.S. had benefited from its near open-door immigration policy which, like democracy, was supported by most Americans even as Europe and much of the rest of the world remained under the thumb of entrenched authoritarian monarchies and oligarchs. As the U.S. grew wealthy with the fruits of its swelling population’s labor, the now substantially-better-off population had less incentive to favor populist and humanitarian causes as they began to climb out of poverty and as they forget about their own impoverished immigrant backgrounds. In 1921 Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, which was reinforced by the Immigration Act of 1924, limiting immigration to the U.S. from any country to two percent of the existing nationality/ethnic group in the country at the time. This legislation was specifically targeted to racially select Western European immigrants - namely Northern European Protestants- over migrants from less favored parts of the world, as well as favoring Protestant immigrants over Catholics, Jews and other unwanted religious denominations. This bigoted legislation led to many tragedies, most famously the banning of hundreds of thousands of European Jews leading up to and during the 1930’s and 1940’s from immigrating to the U.S., leading to their inevitable destruction in the Holocaust.

Though the earlier legislation was overturned in 1965 with the Hart-Cellar Act, the nativist prejudice enforced for four decades by the 1924 Immigration Act extracted an intellectual toll on our long-standing self conception of the United States as a beacon of liberty. After the tragedy of 9/11, anti-immigrant fervor again surged and has lead to irrational and jingoistic patriotism. Though after 9/11, more than half of Americans surveyed felt that tighter immigration controls would be very effective at enhancing U.S. security; logic seems to have been lost in translation. How else can one explain what causes a populace attacked by an almost purely Saudi Arabian extremist movement that had been in the pay of the Reagan administration, and hailing from a nation that has been one of the White House’s key allies, to decide that the Mexican-American border urgently requires better enforcement?

The notion that America should only allow a small number of immigrants to enter the country, and should use the admissions process to socially engineer American society, is a purely 20th century invention and flies in the face of past precedent. Amnesty for any and all “illegal” immigrants in this country is long overdue, and should be predicated merely upon their being registered as citizens or permanent residents like any legal immigrant would be, and have no felonious record. The real wrongdoers are not immigrants, but the local politicians and nativists who have betrayed our nation’s long heritage of being a haven for the hardworking, desperate masses.

“Immigrants will corrupt our culture or fail to assimilate.”

The irrational xenophobia gripping American politics has led many to fear for their culture and lifestyle in the face of an immigrant “invasion.” For some, America has reached its cultural limit, and any additional contribution of divergent mores– especially if its practices and customs are at odds with the prevailing Anglo-Teutonic value system – will somehow damage the existing cultural milieu. The reality is that American culture and society has historically only been enriched by immigrants. Abandoning the melting pot doctrine out of fear of diversity is inherently opposed to the founding concept of the United States, as a free nation where no specific ideology or culture is supposed to dominate. An American can walk the streets of almost any U.S. city and have Chinese, Italian, Thai, French, Mexican, Malaysian or any other ethnic food. American staples, like hot dogs and hamburgers are of German origin, while Apple pie had been a prized dessert throughout Europe long before the Americans made it a national icon. Our transcontinental railroads were largely built by immigrants, and even our U.S. dollar was modeled on the Mexican Peso. The civil and human rights protected by the U.S. Constitution and bill of rights were formulated by French and English enlightenment philosophers long before they ended up on the agenda of the Founding Fathers. The very land the U.S. now occupies was acquired, by means of a self-declared right of conquest, from the continent’s Native Americans, while California, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma were snapped up in an act of sheer imperialism, from Mexico in the Mexican-American War.

The reality is that the multi-cultural heritage of the United States is irreversible and in fact a boon to each generation of its citizens, who enjoy the benefits of the world’s plethora of cultures in many arenas. Any attempt by a section of society to claim cultural hegemony and status as the “true” American culture is simply engaging in an attempt to consolidate power unjustly, or oppress those who are different from themselves, something that has no place in a free country, nor traditionally has been given much of an audience.

“There isn’t enough room in America and immigrants are a negative pressure on our environment”
This argument, while less commonly cited than the others, has more substantive weight in intellectual circles and among environmentalists who would normally be more responsive to a humanitarian case made by refugees clamoring to enter this country. Though it is true that overpopulation is a real problem in the modern world, immigration, both legal and illegal, has little to do with it. Overpopulation in the United States is caused mostly by this country’s own population, which grew from 76 million in 1900 to 300 million in 2000, with at no point more than 16 percent of its population being foreign born. Even with this large internal growth, there is still far more room in the United States for prospective immigrants than many other potential receiving countries. For an environmentalist concerned with the effects of overcrowding, it would be vastly preferable that an immigrant come to the United States over nations like India - whose population density is 10 times that of the U.S. - or Brazil, where crowded and impoverished citizens have resorted to harvesting swaths of the country’s rainforest in order to clear more room for farming.

Environmental concerns are global: what happens in one part of the world will rapidly affect the global environment. As ecological health is a zero-sum situation, denying immigrants access to our country to help reduce local environmental strain will only cause environmental disaster in countries with less stringent green regulations. Ironically, the greater the share of the world’s population that resides in the U.S., the more control the authorities will have over their ecological footprint and the better their ability to enforce pro-environmental laws. If U.S. citizens try to harvest rainforests or damage other valuable natural resources, it is within this country’s legal jurisdiction to stop them, whereas what occurs in third world nations experiencing crushing poverty is far from Washington’s control.

The Real War on Terror
If most Americans took the time to look at the realities behind contemporary trends affecting immigration movement and the boon that such population swells have had on American society, then there wouldn’t even be a debate, and the “issue” of immigration would disappear entirely. Unfortunately, most Americans have long been intentionally misled by fear-mongering politicians who will use nativist, isolationist, and to a large extent, racist arguments to attract undeserved votes and as a base to achieve personal power. The bigoted isolationism to which many Americans subscribe is usually out of a concern for their own self interest, fear for their jobs, their communities, and their first world comforts, as well as the simple fear of the unknown. Many citizens of the most powerful nation in the world live in constant fear which is exploited and fed by politicians, while corporations want all the illegal immigrants that they can get, because low wages and marginal life styles are good for business.

The above arguments attempt to derail some of the fears that drive many Americans to act against their own best interests, albeit unknowingly. By denying mass immigration into the wealthiest country in the world, the U.S. has essentially created a reverse Berlin Wall. If the U.S. creates an artificially high density of labor in other countries by denying access to our shores (and the labor protections that U.S. citizenship entails), we will contribute to a situation of guaranteed poverty where local workers will be desperate enough to work for less than subsistence wages. With the rise of globalization and the spread of multi-national corporations, the impulsive sealing of national borders is being turned to in order to help secure a nation’s livelihood, despite the fact that it will only hinder the working populace on both sides of the border. National economic strength greatly depends upon the international economic wellbeing and a free migration of labor that allows for the diffusion of both poverty and prosperity on a global scale, facilitating a blending of regional living conditions, no matter how scary the concept sounds.

The real war on terror needs to start at home, and shouldn’t just be aimed at catching terrorists. U.S. citizens must break free from the fear and terror that has been used to shackle and manipulate them and realize that any resort to nativism is not only ethically wrong, but is against their self interest. Fear not the immigrant whose life and priorities are much the same as your own. The only thing we have to fear is being used to achieve the ends of the political-industrial complex, which has no qualms with exploiting the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and who will gladly sow misinformation and prejudice when it suits their needs.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Alex Racheotes

Chiapas: Zapatista Encuentro meets on contested turf

Representatives of peasant organizations from across the globe have gathered in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas for the "Encuentro with the Peoples of the World," hosted by the Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN). Participating groups include Brazil's Movement of the Landless, Thailand's Assembly of the Poor and the international NGO Via Campesina. Meetings are being held in the Zapatista "autonomous municipalities" of Oventic, Morelia and La Garrucha, where Comandanta Delia articulated the conditions that led the Zapatistas to take up arms in 1994: "Our grandparents lived in slavery, without salaries. We asked for land, but we were always denied by the evil government. Persecutions, imprisonments, houses burned. There has never been good justice." (La Jornada, July 25)

Meanwhile, conflicts over political control of lands and communities in Chiapas continue to simmer. Days before the Encuentro opened, an ambulance belonging to the Zapatista Autonomous Health System (SAAZ) was attacked with stones by a group of apparently drunken men who called them "Zapatista bandits" when the vehicle broke down while transporting a gravely ill patient from the clinic at Oventic to the hospital at the regional city of San Cristobal de Las Casas. Some of the health workers were pinned down under the car during the attack. A statement from the SAAZ said the assailants were presumably members of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). (La Jornada, July 15)

Following a long campaign by the EZLN's Sixth Commission, a civil support network, the Zapatistas met with a tentative victory July 12 when the Agrarian Tribunal in the state capital Tuxtla Gutierrez issued a ruling dismissing claims to Zapatista-held lands at El Nantze by the PRI-linked Organization for the Defense of Indigenous and Campesino Rights (OPDDIC). La Jornada's Hermann Bellinghausen writes that the decision "tacitly recognizes the legitimacy of the autonomous communities and their lands." (La Jornada, July 13)

Bellinghausen also reported that since the arrest of OPDDIC leader Pedro Chulín Jiménez earlier this year, many of the organization's adherents have defected to the center-left Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD). This may loan credence to Zapatista claims that the PRD is coming to mirror the PRI as a corrupt political machine, but also seems to signify a weakening of the most militant anti-Zapatista organization in Chiapas. (La Jornada, July 15)

A San Cristobal-based NGO, the Center for Political, Social and Economic Study and Analysis (CAPISE) issued a document in July entitled "Face of War," accusing the Mexican federal army of expanding its positions in the Chiapas rainforest over the past year—in a pattern of collaboration with local anti-Zapatista forces. The study charges that "military elements have held meetings and visits with settlements and families opposed to the Zapatistas" in the jungle, "guaranteeing the penetration" of the OPDDIC into the lands of rebel-loyal communities. (La Jornada, July 18)

On July 6, the Fray Bartoleme de Las Casas Human Rights Center announced that its investigators, working with residents of the now-abandoned jungle settlement of Viejo Velasco Suárez, had uncovered the remains of two of the four indigenous campesinos who were presumed killed in the armed attack on the community last November. (La Jornada, July 7) The Fray Bartoleme Center and other rights groups, as well as the Zapatistas, had named the OPDDIC as behind the attack.

Following allegations in the Mexican press, the EZLN also issues a statement earlier this month denying links to the EPR guerillas, who re-emerged with dramatic attacks on pipelines in central Mexico.

USA eager to use Colombian and Peruvian air bases for its operations

Ecuador has refused to extend the Pentagon's lease on the Manta air base.

The Pentagon is desperately trying to convince leftist Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa that the Manta air base used by the US military for counternarcotics operations. But if negotiations fail as Quito anticipated, two other South American nations have offered their territory to open similar bases.

On Tuesday it became known that Peru has offered the United States the use of its air fields, according to U.S. officials. With Colombia's earlier offer to discuss air sites, the U.S. military now has two potential alternatives to Ecuador's Manta base.

Negotiations are in early stages, according to the U.S. officials, who stressed that Ecuador was not off the table despite President Rafael Correa's publicly stated opposition. Colombia and Peru have offered but I don't think Ecuador's really closed," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity, as quoted by the Reuters news agency.

Ecuador’s Manta air base is the largest of the kind in South America and it is a key facility in US anti-drugs policy. By the way, counternarcotics operations have become one of the U.S. military's primary missions in Latin America, as Colombia and Peru, the world's top cocaine producers, receive the largest amount of U.S. military aid in the region.

Mr. Correa, a US critic and close ally of Venezuela’s leader Hugo Chavez, has recently called U.S. President George W. Bush a "dimwit". Later, he refused to extend the Pentagon's lease on the Manta air base used by U.S. aircraft to help catch South American drug runners.

The Peruvian and the Colombian offers come as both countries negotiate free trade deals with Washington, which are being challenged by the Democratic majority in the Capitol. An agreement with Peru could also involve U.S. financial assistance for de-mining efforts and other help with border security programs -- both needs voiced by Lima to Washington.

Hernan Etchaleco

The New Politics of Political Aid in Venezuela

By: Tom Barry - Global Research

Five years after U.S.-funded groups were associated with a failed coup against Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez, the U.S. government's political aid programs continue to meddle in Venezuelan domestic politics. A new focus of the "democracy builders" in Venezuela and around the world is support for nonviolent resistance by civil society organizations.

In the name of promoting democracy and freedom, Washington is currently funding scores of U.S. and Venezuelan organizations as part of its global democratization strategy—including at least one that publicly supported the April 2002 coup that briefly removed Chávez from power.

When he first heard the news of the coup, the president of the International Republican Institute (IRI) praised those "who rose up to defend democracy," ignoring the fact that Chávez was the twice-elected president of Venezuela. Despite this declared support for a coup against a democratically elected president and for the opposition's blatant disregard for the rule of law, IRI still runs democratization programs in Venezuela that are underwritten by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

The IRI, a supposedly nonpartisan institute established to direct U.S. democratization aid for which Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is chairman, is one of five U.S. nongovernmental organizations that channels funding from USAID to Venezuelan organizations and political programs. USAID also funds the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDIIA) and three U.S. nongovernmental organizations: Freedom House, Development Alternatives Inc., and Pan-American Development Foundation.

The United States has supported democratization and human rights groups in Venezuela since the early 1990s, but funding for "democracy-building" soared after Chávez was elected president in 1998. Both USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which funds IRI and NDIIA, sharply increased their funding to Venezuela's business associations, its official labor confederation, human rights organizations, and political party coalitions.

USAID's Transition Initiative

Several months after the unsuccessful April 2002 coup in Venezuela, the U.S. State Department established an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas, using money from USAID. Operating out of the U.S. Embassy, OTI has two stated objectives, according to the agency: to "strengthen democratic institutions and promote space for democratic dialogue," and "encourage citizen participation in the democratic process."

USAID established OTI with the all-but-explicit intention of aiding efforts to oust President Chávez. According to USAID, the new office would "provide fast, flexible, short-term assistance targeted at key transition needs."

Although it did not spell out what would be the desired "transition," USAID warned that Chávez "has been slowly hijacking the machinery of government and developing parallel non-democratic governance structures." In its 2001 job description for the new OTI director in Caracas, USAID stated that the director's responsibilities would include "formulating strategy and initiating the new OTI program in close coordination with U.S. political interests" and "developing an exit strategy and operational closeout plan."

Rather than directly funding Venezuelan organizations and political parties, OTI channels USAID funding through U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that in turn fund scores of Venezuelan NGOs and political party projects. In its January-March 2007 report, USAID reported 139 subgrants to Venezuelan entities working in 19 of the country's 23 states.

OTI, which has directed an estimated $30 million in democratization aid to Venezuela, is not the only source of U.S. political aid. The office describes itself as part of a "comprehensive assistance program to shore up the democratic voices and institutions in Venezuela," such as the NED and other State Department initiatives, including "educational" trips to the United States for selected members of the Venezuelan media. As U.S. economic aid decreases, OTI is seeking local funding to complement its own programs, noting in its January-March 2007 report that it succeeded in leveraging $3.5 million in local contributions in the year's first quarter.

In its January-March appraisal of its "transition initiatives," OTI boasts: "The partnerships that have formed between NGOs and citizens eager to participate directly in their own governance attest to the success of the program ... that is filling an important need that is laying the groundwork for a sustainable democratic future."

Although the NGOs funded by the U.S. government insist they are independent, they closely coordinate their programs among themselves and with U.S. officials. In February 2007, OTI's "team leader" visited Venezuela to participate in "a strategic planning" session with the "five implementing partner organizations," according to USAID.

OTI has also been organizing a meeting with two dozen Venezuelan NGOs "that promote citizen participation in local democratic spaces." In its January-March evaluation of ongoing operations, OTI says that "given the political parties' growing appreciation of the importance of democratic spaces, the meeting will provide opportunities to discuss the synergistic overlap between civil society and political parties."

With OTI support, IRI and NDIIA offer "technical assistance for political parties," working directly "with political parties to improve their capabilities in constituency outreach and institutional development," according to USAID. Both institutes say they offer their services to both government and opposition parties—although apparently only the opposition parties avail themselves of this "democracy-building" aid.

Freedom House is best known for its widely cited Freedom in the World and Freedom of the Press reports. But it is not commonly known that Freedom House is a major recipient of U.S. government funding—directly from USAID or through the government-funded NED.

Relying almost exclusively on government funding for its overseas operations, Freedom House says it works "directly with democratic reformers on the front lines in their own countries" in Central Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Latin America, the former Soviet Union, and the Balkans. According to Freedom House, its overseas activity "acts as a catalyst for freedom by strengthening civil society, promoting open government, defending human rights, and facilitating the free flow of information."

With USAID funding, Freedom House sponsors a "Human Rights Defenders" program in Venezuela that it promotes as "facilitat[ing] the interaction of Venezuelan civil society with counterparts in Latin America to help them improve domestic human rights reporting and to expand protections for human rights." The "longer-term goal," says Freedom House, is "to assist groups who will strive to safeguard and improve the functioning of democratic institutions in Venezuela."

For its part, in early 2007 the Pan-American Development Fund provided funding to Venezuelan NGOs to "document the following activities: the constitutional reform process, discrimination based on political affiliation, and persecution of human rights practitioners." Meanwhile, Development Alternatives Inc. has focused on "training in democratic leadership and values, increasing citizen participation at the local level, and supporting NGO participation in international events."

"Destabilization Plan"—An "Action Agenda" for Democracy

In May 2007, Eva Golinger, Venezuelan-American author of The Chávez Code and a prominent critic of U.S. aid programs in Venezuela, accused Freedom House and other U.S. organizations receiving U.S. government funding of orchestrating a "destabilization plan" (see Venezuelanalysis.com, May 26, 2007). Golinger claimed Freedom House was designing a campaign of nonviolent resistance to the Chávez government.

Freedom House collaborates with the Belgrade-based Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (Canvas), which has singled out Venezuela along with Zimbabwe and Ukraine as principal targets for its training programs. Describing Canvas's approach to political transitions, the center's website says: "Mass political defiance has occurred in Burma, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, and Tibet in recent years. Although those struggles have not brought victory over dictators, they badly harmed the authority of those oppressive regimes both in the countries and in the international community."

At a May 2007 press conference in Caracas, Golinger noted that the clenched fist featured on the flyer for a protest against the closure of RCTV, the country's largest television station (accused by the government of having supported the attempted coup), is the same logo used in opposition campaigns in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine—it is also the symbol featured on the Canvas website.

USAID and NED funding of NGOs in Venezuela reflects the U.S. government's conviction that the democratic process is badly flawed and that such political aid will contribute to a "transition" to more democratic governance—or at least, to a leader more acceptable to Washington. The focus on NGOs shown by recent democratization aid is also a reflection of a new trend in aid that regards NGOs' nonviolent resistance as the most effective instrument for moving dictatorships to democracies.

This new method of instigating regime change has been promoted by NED, Freedom House, Albert Einstein Institution, and the Council for a Community of Democracies. In recent years Freedom House prominently advocated nonviolent civil action to overturn dictatorial regimes. Its 2005 study, entitled "How Freedom is Won," concluded that 50 of the 67 "transitions to democracy over the previous third of a century" were driven in large part by "civil resistance, featuring strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and mass protests."

Freedom House Board Chairman Peter Ackerman, who is also the founding chairman of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict and coauthor of Strategic Nonviolent Conflict, is a leading proponent for international funding of NGOs engaged in nonviolent organizing against non-democratic states. Freedom House, according to a March 2007 address given by Ackerman, is "making every effort to improve the substance and scalability of training tools" for civil society groups engaged in nonviolent action.

Another prominent advocate of the U.S. government funding nonviolent resistance is Mark Palmer, a State Department official who played a key role in founding NED and who now serves as the vice-chairman of Freedom House. In his June 8, 2006 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, entitled "Promotion of Democracy by Nongovernmental Organizations: An Action Agenda," Palmer called for the "radical strengthening of our primary frontline fighters for freedom"—namely, NGOs.

Palmer, who was instrumental in the creation of the Council for a Community of Democracies, lamented the fact that U.S. NGOs and "their governmental and private funders" have not made the funding of foreign NGOs involved in building "national movements" their primary objective. He advocated a major increase in government funding for "NGO programs focused on dictatorships."

Current U.S. funding of an array of NGOs and community groups in Venezuela, including training and consultation offered by organizations such as Canvas and the Albert Einstein Institution, raises concerns that the overriding objective may not be so much the advance of freedom, democracy, and human rights, but rather the furthering of U.S. strategic interests.

By including a democratic state such as Venezuela among the targets of national movement building, the independence and integrity of "democracy builders" in the United States can be called into question. Chávez supporter Golinger, for example, advised Venezuelans: "For the defense of the nation, it would be wise to end the actions of groups like Freedom House and the International Republican Institute, which serve as a front for the State Department and the CIA, and which operate openly in the country."

Democracy and Intervention

There is little doubt that democracy is being put to the test in Venezuela. With a history of democratic governance since 1958, Venezuela has had a relatively stable democratic tradition. But a large part of that stability resulted from a pattern of elections in which well-established parties of the elite alternated in power. By breaking that pattern, Hugo Chávez disrupted that vaunted stability and at the same time made politics more inclusive. For the first time, the country's rural poor and urban workers had a voice in government.

Winning several highly contested elections since 1998 by impressive majorities, Chávez has earned legitimacy as a democrat. However, in his drive to consolidate his bases of support and to usher in "21st-century socialism," he has sparked widespread concerns from human rights and press freedom organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Reporters Without Borders, that his government is riding roughshod over the democratic process of governance.

Questions about the integrity of U.S. democratization aid are now being used by the Venezuelan government to press its National Assembly to pass a new law that would subject all NGOs that receive foreign funding to governmental scrutiny and approval. If such an intrusive measure is instituted, at least part of the blame will lay with Washington and will constitute part of the antidemocratic legacy of U.S. democratization strategy.

It's past time for the U.S. democratizers to shut down their operations in Venezuela and make their exit. By intervening in Venezuela through NGOs, Washington lends credence to claims by Chávez and others who charge that the U.S. government is pursuing a policy of regime change in Venezuela.

The first step toward a more constructive foreign policy toward Venezuela should be an expression of support for the country's self-determination in its political and economic affairs. Concerns about the state of democracy, media freedom, or human rights in Venezuela could then be expressed through normal diplomatic channels without fueling suspicion that the United States and its shadow institutions are part of a campaign to undermine the elected Venezuelan government.

As things stand, however, Washington and its phalanx of democracy-building NGOs are not just raising concerns, but are also operating to influence internal politics inside Venezuela. Washington would not permit foreign countries and their agents to inject themselves into its own political process; it should assume no right to do unto others what it would not have done to itself.


Tom Barry is a senior analyst with the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy and a contributor to Right Web (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/).

July 24, 2007

Mesa Redonda: Ecuentro entre campesin@s del mundo. Frente al despojo capitalista. Defendamos la tierra y el territorio

As part of the Zapatista Encuentro, they planned two roundtables on the defense of land and territory–one last week in Mexico City and another one in San Cristóbal on the eve of the start of the Encuentro at Oventic. The idea was to create a dialogue around peasant and Indigenous movements around the world. Representatives of rural struggles in India, South Korea, Brazil, USA, and Mexico were present on the roundtable. Those from outside the country were given 30 minutes to present their concerns, while the Zapatistas spoke for about 15 minutes each.

The representative from India (sorry I don’t have names) gave an overview of the country’s agricultural crisis that resulted in a high suicide rate. People, the speaker emphasized, will not give up without a fight. The only way to win is to fight together, otherwise we become slaves.

The Korean representative framed his discussion as part of a history of foreign intervention and peasant struggles. In order to stave off a peasant revolt, the king invited Japanese intervention and the peasants became slaves and the country become a colony of Japan. In the post-war period, this history repeated itself with the intervention of the US and USSR. The peasant struggle becomes one against imperialism and neoliberalism. Peasants needed to unify with workers because it is not possible to win alone.

Soria Soreano (sp?), the secretary of gender in the national directorate of the Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil, discussed the country’s divided left and feelings of deception with Lula. Rural workers found it difficult to work with city dwellers, but she emphasized the importance of building alliances in order to succeed in their struggle for agrarian reform. She criticized ethanol projects that required 4 liters of water to produce one liter of ethanol. With the burning of cane sugar that closed nearby schools, ethanol production was hardly so clean. Soreano emphasized the need to be optimistic as they looked for new roads to create new cycles for the left.

George Neiler (sp?), president of the National Family Farm Coalition in the US, began his presentation of a discussion of how agricultural production in his home state of Ohio is increasingly moving to a monoculture economy of corn and soybeans. This leads to a destruction of biodiversity that worsens with NAFTA and the WTO. Commodity prices are temporarily a bit better because of ethanol production, but this is not a longterm solution. Family farming is almost dead in the US, with an increasingly smaller number of large agro-businesses creating the majority of the country’s agricultural production. We have lived the market economy, and it does not work. Neiler concluded that we have much to learn from the Zapatistas about democracy, the environment, and human values.

After 2 hours, it was finally time for the Zapatista leaders to give their presentations. As the noisy audience quieted down, it become clear who the largely white European and North American participants had come to see. First, EZLN Comandante Tacho gave space to an Indigenous delegate from Venezuela to denounce Chavez’s plane to mine coal on their land and to draft a new Indigenous law. Tacho then discussed the essential importance of land and territory to Indigenous struggles since the 1910 Zapatista uprising that demanded deliverance of land to those who work it. Indigenous peoples never hurt mother earth; we take care of it and do not treat it as a commodity. Although Bishop Samuel Ruiz and the church came to their aid, their situation has only become worse.

Lieutenant Colonel Moises then discussed the problems with Mexico’s educational system. Zapatista schools and health promoters work. Moises repeatedly emphasized the need to take control over the means of production. We need to challenge the capitalist system, and to do so we need to put the means of production in our hands. To be anti-capitalist means to take factories and lands out of the hands of capitalists and to put them in the hands of workers and peasants. Through the process of “tomar, quitar, recuperar” (occupy, take, reoccupy), we can challenge savage capitalism.

Finally, it was time for Subcomandante Marcos to take the mike. After seeing Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Evo Morales, Marcos was the last major living revolutionary leader who I had wanted to see in action. We had been sitting outside of the little church at CEDECI where the talk took place listening to the talks over loudspeakers, with me sticking my camera thru a window to take pictures of the speakers before returning to my seat. With Marcos, I was left with a choice: move to the loudspeaker in an attempt to get a higher quality recording for WORT or leave the I-River and try to squeeze into the increasingly occupied window spaces to get yet another blurry photo of the Sup. I deeply regretted not arriving early enough to get a seat in the church, or to squeeze in as Gwen had done to be able to observe the spectacle in person. In the end, I opted for a clear recording that hopefully the compañer@s at WORT will be able to use for En Nuestro Patio. So I heard, but did not see.

Marcos is older and fatter than he was when he first went into the jungle 20 years ago, but his style is still as poetic and beautiful as it was when he first burst on to the public stage on January 1, 1994. It was also almost impossible for me to understand what he was saying. I felt better when later my colleagues listening to the English translations on their portable devices told me that the interpreters were likewise having an impossible time with the talk. He told two stories–the first something about a can of Coke and anti-capitalist consumption, and then other something about the history of a transsexual who preferred the term compañeroa. Marcos also mentioned the Maya use of “we” instead of “I,” and echoed Moises’ emphasis on the need to struggle together to gain control over the means of production. The problem is that few own much, and many own nothing. We can change this by attacking the means of production. He called Bush a Burro, called for liberty and justice for Atenco and Oaxaca, and referred to worlds without a name. posted by Marc

La Casa Rosada Turns Pink: Cristina Kirchner’s Impressive Bid for the Argentine Presidency

As Néstor Kirchner wraps up his term as president of Argentina, First Lady and Senator Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is waiting in the wings to take over his roost in the upcoming October 28 presidential elections. On July 1, she officially announced her candidacy with a statement released by Chief of Cabinet Alberto Fernández, ending months of speculation over which Kirchner would run on the ruling Frente para la Victoria party ticket. While Cristina is all but certain to win the October ballot due to a lack of credible choices among the heavily split opposition, a Cristina Kirchner presidency seems destined to serve up more of the same of what has been accomplished in the past four years by her husband, but decidedly with more style and greater panache. Meanwhile, the prospects of Cristina’s presidency have led to questioning what some already are describing as “monarchical democracy,” in a nation where the ruling Peronist Party typically has been the pathway to disastrous results in the past.

A Woman Who Wears Many Hats (And Looks Quite Stylish in all of Them, Too)
Cristina Fernandez is a lawyer by training who has been Néstor’s wife since shortly after they met in law school; she currently serves as the senator representing Buenos Aires province, a post she has held since 2005. In fact, she had a national political reputation for years. Even before her husband came to the forefront, she was a formidable political figure who was known throughout the country as well as a local legislator since 1989. Thus, Cristina is seen as a woman wearing many hats. Not only does she wear them, she wears them well, with a reputation as a glamorous First Lady whose poise and style has been registered before an ever-widening audience. As stated in The Guardian, “in contrast to her blunt and often dour husband, who won the presidency in 2003 almost by default, the first lady is seen as a more glamorous, worldly figure who can mix as easily with foreign leaders as with grassroot Peronists.”

Yet, much is still unknown about her. Paula Alonso, professor of political history at Buenos Aires’ Universidad de San Andres, told COHA in an interview, that “Cristina has been quite a mystery figure in the past few years — she hasn’t been appearing very much in politics until now.” Recent efforts have been made to consciously raise her international profile and project her sophistication as Argentina’s next president, to attract possible foreign investors and the assistance of key members of the financial community. One way of doing this has been with widely publicized, government-sponsored official visits to Switzerland, France, the U.S., Venezuela, Ecuador and Mexico. These international flag-waving trips have demonstrated the greater attention Cristina is likely to give to the nation’s foreign affairs, specifically improving relations with the U.S. and Europe, while slightly distancing Argentina from Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. According to Nicolás Ducoté, of the Buenos Aires think-tank CIPPEC, there is the difference between Mr. and Mrs. Kirchner, “He needed to be more populist, she’s going to be more internationalist.”

Even though her international visibility is growing and solid achievements are being established for her to credibly become the next Argentine president, other Argentines view Cristina and her ambitions in a different light. Despite the fact that Néstor has stated his admiration for his wife, (for example, declaring in a local radio broadcast in May, “I think Cristina can offer the quality of a stateswoman, the leap in institutional quality the country needs, the experience, the reflection, the study”), others disagree. James Neilson, formerly with the English-language Buenos Aires Herald during the peril of military rule, and now a political analyst and columnist for the Noticias newsweekly, echoes the sentiments of these critics, saying “she comes off as very strident and bossy. She’d be an awful candidate.” However, Néstor’s cabinet chief, Alberto Fernández, begs to differ, exclaiming, at the announcement of her candidacy, “this woman is not just the wife of a president, she is a woman who has enough political successes, enough political clout to govern this country, and I have no doubt she will be an extraordinary president.”

A Vote for Cristina Brings Monarchical Democracy?
While many residents of the political wing of La Casa Rosada have faith in her abilities, a growing number of average Argentine citizens do not believe the rhetoric coming from the presidential throne and are concerned with what some see as the Kirchner government’s increasingly autocratic tendencies. Despite prior claims that it was her choice to run for president, it is obvious that it was ultimately Kirchner who designated his wife to take over his spot. As also said by others, clearly, “this is monarchical democracy… this is no democracy,” Ricardo Gjivoje, a former Argentine senior official of the Organization of American States (OAS), commented in an interview with COHA. The general consensus seems to be that the president is promoting his wife as the government’s presidential candidate so as to position himself for a return to power in 2011. Since Argentine presidents are barred from seeking consecutive re-election more than once, but are allowed to run in later years if someone else has a term in between, many analysts and Argentine citizens alike believe that the Kirchners are setting themselves up to rule the nation until 2015 or possibly to 2019, simply by alternating in power for the next 12 years. As Eduardo van der Kooy, a columnist for Argentina’s largest national newspaper, Clarin, has noted, “logic . . . makes one think that Kirchner and Cristina, through successive terms, are seeking to eternalize their power. Kirchner has always spoken of the need for three straight terms to consolidate his economic and political model.”

Kirchner’s former economy minister and, up to now, Cristina’s main opposition in the presidential race, Roberto Lavagna, agrees that, “the government has become dangerously populist and authoritarian, because the only thing it wants is to stay in power at any price.” This sounds dangerously similar to the Peronist Party’s original cohorts — Juan Perón and his two ambitious wives, Evita and later Isabel, who ruled Argentina for two years after his death in 1974. Cristina Kirchner has been compared to Evita Perón with her glamorous style and her adulating popularity with the poor and middle classes. Moreover, the allegations of having ambitions to run a “monarchical democracy” can be found both at home and overseas, with the Kirchner’s repeatedly being compared to the Clintons; both couples met in law school and are rumored to have enacted pacts with their partners to maintain power within the family and within the national government. Much like Hillary, Cristina has been very careful to carve out her public identity as a legislator as well as a politician, and not primarily as a First Lady, or wife to a husband who previously held power. Cristina welcomes comparisons as the “new Evita” and admits admiring Hillary Clinton, who presently is a front runner candidate for the U.S. presidential elections in 2008. However, this is not guaranteed, and it is likely that rule by “royal families” dressed up as democracies is not inevitable, but depends on events still to come.

Obstacles to the Presidency — Mole Hills, Not Mountains
Despite the fact that Néstor Kirchner is credited with lifting Argentina from the doldrums after the deep economic crisis of 2001-2002, and that the economy has experienced a growth rate exceeding 8 percent for four consecutive years since he took office in 2003, his government has lost much of its credibility as his term draws to a close. This is not to say that Kirchner did not well deserve the plaudits. It was he who dared to strip the military felons of the era of the “Dirty War” of their immunity, attack anti-Semitic bigotry from Argentine national life, as well as the distortions of Argentina’s asymmetrical economy. Once touting high approval ratings at 82 percent near the beginning of his term, Kirchner’s popularity with Argentines now resides at only 52 percent, according to a June 2007 poll. This is a result of steadily increasing double-digit inflation figures affecting consumer goods, an energy crisis due to a particularly severe winter, as well as a teacher strike in Buenos Aires.

The Kirchner family name has also been stained by a public works bribery scandal involving cabinet members close to the president, alleged corruption by former economy minister Felisa Miceli (who just recently resigned as a consequence) and environment secretary Romina Picolotti, and an investigation into possible tax invasion involving government weapon sales by defense minister Nilda Garré. These situations already are being used by the opposition to discredit the government; however, thus far, the divided opposition has been unable to seriously damage the image of the Kirchners, particularly Cristina, even as such disconcerting problems continue to mount. Analysts are already predicting that the energy shortages and inflation problems are likely to continue throughout Cristina’s presidency. If the economic situation stagnates or even worsens, Cristina’s term of office predictably will be riddled with debilitating moments, leaving her to pay the price for it politically, even though the situation is mainly of her husband’s doing. As The Economist has predicted, “the next president will face some difficult economic decisions, as growth starts to slow and distortions mount.” But, this of course could be said of almost every democratic president who ever held office.

Changing Political Horizons
Since Kirchner was very popular at the beginning of his presidency, he had hoped his high ratings would transfer to his wife and open the door for an easy landslide victory by Cristina which would allow for his policies to continue. Yet, due to growing public discontent, some political analysts are now issuing a radical finding that questions the pair’s ability to retain power in their hands. If she does win the presidential election, Kirchner’s weakened political standing may make it harder for Cristina to rule the country. A more cautious and perhaps more accurate prediction is that rather than get the necessary or at least a job-wining margin that would gain the presidency in the first round, she may be forced into a second round which she would be all but certain to win.

According to Miami Herald columnist Andres Oppenheimer, Argentina’s political horizon is changing and Néstor Kirchner’s aura of invincibility is waning, as evidenced by the defeat of key Kirchner allies in recently-held provincial elections. A series of political setbacks have occurred in which opposition candidates have won in key provincial elections; namely Mauricio Macri, president of the Boca Juniors soccer club who had aligned himself with the rightwing Propuesta Republicana (PRO), defeating Kirchner’s education minister Daniel Filmus in the Buenos Aires mayoral race on June 24 by an overwhelming 61 to 39 percent vote. Interestingly, Cristina Kirchner was all but sheltered from this electoral campaign, as her presence was strategically kept out of the heated race, leaving Néstor to absorb the negative effects associated with Filmus’ humiliating defeat. Additionally, the governorship of Tiego del Fuego was grabbed up by Fabiana Ríos of the Alternativa por una República de Iguales (ARI). Ríos, who overwhelmed the incumbent and Kirchner ally Hugo Coccaro by a 52 to 46 percent vote, will be the first female governor in Argentina. However, these provincial election losses have not done much to strip the Kirchner team of its self-confidence as it prepares for the October presidential elections, even though analysts predict that other local elections in Sante Fe, Cordoba and Mendoza may also be awarded to opposition candidates.

Another obstacle Cristina faces in her bid to become Argentina’s next president is her lack of executive experience, despite her legislative and local political career spanning almost 20 years. Cristina’s critics contend that she does not have enough of an administrative background to qualify her for the nation’s top job. “Her experience in the Senate does not provide much evidence for executive management and she is very closely identified with her husband and his policies,” said Riordan Roett, Director of Latin American studies at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University in Washington. But there are others who would heatedly take the opposing view that there are very few political leaders who would survive the political test posed by Professor Roett. In the world of politics where oftentimes it is who you know and not what you know that is of principle concern, she has the best connections of anyone — as Néstor’s wife. Her lack of executive experience may not be a problem at all, seeing as many believe her administration would merely be an extension of her husband’s center-left policies, and that if any changes were to occur, as The Economist has predicted, “all this adds up to nuances of difference, rather than a change of course.”

In addition to working toward a Bill Clinton-style mission of reinvigorating the Peronist Party power base when he leaves office, Néstor Kirchner will no doubt also play a behind-the-scenes consultative role of silently co-governing the country, perhaps also serving in an above surface role as a formal White-House like advisor to Cristina much like she did for him during his presidency. Néstor’s role in knitting alliances with factions of the Peronist Party is crucial to the Kirchners ambitions to serve alternating consecutive presidential terms. This is especially true since popular opinion of Cristina, according to Paula Alonso, is that “she is capable, very intelligent, though a bit domineering and not inclined to negotiation and coalition-building.” Though Cristina may have a different style of governance than her husband, according to New York Times reporter Larry Rohter, “any government she leads would be the same package in a different wrapping.” Regardless, the Kirchner family will continue to rule Argentina as a power pair.

Creation of a Candidata
In order to maintain public support for Cristina’s candidacy in the wake of Néstor’s waning credibility with the Argentine people, Buenos Aires has begun a campaign of presenting Cristina on her own terms and wearing her own political garb, rather than as a continuation of Néstor’s reign. However, many political analysts, including Professor Alonso, believe that there is not much of a sign of change and renovation under a Cristina presidency. Alonso has pointed out that “it is impossible for the people not to think this is a continuation of Kirchner — especially with Néstor’s mixed legacy.” Predictions are that no profound changes in economic or political policy would occur, due to constraints in the budget for FY 2008, and that any state reforms Cristina might propose regarding social security, pensions, and tax reform would take place later, if at all. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the voting public may not be able to entirely divorce Cristina from corruption scandals continuously being unearthed in the final days of the Néstor presidency. Alonso also observed that while “Cristina will be linked to her husband’s misachievements, on the other hand, she will also be linked to changes he brought into politics, particularly human rights policies which are quite popular with Argentines.” Luckily for the Kirchners, despite minor bumps in the road, they should be able to continue a policy of growing concentration of power in the executive office of government which they themselves will be able to utilize since the opposition has not proven to be a particularly formidable force.

Counting Her Chickens Before They Hatch
Recent voter intention polls in Argentina show that Cristina could win between 46 and 48 percent of the vote in October, which, while 10 percentage points lower than estimates if Néstor had decided to run instead, is still sufficient to give her a distinct advantage in the race over a singularly divided opposition. While these figures suggest the probability of the presidential election advancing to a second round (since candidates must win at least 45 percent of the vote or gain 40 percent with a 10-point margin over their nearest rival), Cristina’s overall popularity remains high, especially with her approval rating at 61 percent. This is far ahead that of any other presidential candidate, or coalition standard bearer. However, the possibility of a run-off election should not be particularly disconcerting to the Kirchners, especially since no opposition candidate comes across as a plausible and compelling alternative. It also needs to be recalled that in 2005 Cristina was overwhelmingly elected senator and that her Buenos Aires province contains 40 percent of the nation’s entire electorate. Given such data, Cristina should win the race handily, even with a shrinking number of votes coming from the other regions of Argentina.

The current residents of La Casa Rosada are well aware of their current upper-hand in the race, as evidenced by their not even bothering with a public statement or an appearance after the initial announcement of Cristina’s candidacy was made. Interestingly enough, the opposition candidates have not been very outspoken in their own campaigns and have not made much commentary on Cristina’s performance or other aspects of her candidacy either. As former Argentine OAS official Ricardo Gjivoje told COHA in an interview, “there is a campaign without a campaign.” The main opposition candidate, former Minister of Economy Roberto Lavagna, has not been very vocal in his desire for the nation’s top job, and neither has third place presidential candidate, National Deputy Elisa Carrio. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Lavagna of the coalition Una Nación Avanzada (UNA) and Carrio of the center-left group ARI, have only garnered the support of 11.9 percent and 10.6 percent of the Argentine populace, respectively, according to recent polls. According to Gjivoje, the opposition is not a problem for Cristina’s bid because it is so split, leaving it unable to maintain a forceful role.

In actuality, the Kirchner camp has not needed to tout its aims very explicitly to gain public support and it is approaching Cristina’s campaign with an impressive amount of complacency since, in effect, they already have captured the majority vote. This was evidenced by her choice not to officially launch her campaign until July 19, when a massive rally was held in her native city of La Plata, the capital of the Buenos Aires province. Now, all that will shortly matter is the pomp and circumstance of a Cristina presidency, which is sure to follow, even though a minority of Argentines believes that she as the government’s highest office-holder is not the best option, by far, for the Argentine population.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Eva Silkwood

July 23, 2007

Zapatista Members Converge in Mexico



Over 3,000 delegates from 43 countries attend the Second Meeting of Zapatista Villages with the Peoples of the World, taking place in the Mexican state of Chiapas.

A call to "foster struggles and rebellions throughout the world to fight capitalism" characterizes this extensive meeting, which until July 28, joins the quest for "a fairer and humane life."

"We are convinced that the only way we have is unity, organization, uniting our struggles and exchanging experiences," commander Hortensia said to participants.

Subcommander Marcos and other officials from the sixth commission of the Zapatista National Liberation Army led the first sessions in the locality of Oventic, which will continue in that of Morelia and are expected to conclude in that of La Realidad.

Among the issues being examined are health, education, organization in communities, collective work, women´s struggle and its ways of organization and analysis of the process of autonomy.

Tension Grows in Oaxaca City

Tension Grows in Oaxaca City

Mexico, Jul 23

Tension increases today in Oaxaca state amid protest threats to avoid the celebration of the locality's most important cultural event.

Oaxaca Peoples' Popular Assembly (APPO) and other organizations keep their decision of boycotting Guelaguetza feast while the army and the police keep the place besieged.

The associations agreed the state government, led by Ulises Ruiz, will use this big traditional party with commercial aims, snatching its popular sense.

The authorities are trying to sell Guelaguetza as a big opportunity to attract those representing their main source of income, the tourists, which normally come to the city attracted by its beauty and history.

Attention is focused on images of a police action ordered by the governor to face any opposite demonstration in the so-called Monday of the Mountain, referring to the hill where the celebration takes place.

The social conflict is still alive because of the governor's incompetence to pay attention to the real problems of Oaxaca's society.

Ortega: US Finances Nica Opposition

Managua, Jul 22 (Prensa Latina) Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega charged the US government of colluding with local conservatives and funding anti-Sandinista political and media drive.

They finance and guide groups that claim to represent the Nicaraguan people, said Ortega speaking to Latin American progressive leaders from the Forum of Sao Paulo meeting in this capital.

Ortega said US diplomats in Managua are holding secret meetings with government opponents whom he calls puppets. They are told to act against two of the government-led plans, Consejos del Poder Ciudadano and Zero Hunger Program.

The statesman says those campaigns, that also involve some local media, are aimed at confusing the people and undermining government programs.

Ortega reminded to representatives of 19 political organizations from 13 Latin American countries that the US organized the 2002 failed coup against President Hugo Chavez.

The Nicaraguan president warned the audience not to be overconfident because "they -the US government- are permanently conspiring."

President Chavez celebrated 28° anniversary of the Sandinist Revolution


From: Mathaba



The President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela Hugo Chavez celebrated, along with his Nicaraguan counterpart and the Nicaraguan people, the 28° anniversary of the triumph of the Sandinist Revolution.

Managua, July 20th (ABN).- Up to 200,000 Nicaraguans from different regions of the country gathered this July 19th in la plaza de la Fe Juan Pablo II to hold a big celebration.

President Chávez arrived in Managua with five members of the presidential commission for the student popular power: Robert Serra, Libertad Velasco, Héctor Rodríguez, Yahir Muñoz and César Trompiz.After 17 years, the historic date was celebrated with the people in the power through the Sandinist National Liberation Front (FSLN).

Sandinist President Daniel Ortega delivered a speech to the crowd that was gathered in the square, located on the banks of the lake Xolotlán.

The revolution triumphed on July 19th 1979, but it ended on February 25th 1990, when Ortega lost the power at the polls to the other contender Violeta Chamorro.

However, the current Nicaraguan government stressed that Nicaragua lives a new revolution.

According to the First Nicaraguan Lady Rosario Murillo, the new arrival of the Sandinist Revolution on November 5th 2006, when Daniel Ortega took the power, is a justice situation in the Central American nation.

She stressed the need of rescuing President Ortega’ phrase during the electoral campaign, we have to leave the 16 years of savage capitalism behind.

Besides President Hugo Chávez, President of Panama, Martin Torrijos, and Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, also attended the celebration; each one of them delivered speeches to the crowd by stressing the great historic value of the celebration.

The Venezuelan leader arrived Thursday afternoon at the International Airport César Augusto Sandino, in Managua, aimed at strengthening the bilateral ties through the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (Alba).

President Chávez was welcomed by the Nicaraguan President, commander Daniel Ortega and First Lady Rosario Murillo.On Friday 20th July, President Chávez will attend, along with the leader of the Sandinist Front, the inauguration of several projects made through the Venezuelan cooperation.

Translated by Natalia González

Bolivia: New Economic Model in Progress


Mario Hubert Garrido
La Paz, Jul 22

Bolivian president Evo Morales arrives this Sunday to the first 18 months in power with a new economic model in progress, based on the recovery of natural resources and industrialization as the next stage.

"We have a new economic model, a new economic system that means the beginning of a process of industrialization of the country, it is a democratic way of changing Bolivia after recovering its natural resources," asserted the dignitary.

Morales assumed power on January 22, 2006 after winning 54 percent of the votes, a historical victory in over two decades in which any candidate won elections directly.

Eighteen months after, Morales told Prensa Latina that the national economy is sound and investments prioritize production.

Nothing has been historically prioritized in this country which for more than a century and a half has remained an exporter of raw materials but without benefiting from it.

Industrialization is the next priority. "We need partners, the economic situation is changing," he congratulated himself assuring that "macro economic stability is now having its repercussion in the micro economy."

In addition, Morales explained there are other achievements like the agrarian revolution, the social programs and the establishment of the Constituent Assembly that will write a new Constitution to refound the country, as a sample of a real democracy.

He also praised the health and education plans supported by Cuba and Venezuela.

"The most important thing is that we have fulfilled what political science means to us: serve the people," added the Bolivian president.

Encuentro Zapatista con los pueblos del mundo

From: http://www.yachana.org

Yesterday we traveled to the Caracol of Oventic for the Zapatista meeting with the peoples of the world. For me it was an anticlimactic culmination of my time in Mexico. Attending the planning meetings for the next Zapatista intergalactica was my main purpose for coming to Mexico this summer, and we were only there for a couple hours for which will be a week-long series of discussions and meetings. The Encuentro had started the day before, but our leaders thought it would start slow and late so we went to Acteal instead (I’ll write more about that later). We were supposed to go to Magdalena de la Paz today for their annual feast day, but we stopped there yesterday morning on the way out to Oventic so we would not have to make a separate trip today, which meant even less time at the Encuentro. It appears that all that will happen today is a caravan from Oventic to Morelia where the meetings will continue, and as I am leaving early tomorrow morning there is little purpose in going on that ride. So, the delegation ends a day earlier than planned and I am left in San Cristóbal with little to do but be a tourist–which was not at all the purpose of this trip.


We arrived in time for the fifth plenary on women, which turned out to be rather flat and predictable. Guillermo coordinated the table, Comandanta Lorenza gave the welcome, and Lora read a statement that she had written with María Luisa and Verónica on the issues that women faced in Zapatista communities. Women, she read, were mistreated, ignored, forgotten. The Bad Government treated women as if they served no purpose except to have kids and take care of animals. But that is not true–they are capable. At first there were few women in charge of community responsibilities, and there is need for more formation and training so that women can do more work. Women will continue working with health care, education, in the community, security, and with natural resources. But women cannot travel alone for fear that they will be raped. Men look at us in a negative light when we work, but we cannot give up.


The audience, largely made up of young white anarchist activists from Europe and the United States, was then given 15 minutes to ask questions. Most of the questions were hardly probing, and received short trite answers. Are there programs for domestic violence? Elsewhere, but not here. How are men who abuse women punished? By autonomous municipal authorities. In Zapatista communities there is always justice. How do you prevent domestic violence? Women have to understand their rights, and men need to respect women; thru education. They said that the comandancia has declared that women have full rights to participate in the Zapatista organization. Some men try to help out, but very few of them make tortillas.


After a two-hour lunch break we then moved on to the sixth plenary on collective work. Comandanta Florencia lead the table, and Paulina read a statement prepared by her, Daniela, and Juan Manuel. The presentation began with a discussion of coffee and a lack of agricultural land. They often have to sell artisan crafts cheaply. So the women formed a cooperative to work together in search of solutions. They do not receive any support from the Bad Government. They have problem accessing national and international markets, and can’t sell everything in their coop stores so they have to sell the rest in private shops at a low price. Only the rich and government are free to export the richness of the country. Furthermore, the Bad Government looks for ways to divide people and block us. People who are not Zapatistas use our name to sell stuff and make money off of us. We take advantage of participating in the Zapatista struggle to avoid what we have suffered for years, and we still lack a lot for Indigenous women to be complete. Juan Manuel then added some additional comments about attempts to organize coffee cooperatives to sell their produce at a better price rather than through coyotes. This was then followed by more stupid questions and trite answers.


As the hot afternoon sun beat down on us, the seventh plenary addressed the issue of the organization of communities. We moved straight into the eighth plenary on autonomy as rain clouds built up in the west and moved over Oventic. Under a cold rain, we heard about Indigenous forms of government that were completely different from western models. Zapatistas declared their rights of autonomy and free determination. We need to capture power from corrupt political parties and the rich in order to solve our own problems, rather than letting them divide and conquer Indigenous peoples.

By this time, it was raining harder so they moved the talk into the auditorium, and Tomás gave us a ride back into town.
posted by Marc

July 22, 2007

Amazon radar failure deepens Brazil air travel woes

A radar failure over the Amazon forced Brazil to turn back or ground a string of international flights Saturday, deepening a national aviation crisis just hours after the president unveiled safety measures prompted by the country's deadliest air disaster.

Further shaking Brazilians' confidence, authorities said they had mistaken a piece of the fuselage from Tuesday's accident for the flight recorder and sent it to a laboratory for analysis.

The radar outage from 11:15 p.m. Friday to 2:30 a.m. Saturday, caused by an electrical problem, forced at least 700 flights heading to Brazil from the U.S. to return to their points of origin and make unscheduled landings at airports from Puerto Rico to Chile.

Eight of the 17 planes flying in the coverage area of the radar system were rerouted, and some airlines canceled flights bound for Brazil.

While the nation has had chronic problems with delays and cancellations on domestic flights over the past 10 months, the radar outage was the first time that international flights have been severely affected.

The confusion followed a nationally televised speech by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who tried to calm the nation Friday night by announcing new safety measures and saying authorities will build a new airport in Sao Paulo, where an Airbus A320 operated by TAM Airlines crashed, killing 191 people.

All 187 people aboard and at least four on the ground died when the jetliner raced down the runway, skipped over a crowded highway and exploded in a fireball that was still smoldering three days later. Many experts have said that the short, rain-slicked runway could have contributed to the disaster at the downtown Congonhas airport, Brazil's busiest.

Silva's speech Friday night was his first public pronouncement about the crash except for a brief statement.

"Our aviation system, in spite of the investments we have made in expansion and modernization of almost all Brazilian airports, is passing through difficulties," Silva said. "The security of our aviation system is compatible with all the international standards. We cannot lose sight of this."

Silva said aviation officials will limit the number of flights and restrict the weight of planes traveling into Congonhas airport and that the location of the new airport will be chosen within 90 days.

But Sao Paulo's Mayor Gilberto Kassab told reporters Saturday that building a new airport, which could take between five and 10 years, was not a priority for the city, which would instead seek to claim houses around Congonhas airport as eminent domain in order to lengthen runways.

Also Saturday, officials said they had mistakenly sent part of the plane's fuselage to the United States, thinking it was the flight recorder.

Gen. Jorge Kersul Filho, head of the air force's accident prevention division, told reporters in Sao Paulo that the real flight recorder had been located early Saturday in the wreckage and would be sent to Washington for analysis, a process expected to take several days.

The radar outage was caused when a short circuit cut off electricity during routine maintenance Friday night in the jungle city of Manaus, Brazil's Air Force said in a statement. Power was restored by 1:30 a.m. Saturday and the radar coverage was working again an hour later.

When the power went out, 17 flights were within the coverage area of the radar system in a large swath of the Amazon, the statement said. Nine planes continued to their destinations, and eight were rerouted. None of the jets were in any danger, the statement said.

The problem forced American Airlines to divert 13 Brazil-bound planes that had departed from New York, Miami and Dallas, said company spokeswoman Mary Frances Fagan.

Two American Airlines flights from Sao Paulo to Miami made unscheduled landings in the jungle city of Manaus, said Celso Gick, a spokesman for Brazilian airport authority Infraero. Brazilian media reported that another American Airlines flight landed in Santiago, Chile.

Four United Airlines flights were also canceled as a result of the outage, spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said. In addition, Brazil's Globo TV reported on its Web site that Brazil-bound flights from Colombia, Panama and Venezuela were affected.

The September Gol crash in the Amazon was the country's worst air disaster until Tuesday's accident and it exposed widespread problems with the country's air traffic control system.

It also touched off months of work slowdowns by air traffic controllers protesting precarious working conditions. Congressional investigations turned up holes in the country's radar coverage; antiquated equipment and flight controllers with only rudimentary knowledge of English.

INTERVIEW: Orlando Chirino: Trade Unions and Socialism in Venezuela

The following interview was conducted with ORLANDO CHIRINO, national organizer of Venezuela’s National Workers’ Union (UNT) federation and leader of C-CURA (the United Autonomous Revolutionary Class Current) within the UNT. The interview was conducted after President Hugo Chávez proposed the formation of a new unified Venezuelan Socialist Party (PSUV). Originally posted on the left-wing Venezuelan Web site Aporrea.org in late April, it was translated and posted in English on the British International Socialism journal Web site in early May 2007.

WHAT IS your assessment of the issues posed by President Chávez when he launched the proposal for forming the PSUV on March 24?

THE GREAT virtue of the discussion that President Chávez has set in motion is that it gives us an opportunity to discuss the nature of the Venezuelan revolution, the project for creating the PSUV, the role played in the revolution by different social sectors, and in particular the working class. It’s a debate about how you build an organization and it raises a whole series of questions that we should discuss openly, publicly, and with complete honesty.

What is most worrying is that the president ended up by doing exactly what he criticized. He criticized the political cannibalism that characterizes the organizations of the Left, but then he went on to say that anyone who does not share his views is a counterrevolutionary. I think this is a serious mistake, because far from encouraging debate it closes it down and encourages the sectarianism that the president has said he is anxious to fight.

WHAT DO you think are the most important issues?

THERE ARE lots of issues to discuss, but let me address two in particular. The president says, for example, that the reformists are a danger—and I agree. And yet it is my view that the program the president is putting forward rests on a reformist conception, and that there is no perspective for a break with the logic of capital. Let me explain.

After the great neoliberal offensive of the 1990s, we are seeing again multimillion-dollar investments by international capital in strategic sectors of the economy such as oil, mining, coal, construction, and infrastructural projects. International consortia from China, Russia, and Iran are exploiting our workers more than ever. I don’t believe that some multinationals are better than others. They are all essentially concerned with monopolizing production and trade, exploiting workers, pillaging the natural resources of nations and intervening politically in the economic decision-making processes of those countries. This strikes at the heart of the kind of economic model we are building.

The president represents investment by the multinationals as a step forward. I see it as mortgaging the revolution. For me, the first step toward socialism is to break with multinational companies and corporations. What this government is doing, on the contrary, is promoting concentration into larger and larger economic groups; the purchase of CANTV and the Electricity Company of Caracas are examples. There’s no question that the recuperation of these enterprises by the state is a step forward, but the business sector was so pleased with these developments that they made a public announcement of their support for the move.
Equally worrying is the president’s announcement that Sidor [a major steel company] will not be nationalized because it is being run by “good capitalists.” In fact, this company was privatized under the Fourth Republic and is owned by a multinational consortium headed by Techint of Argentina.

Our understanding is that the president took this view because the company is based in a country governed by a “friendly” president, namely [Néstor] Kirchner. But we wonder when we began to speak of “good” and “bad” capitalists?’

The president is currently making a lot of public references to China. We would ask him not to do that, because capitalism was restored in China a number of years ago, and today it is the country where the working class is most exploited. They are modern-day slaves, led by a rotten party that calls itself communist, but is in fact completely subject to the multinationals. To cap it all, the Chinese have just introduced into the constitution the right to private property. China is hardly a good example.

Another important issue is the role of social classes in this revolution. You don’t have to refer to Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky to know that the only way to overturn capitalism, a system in which a minority imposes its will on the majority, is that the working class and the people—we who are the majority and the producers—take the lead in expropriating the enterprises and place them under our control. In that sense, what we mean by socialism is very simply stated.

Yet that is becoming more and more difficult in Venezuela. We workers are not in that position, even in the key sectors of the economy, to contemplate even joint management, let alone workers control. The government will not consider the possibility of co-management in strategic sectors.

Our comrades at the Constructora Nacional de Válvulas (today called Inveval) had to undergo real physical hardships and hunger, and fight like hell before the government finally listened to them and agreed to expropriate the company. The workers of Venepal (now Invepal) had to fight for ten months before they beat the capitalists—while the government looked the other way. And now we have the case of Sanitarios Maracay where the workers are in the fourth month of an occupation for nationalization—but the government still seems less than interested in nationalizations like this.

This suggests that the government’s program does not include expropriation, and nor will the PSUV’s. But if this doesn’t happen, we will not be moving toward socialism, but only toward some kind of state capitalism with a developmentalist perspective. This leaves private property untouched, and means that capitalist exploitation and the accumulation of profit by a very few will continue.

WHAT ABOUT Chávez’s view on the independence of the trade unions?

THIS IS a really important issue. The president can’t change history and argue that those of us who are fighting for the independence of the trade-union movement have somehow been “poisoned” by the experience of the Fourth Republic. On the contrary, trade union autonomy is the key antidote to bureaucratization; that’s why the revolution was saved in 2002 and 2003, and as long as it continues it will be the key safeguard of the revolution.

The CTV (the old national trade union, the Venezuelan Confederation of Labor) sold its soul to the old two-party system and the governments it produced. For forty years the Venezuelan trade-union movement lived through its worst period, because workers were puppets in the games played by the old parties (Copei and AD) and the bosses’ organizations. Venezuelans still remember how AD (Democratic Action) decided the fate of workers, bought and sold contracts, and worked with the government to control the unions and the CTV. We should remember that the bosses’ strike of 2002–03 was led by CTV and Fedecámaras (the bosses’ organization) working hand in hand. The raison d’être of the new UNT union is exactly the opposite: to fight for trade union autonomy, and organize the workers to fight against any attempt to submit them to political control or give in to compromises.
The president needs to remember that during the trade-union elections of 2001, when as we all know the CTV orchestrated an enormous electoral fraud, many workers did not support the alternative slate led by Aristóbulo Istúriz precisely because he was seen as the government’s candidate. The president has to understand that because of what we call the class instinct, and the levels of class and revolutionary consciousness, as well as because of their relationship with the bosses, the behavior of workers is different from that of peasants, communities, or students.

The worst thing about the president’s comments, however, is the suggestion that by fighting for the independence of the working-class movement we are playing a counterrevolutionary role. That is not true. With other comrades we have built a national trade-union current that as well as fighting against bureaucracy and for socialism, is most committed to a fierce defense of trade-union autonomy. The second congress of the UNT was proof of what I am arguing. What happened there was not just about five different factions or currents fighting or some leaders squabbling with others because we have personal disagreements, and President Chávez is wrong to describe it that way. In fact, for the last two years “the mother of all battles” has been under way between two conceptions—on the one hand those who want to tie the trade unions to the government, and on the other, those of us who are fighting for the sovereignty and independence of the trade-union movement.

We have thirty years of trade-union work behind us and we have never compromised with the bosses or the government, let alone with imperialism. And we have no intention of giving up now because the president has described us as “the poisonous residue of the Fourth Republic”! We have fought tirelessly within the trade-union movement for class principles, democratic methods, and an integrity born of proletarian morality. As PST-La Chispa (Workers’ Socialist Party) we are proud to have been the first political organization to support Hugo Chávez’s presidential candidacy. He will remember the first meetings we organized in the La Quizanda district of Valencia and with the textile workers of Aragua. So our history is unimpeachable.

We are at the forefront of the struggle against the CTV, we supported the creation of the FBT (Bolivarian Workers’ Front), and we are enthusiastically behind the UNT. We joined the best activists in resisting the coup of April 11, 2002, and we were centrally involved in the recovery of the oil industry during the bosses’ lockout of 2002–03. Our record is an extremely honorable one.
YET CHÁVEZ quoted the great revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg in support of his case. How do you see that?

THE PRESIDENT has tried to use Rosa Luxemburg’s writings to support his arguments against trade-union independence—but we have to see her positions in the particular political and historical context in which she put them forward. When she discussed the question of trade-union autonomy she was referring to the German Social Democratic Party and arguing against syndicalist and bureaucratic tendencies within the unions. As a Trotskyist I have to recognize that Trotsky was wrong when he argued that the trade unions in Russia should not be autonomous shortly after the Bolshevik victory. Luckily, Lenin participated in the debate and he argued for autonomy. Trotsky’s arguments had real force, given that this was the time of the war economy, when there was hunger, civil war, physical assaults against working-class and trade-union leaders, and a confrontation with the holy alliance of the imperialist counterrevolution. Yet even so he was wrong while Lenin was right.

This should tell you that we are not dogmatists, that we study reality and engage critically with our own history. It was not a coincidence that years ago the Stalinists described us as counterrevolutionaries because we were fighting for a new revolution that would sweep away the bureaucracy that had seized power in Russia.

WHAT EFFECT has this discussion had on trade-union independence?

IT HAS had major effects. We haven’t yet been able to hold the UNT internal elections, for example. The argument last year was that we had to give priority to the presidential elections. We were not against calling for a vote for Chávez, but we argued that the best way to campaign for that call was that it should come from a legitimately elected leadership. Unfortunately, it did not happen.

The other reality is the tragedy that public-sector workers and oil workers are living through at the moment. If the trade-union movement were not autonomous and we had to accept what the government was saying, we would have to accept the contract negotiated by Fedepetrol and the other federations. The contract was not just illegitimate, but in fact was part of the leadership of the bosses’ campaign of sabotage supported by imperialism. It is our independent struggle that has prevented that.

The same is true of public-sector workers. The current minister is busy making deals with the trade-union leaders who have no authority and are in a minority. Their power stems only from the leadership’s control of the apparatus and the support it gets from the government.

And there is another issue related to autonomy. The FBT and the Labor Ministry allege that the UNT is not fulfilling its historic role and should therefore disappear. At the same time they are talking about setting up parallel structures and putting forward a series of proposals that will decimate the trade-union movement. It is crucial that these proposals are seriously and carefully discussed by the working class.

It is because we are independent that day in and day out we are able to fearlessly express our views on the errors—sometimes the appalling errors—that the government is committing. Public-sector workers cannot be left waiting for twenty-seven months for their contract to be negotiated. And it seems that the oil workers will face a similar fate. The key question is whether it is right to struggle for the independence of the trade union, and whether our exposure of these issues makes us counterrevolutionaries.

Of course this is not just about trade-union autonomy. It is also about the relationship between the PSUV and the government. Will all PSUV members be obliged to support the decisions of the government and its bureaucrats? Will the new party be more than just an appendage of the government?

Imagine an oil worker who risked his life challenging the bosses’ sabotage participating in a meeting where the minister will order him to accept a collective contract negotiated with the people who organized the coup! These are important issues that need to be discussed.

DO YOU feel you were properly represented by Osvaldo Vera, who spoke at the launch meeting of the PSUV as a representative of the workers?

NOT AT all; he did not raise a single issue of concern to the working class. He just spoke in generalities. And I have to ask myself who decided, when and where, that he should speak in the name of the Venezuelan working class? For me this is the key question. How is the PSUV being built? I want to express my solidarity with thousands of my compatriots who went to Caracas to take part in the event and who were not only excluded, but mistreated and beaten in the bargain. On television we saw governors, mayors, and deputies who do not have mass support occupying the first rows. There were bosses and bureaucrats present who have defended the bosses, and a number of people who have been accused of corruption and the defense of policies that did not reflect the interests of the people. That is why there is so much discontent—because people know that this process has begun in a very questionable way.

We in C-CURA believe that we have to be clear in our class allegiance. We cannot give space to bosses, landowners, bureaucrats, or those guilty of corruption. But it would be completely wrong to exclude the grass roots or those who disagree with the president. Everyone knows that Vera does not represent the working class. The FBT is a minority within the UNT, yet he stood and spoke in the name of all workers. That is why we are fighting for the PSUV to accept internal currents without conditions or qualifications. Nobody should be forced to dissolve—that would be completely arbitrary and designed to stop discussion before it begins. And we need to know what the position of the president and the organizing committee is on these matters.

HOW DO you see the future of the PSUV project?

WE HAVE to recognize that the people have placed great hopes in it; indeed, it is seen by many as a real political victory over the leaderships of the old parties like the MVR, PPT, Podemos, and all those other organizations that for years have fed a tiny group of fat bureaucrats while the majority grew thinner by the day.

However, I must say to you that the way it has been presented by President Chávez will not succeed in bringing in the real class fighters, the honest revolutionaries working within the trade-union movement. And that is why we insist on taking part in this debate. We have a view of how to build a revolutionary party in Venezuela, which is imperative if the struggle for a revolutionary process is to continue and develop to the point where it can seize from the capitalists their economic, political, and military power. Until now, we have seen nothing of that in the discussion about the PSUV.

What is important is that the debate is open and that everyone says clearly what they think and what kind of party they want, what its program should be, and how it should be built. We are part of that debate and we will not allow anyone to discredit our contribution or accuse us of anything. We will speak honestly, openly, and listen to others in the debate. Our views are different from those put forward by the president and the organizing committee. We will make sure that they hear our views and visions for the Venezuelan revolution.

Lula da Silva promises new airport for Sao Paulo

Three days after Brazil’s worst air accident president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva addressed the nation and promised that in 90 days he will be announcing the construction of a new airport for the city of Sao Paulo.

Lula da Silva five minutes speech late Friday evening begun with a message to the “hearts of all Brazilians” asking God to give strength to all the families of the victims of the Tuesday air accident, when a landing TAM Airbus 320 skidded off Congonha’s airport runway and crashed into a repairs building killing at least 214 people including all passengers and crew members plus ground personnel.

Congonhas airport is Brazil’s busiest, over 20 million travelers annually, but it is also one of the most difficult for pilots to operate since runways are too short for large modern aircraft, and the whole area is insufficiently drained causing additional problems when it rains. Originally in the middle of fields, but now trapped in the sprawling cement of Sao Paulo, Congonhas has become the hub for regional flights and has suffered several tragic accidents in the last few years.

However as promised by Lula da Silva, Congonhas traffic will in the future be significantly reduced to flights in the Sao Paulo region and the Rio/Sao Paulo shuttle, a new international air terminal is to be built and overall air safety will be improved.

A federal judge closed Congonhas for several days last summer on safety grounds and it was reopened on promises of improved runways drainage conditions. This Friday, 19 pilots refused to land in Congonhas fearful of what happened last Tuesday.

Lula da Silva promised a rigorous investigation into all events of last Tuesday but also cautioned that it will all be done with no “precipitation or impassiveness”, adding that “we don’t want to condemn or absolve with precipitated actions so as not to commit possible injustice”.

Besides practical common sense measures for the airport, Lula da Silva promised to exert greater influence over the Civil Aviation Agency to ensure they act in defense of travelers; a modernization of Brazil’s air traffic conditions thus cutting drastically potential risks.

As to the cause of the accident, TAM airlines revealed early Friday that a thrust reverser from the crashed aircraft had been deactivated during maintenance checks.

The reversers can be used to help jets slow down on landing but Tam Airlines insisted the deactivation was in accordance with proper procedures and “in conditions stipulated by the maintenance of the manufacturer Airbus and approved by [Brazil's] National Civil Aviation Agency".

Tam Airlines' comments came after Brazil's Globo TV said a problem with the right thrust reverser had emerged four days before the crash.

Tam said Airbus's own manual says an inspection can be done up to 10 days after it is first detected and that the plane can continue to operate in the meantime.

Globo TV also reported that the same plane had problems landing at Congonhas the day before the crash.

Government and Business Leaders Commit to Economic Plan for Venezuela

By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuelan Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas
Venezuelan Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas
Credit: Archive

Mérida, July 19, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— The Venezuelan government has planned measures to decrease its external debt and continue the fight against inflation. Venezuela's Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas announced some of the economic measures being taken by the government yesterday after a meeting with several private sector business leaders. Cabezas assured that continued growth and increased productivity are the best "medicine" to fight inflation.

The finance minister met with more than 30 private sector business leaders on Tuesday to discuss the government's future economic plans. The minister considered the meeting to be "highly productive" and emphasized the importance of the involvement of the private sector in order for the economic policies to take effect. Business leaders agreed to contribute to the continued economic growth with increased private investment.

"We have three years of sustained growth in our country," said Alejandro Uzcátegui of Businessmen for Venezuela (Empreven). "Now there is more thanks to the economic strategy of the President and his cabinet. Now there is more consumption and we are going to contribute so that the business sector can take part in maintaining this growth through investment and combating inflation."

One of the measures announced by the minister is a strategy to continue to decrease the balance of external debt. Cabezas stated that the government might carry out another buying of bonds later this year as it did toward the end of 2006 when it bought outstanding Brady bonds. Last year the government bought US$ 3.9 million in external debt, reducing the total by 15.2% and bringing it down from US$ 31 billion to US$ 26 billion.

"We plan to continue forward with a series of operations within the framework of debt management which will allow us to reduce our balance," said Cabezas. He went on to say that the government will continue to pay the external debt it they can bring it down to only 10% of GDP, expected by 2010.

Cabezas also announced that the government does not have plans to devalue the currency in 2007 or 2008. He added that it has not decided about currency adjustments after that point.

"In the near future there will not be any devaluations and it is also not planned for 2008," said the finance minister. "And I don't know if in four years, if in the long run there will be adjustments, that I do not know. Eventually there might be an adjustment in 2009 or 2010, we'll see," he said.

The Venezuelan currency, the Bolivar, has been fixed in relation to the dollar since 2003. The rate has remained at 2,150 Bs. per dollar since 2005, even though the dollar is almost twice as expensive on the black market.

Cabezas defended the currency controls, however, recalling the situation in the 1980's, when Venezuela lost US$ 22 billion in "massive capital flight." The minister explained that the current controls have allowed the government to prevent this type of capital flight in the private sector.

The minister and private sector business leaders agreed to fight inflation in the country through continued economic growth and investment. The President of Empreven stated that business leaders would continue to hold meetings with the government in order to fight any bottlenecks in the economy that might affect growth.

"In the long run we will defeat [inflation] with sustained growth and social inclusion, and with growth in productivity through scientific and technological growth," said Cabezas.

The government plans increase the supply in the market both through increased imports of some products and in increased agricultural production through agricultural subsidies. Cabezas announced Bs. 251 billion (US$ 116.7 million) for subsidies in rice, milk, and sorghum to guarantee more production. The government also plans to increase the amount of food distributed through the state-owned food network Mercal to help meet demand. Cabezas assured that the government would meet its goal of only 12% inflation this year, even though the annualized rate for the first half of the year is at 19.4%.

"It is a war against inflation that the government, the business sector, and the general population are assuming," said Uzcátegui of Empreven. "Measures have been established such as the reduction of the sales tax, the control of liquidity according to growth, but we can't reduce investment. The finance minister informed us how the government is investing and how in the long run Venezuelans are going to feel it."

275 Mexicans have died on the U.S. border

A total of 275 Mexicans have died this year to date attempting to cross the border into the United States, making it possibly the worst year for immigrants, according to a commission in the Mexican Congress.

Edmundo Ramírez, secretary of the Population, Borders and Migration Issues Commission, said in a press release that 2007 would be “a dark year for migrants” who may try to cross the border into the U.S.

He said it was “imminent” that the number who will die will exceed the 550 deaths registered in 2006.

According to the representative, the deaths counted in the first semester of the year shows a growing tendency since the 1990s.

According to his figures, every year 550,000 Mexicans leave their country in search of better opportunities in the U.S., but he said there is a big difference between the death figures of the government and those of citizens’ organizations.

In that sense, he said that last year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs registered 422 deaths, while some NGOs and migrant help centers placed the figure at 550 deaths.

He said that U.S. government plans to reinforce security on the border by building a wall and using new technology such as cameras and motion and heat sensors “will result in the migration flow going to more inhospitable regions, but it will not decrease.”

The measures adopted by the U.S. “are offending,” but “it is more humiliating that Mexican authorities (...) are turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to such a huge problem,” he stated.

The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be protesting more vigorously against the U.S. actions on the border and should send a letter to the White House, because “good intentions and submissive attitudes don’t resolve anything,” he said.

He emphasized that on the border region between the U.S. and Mexico, about $3 billion in illegal trafficking of persons takes place, a business that is very difficult to attack, he said.

Reflections of President Fidel Castro

The Brain Drain

(Translated by ESTI)

I mentioned something and included a quotation on this topic for an example I used in my last reflection, titled "Bush, Health and Education", which I dedicated to children. In this reflection, aimed at the first class to graduate from the University of Information Sciences (UCI), I shall delve more deeply into this thorny issue.

These graduates were the pioneers, from whom I learned much about the intelligence and the values our young people can cultivate when they study assiduously. I also learned much from the excellent staff of professors, a great many of whom had studied at the José Antonio Echevarría University Complex (CUJAE).

Neither can I avoid to mention the example of the social workers, whose organizational skills and spirit of sacrifice enriched my knowledge and afforded me new experiences, nor the thousands of educators who graduated recently, who made the goal of having one teacher for every 15 students, in the seventh, eighth and ninth grades of our junior high schools a reality. All of them began their university studies almost simultaneously, infused with the ideas which were born and were applied in the battle to have a 6 year old child who had been kidnapped returned to his family and homeland, a child for whom we were willing to give our all.

In two days, 1,334 computer sciences engineers from around the country, whose exemplary conduct and knowledge earned them university scholarships, shall graduate from UCI. Of these, 1,134 have been assigned to different ministries, which provide important services to our people, and to state agencies which manage crucial economic resources. A centralized reserve of 200 young and carefully selected graduates, which shall grow larger every year, awaits different assignments. This reserve is made up of graduates from all of the country's provinces who shall stay lodged at UCI residences. A total of 56 percent are males and 44 percent females.

UCI opens its doors to young people from Cuba's 169 municipalities. It is not grounded in the model of exclusion and competition among human beings which developed capitalist countries advocate.

Our world order appears to have been designed to foster the egoism, individualism and dehumanization of humanity.

A Reuters press dispatch published on May 3, 2006, titled “African brain drain deprives Africa of vital talent”, reports that, in Africa, "it is estimated that some 20,000 skilled professionals are leaving the continent every year, depriving Africa of the doctors, nurses, teachers and engineers it needs to break a cycle of poverty and under-development". Reuters adds that "the World Health Organization (WHO) says that Sub-Saharan Africa bears 24 percent of the world's global burden of disease including HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. To face that challenge, it has just 3 percent of the world’s health workers”. “In Malawi, only 5 percent of physicians' posts and 65 percent of nursing vacancies are filled. In the country of 10 million, one doctor serves 50,000 people”.

Quoting a report from the World Bank, the dispatch reports that, "stymied by conflict, poverty, lethal diseases and corruption, much of Africa is in no position to compete with richer countries that promise higher salaries, better working conditions and political stability”.

“Brain drain deals a double blow to weak economies, which not only lose their best human resources and the money spent training them, but then have to pay an estimated $5.6 billion a year to employ expatriates”.

The phrase “brain drain” was coined in the 1960s, when the United States began to hoard UK doctors. In that case, one developed country dispossessed another; one emerged from the Second World War in 1944 with 80 percent of the world’s gold reserve in bullions, the other had been severely hit and deprived of its empire in the course of the war.

A World Bank report titled "International migration, remittances and the brain drain", made public in October 2005, yielded the following results:

In the last 40 years, more than 1.2 million professionals from Latin America and the Caribbean have emigrated to the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. An average of 70 scientists a day has emigrated from Latin America in the course of 40 years.

Of the 150 million people around the world involved in science and technology activities, 90 percent is concentrated in the seven most industrialized nations.

A number of countries, particularly small nations in Africa, the Caribbean and Central America, have lost over 30 percent of their population with higher education as a result of migration.

The Caribbean islands, where nearly all nations are English-speaking, report the world's highest brain drain. In some of these islands, 8 of every 10 university graduates have left their native countries.

More than 70 percent of software programmers employed by the US Company Microsoft Corporation are from India and Latin America.

The intense migratory movements, from Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union towards Western Europe and North America, which began following the collapse of the socialist block, are worthy of special mention.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) points out that the number of scientists and engineers who abandon their native countries and emigrate to industrialized nations is about one third of the number of those who stay in their native countries, something which significantly depletes indispensable human resource reserves.

The ILO report maintains that the migration of students is a precursor of the brain drain. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported that, at the beginning of the new millennium, a bit more than 1.5 million foreign students pursued higher studies in member states and that, of these, more than half were from non-OECD countries. Of this total, nearly half a million studied in the United States, one quarter of a million in the United Kingdom and nearly 200 thousand in Germany.

Between 1960 and 1990, the United States and Canada received more than one million professional immigrants and experts from Third World countries.

These figures are but a pale reflection of the tragedy.

In recent years, encouraging this type of emigration has become an official state policy in a number of North countries, which use incentives and procedures especially tailored to suit this end.

The American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act —approved by the US Congress in 2000— increased the temporary work visa (H-1B) allotment, from 65 thousand to 115 thousand in the 2000 fiscal year and then to 195 thousand for fiscal years 2001 through 2003. The aim of this increase in the visa cap was to encourage the entry into the United States of highly qualified immigrants who could occupy positions in the high-technology sector. Though this figure was reduced to 65 thousand in the 2005 fiscal year, the flow of professionals towards this country has remained steady.

Similar measures were promulgated by the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and Australia. Since 1990, this last country prioritized the intake of highly qualified workers, primarily for sectors such as banking, insurance and the so-called knowledge economy.

In nearly all cases, the selection criteria are based on the worker's high qualifications, language proficiency, age, work experience and professional achievements. The UK program grants extra points to medical doctors.

This relentless plundering of brains in South countries dismantles and weakens programs aimed at training human capital, a resource which is needed to rise from the depths of underdevelopment. It is not limited to the transfer of capital; it also entails the import of grey matter, which nips a country's nascent intelligence and future at the bud.

Between 1959 and 2004, Cuba has graduated 805,902 professionals, including medical doctors. The United States' unjust policy towards our country has deprived us of 5.16 percent of the professionals who graduated under the Revolution.

However, not even the elite of immigrant workers enjoy work conditions and salaries like those of US nationals. In order to avoid the complicated paperwork which US labor legislation requires and reduce the costs of immigration procedures, the United States has gone as far as creating a software ship-factory which keeps highly-qualified slaves anchored in international waters, in a kind of assembly plant which produces all manner of digital devices. Project SeaCode consists of a ship, anchored more than three miles off the coast of California (international waters), with 600 Indian computer scientists on board, who work an uninterrupted 12 hour daily shift for four months out at sea.

The trend towards the privatization of knowledge and the internalization of scientific research companies subordinated to big capital has been creating a kind of "scientific apartheid" which affects the vast majority of the world's population.

The United States, Japan and Germany combined have a percentage of the world's population similar to that of Latin America, but their investment in research and development is of 52.9 percent, as opposed to 1.3 percent in the latter. Today's economic gap foreshadows what tomorrow's may be if these trends are not reversed.

That future is already upon us. The so-called new economy mobilizes immense capital flows each year. According to a 2006 report published by Digital Planet, a World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) publication, the global Information and Communications Technology (ICT) market accounted for three trillion US dollars in 2006.

More and more people have access to the Internet each day —in July 9, 2007, the figure was almost 1.4 billion users. However, in many countries, including numerous developed ones, the people with no access to this service continue to be the majority. The digital gap spells dramatic differences, whereby part of humanity, fortunate and connected, has more information at its disposal than any generation before it ever had.

To have an idea of what this means, suffice it two compare two realities: while more than 70 percent of the population of the United States has access to the Internet, only 3 percent of Africa's entire population has such access. Internet service providers are based in high-income countries, where a mere 16 percent of the world's population lives.

The underprivileged situation our group of countries faces within these global information networks, the Internet and all modern means used to transfer information and images must urgently be addressed.

A society in which millions of human beings are considered superfluous, the brain drain of South countries constitutes a common practice and economic power and new technologies are wielded by only a handful of nations cannot be called human, not by a long shot. Overcoming this dilemma is as important for the destiny of humanity as mitigating the climate change crisis which scourges the planet, two problems which are completely interrelated.

To conclude, I need only add:

Whoever has a computer has all published knowledge at their disposal and the privileged memory of the machine belongs to them too.

Ideas are born of knowledge and ethical values. An important part of the problem would be technologically solved, another must be cultivated restlessly. Otherwise, the most basic instincts shall prevail.

The task ahead of UCI graduates is grandiose. I hope you are able to fulfill it. I am confident that you will.

Fidel Castro Ruz

July 17, 2007

11:05 am

July 21, 2007

The Uncomfortable Dead; Carlos Lopez, translator. Nominated for Best Private Eye Paperback Original of the Year, 2007

PACO IGNACIO TAIBO II & SUBCOMMANDANTE MARCOS
Akashic Books, trade paperback, September 2006.

Book Description:

Taibo

In alternating chapters, Zapatista leader Subcomandante Marcos and the consistently excellent Paco Ignacio Taibo II create an uproarious murder mystery with two intersecting story lines.

The chapters written by the famously masked Marcos originate in the mountains of Chiapas, Mexico. There, the fictional “Subcomandante Marcos” assigns Elias Contreras – an odd but charming mountain man – to travel to Mexico City in search of an elusive and hideous murderer named Morales.

The second story line, penned by Taibo, stars his famous series detective Hector Belascoarán Shayne. Hector guzzles Coca-Cola and smokes cigarettes furiously amidst his philosophical and always charming approach to investigating crimes-in this case, the search for his own “Morales.”

The two stories collide absurdly and dramatically in the urban sprawl of Mexico City. The ugly history of the city’s political violence rears its head, and both detectives find themselves in an unpredictable dance of death with forces at once criminal, historical, and political.

About the Authors:

Paco Ignacio Taibo II is a Mexican historian and writer, the author of numerous crime novels and historical works (two of which won the Planeta Prize for Literature), and the founder of Semana Negra, the annual international crime writers’ congress in Spain. He lives in Mexico with his wife and daughter.

Subcomandante Marcos is a spokesperson and strategist for the Zapatistas, an indigenous insurgency movement based in Mexico. He first joined the indigenous guerrilla group which was to become the Zapatistas in the early 1980s. Marcos is author of several books, including Story of the Colors, which won a Firecracker Alternative Book Award, and Our Word is Our Weapon.

Review excerpts:

Publishers Weekly: “Mexican crime writer Taibo and a real-life spokesperson for the Zapatista movement, Subcomandante Marcos, provide alternating chapters for this postmodern comedic mystery about good, evil and modern revolutionary politics. […] Taibo’s expertise ensures a smart, funny book, and Marcos brings a wry sense of humor. The authors mix mystery with metafiction: characters operate from beyond the grave or chat about the roles they play in the novel, and Marcos writes his fictional self into the story. Literary readers will nod and smile knowingly, though serious mystery devotees who prefer more grounded noir might be mildly annoyed by the hijinks.”

Booklist: “As one might expect, the political trumps the personal in this curious mix of crime novel and position paper, but it is just strange enough to attract a cult audience.”

Previous Hector Belascoarán Shayne novels: [English translations only.]

An Easy Thing. Viking, hardcover, 1990. Penguin, paperback, 1990. Poisoned Pen Press, trade paperback, 2002.

Some Clouds. Viking, hardcover, 1992. Penguin, paperback, 1993. Poisoned Pen Press, trade paperback, 2002.

No Happy Ending. Mysterious Press, hardcover, 1993. Warner, paperback, 1994. Poisoned Pen Press, trade paperback, 2003.

Return to the Same City. Mysterious Press, hardcover, 1996. Warner, paperback, 1997. Poisoned Pen Press, trade paperback, 2005.

Frontera Dreams. Cinco Puntos Press; trade paperback, July 2002.

President Chávez wants Central America to join ALBA

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez invited Central American nations to enroll "with no fear" in the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA), because "it is the way to consolidate a true Latin American unity."

The head of state made the invitation during his remarks to the Nicaraguan media, accompanied by his Nicaraguan counterpart Daniel Ortega, during the commemoration of the 28th anniversary of the triumph of the Sandinista revolution, reported official news agency ABN.

He noted that the integration tool is based on complementation and cooperation, and instrumental in the new era.

The head of state emphasized that the participation of President Martín Torrijos, of Panama, and Manuel Zelaya, of Honduras, in the event held in Managua, the Nicaraguan capital city, was "a very strong indication of Central American unity entering a new stage."

Chávez thinks that countries are getting closer to ALBA, because during the Summit of Central America and Mexico held in Honduras in June, these nations acknowledged the significance of such an initiative for integration.

July 20, 2007

Colombian Free Trade Pact Shot Down: One Step Forward for the U.S., One Back for Canada

Recently, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives staunchly denounced the previously initialed free trade agreement (FTA) with Colombia, while postponing (at least for several months) the ratification of a comparable trade measure with Peru and Panama. This is merely the latest devastating blow to the standing of Colombia’s hard-line right-wing president, Àlvaro Uribe, whose disapproval rating hit a high of 27 percent in a Gallup Poll published on July 14. Not only is this a heavy blow against Uribe delivered by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her senior colleagues, but it also is an embarrassing setback for the Bush administration, which had elevated Uribe into being Washington’s closest regional ally and made Colombia into the third largest recipient of U.S. assistance. Meanwhile, on July 16, the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited Uribe in pursuit of a Canada-Colombia FTA in what could not be considered a high water mark for exemplary diplomacy.

The advocacy of ending a FTA with Colombia is not a surprise to many, especially after Speaker Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY), and Trade Subcommittee Chairman Sander Levin (D-MI) issued an ominous statement on June 29: “We believe there must first be concrete evidence of sustained results on the ground in Colombia, and members of Congress will continue working with all interested parties to help achieve this end before consideration of any FTA. Consequently, we cannot support the Colombia (agreement) at this time.” The statement was made in reference to a series of events such as possible ties between the Uribe’s administration and the country’s notoriously brutal paramilitary groups, one of the highest counts of human rights abuses in the hemisphere, the woeful failure of Plan Colombia to derail drug-trafficking, his inability to apprehend or demobilize groups labeled as “terrorists” by the U.S. and an ending string of scandals and acts of corruption including, the misuse of U.S. funds, as well his imperious removal of Washington’s long-favored policy of being able to extradite Colombian felons upon request.

What Made the Democrats Walk Away?
In recent months, President Uribe, when he was not squandering money on U.S. public relations firms, made two unprecedented lobbying trips to Washington in hopes of swaying Congress in his favor. This is partly attributable, in short order, to the current investigations against twelve of Uribe’s congressional allies who are awaiting trial for possible connections to right-wing death squads and paramilitary groups—a claim he denies despite years of rampant rumors.

The accusations that members of Uribe’s administration have ties to paramilitary groups invited a significant first step in the cutbacks of U.S. aid for anti-drug trafficking efforts. The House approved $530.6 million in aid to Colombia, $60 million less than the Bush administration requested, with real prospects that it could be further slashed.

Another leading factor motivating the punitive rhetoric from the House Democrats is that in 2006, Colombia led the world in the number of trade union officials assassinated, with more than 70 deaths confirmed. This is one of the particularly damaging statistics of human rights abuses that have plagued the country and have further whittled down Colombia’s supporters in Washington. Additionally, the appalling number of more than three million displaced Colombian civilians has kept Bogotá in the crossfire of criticism for its daily derelictions of such internally displaced persons, Uribe’s indifference to issues of social injustice and Colombian’s incredibly unequal distribution of wealth.

Furthermore, in 2000, near the end of the Clinton administration, the U.S. decided to financially contribute to Plan Colombia in an effort to derail the drug trade and reduce cultivation of the coca plant by 50 percent. However, as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) has argued: “When Plan Colombia began, we were told it would cut by half the amount of cocaine in five years. Six years later and $5 billion later, it has not had a measurable effect on the amount of cocaine entering our country.” The Plan has allocated millions of dollars on controversial aerial fumigation programs against the coca plant. However, according to the U.S. State Department coca plant acreage has increased 27 percent since the program began.

In June of 2003, Uribe initiated peace talks with the right-wing paramilitaries aimed at preparing for their demobilization. The United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), an umbrella group of the country’s numerous vigilante death-squads, proceeded to turn in a list of some 30,000 paramilitaries prepared to commence the demobilization process, which is a far higher figure than previously has been attributed to their troop strength. Many see in these numbers what could be the making of a new scandal based on drug traffickers conniving with Uribe and the AUC to allow common criminals and drug traffickers to profess AUC membership. This allows them to qualify for demobilization under the terms of Uribe’s generous peace plan and to avoid being extradited to the U.S. to stand trial. Instead, under Uribe’s no-extradition pledge and under the terms of his demobilization plan, felons may serve minimal sentences and pay an insultingly small compensation figure to their victim’s loved ones. According to Latin News, the Organization of American States (OAS) has claimed that paramilitary groups “had reappeared in 16 of Colombia’s 32 departments,” thus implying that Uribe’s implementation of the program lacks sufficient enforcement.

Why Canada, Why?
The recent 6-day trip to Latin America by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper began in Bogotá. A trip of this sort has not occurred since former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s visit in 2004. This perhaps reflects a sudden desire for Canada to get more involved with Latin America at a time when the U.S. has lost much of its regional influence. Yet, with Harper’s pursuit of improving relations with Latin America, The Economist wryly observed that “Canada cannot hope to rival U.S. economic and political influence in Latin America.” Even if The Economist knew what it was talking about (what “political influence” does the U.S. actually have in Latin America?) one can ask why, then, did Harper decide to pursue a foreign policy trade initiative in South America? A major reason that comes to mind is that Ottawa believes that given the $100 billion, which Canada has already invested in Latin America, the region has long been an attractive place for Canadian companies in which to invest, especially in oil and mining areas. Its pursuit of new investments and its emphasis on market factors signify that, to paraphrase Calvin Coolidge, the business of Canada is business.

Harper clearly feels more at home with vending Canadian products to the region rather than Canadian ideals and has staunchly supported his decision to trade with Bogotá despite calls that he should refuse to do so due to that country’s appalling human rights record. In refuting his opposition, Harper assured: “When we see a country like Colombia that has decided to address its social, political and economic problems in an integrated way, that it wants to embrace democracy and human rights, then we say, ‘We’re in.’” Given Colombia’s abusive record, what country can Harper be talking about? Further, alluding to the mild position that the U.S. has taken, he seems to deprecate it by being far less demanding than even President Bush: “We’re not going to say ‘Fix all your social, political and human rights problems, and only then will we engage in trade relations with you.’ That’s a ridiculous position.”

Specialists in hemispheric politics observe that it has been decades since Canada has had its people follow Latin America in a less competent way than under Harper. It is questionable whether the Canadian Prime Minister had any motives, any insights, any clarity, in fact, any information whatsoever with the most important bilateral U.S.-Canadian issues at play. What is at stake is Canada’s reputation as a high-minted symbol for public rectitude and the politicians’ projections of a principled government known for its integrity. Under Harper, Canada’s image is being man-handled, and the absence of any comprehension of hemispheric issues parallels that of the Bush administration.

The U.S. Catches on, Canada Doesn’t
The decision by many Democrats to walk away from the FTA with Colombia is commendable, especially considering the tainted reputation of Uribe and his country’s modern history. As for Canada, it seems plausible that its notably sterling reputation may not survive Harper’s visit to the region, his pedestrian language and trivialized insights into what he refers to as his “neighborhood,” which in the pre-Harper days, was well understood in Ottawa.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associates Kathleen Dugan and Kevin Easdale

July 19, 2007

Anarko-galactico conference report

From: http://uriohau.blogspot.com




A Report from the Chiapas Mexico anarchist conference
Anarko-galactico conference: San Cristobal de Colon, Chiapas state, México

This conference of Mexican and international anarchists was specifically organised in advance of the Zapatista encuentro in order to discuss the involvement of anarchist collectives in La Otra Campana.

The agenda of the conference included a number of themes. First, mobilisation against the ´Security and prosperity agreement ´ meeting (aka ASPAN) of the heads of state of Mexico, the US and Canada due to happen in Montreal 19-21 August (www.psp-spp.com/) was discussed. This meeting will bring about a major extension of the militarisation of the borders, an extension of economic integration and exploitation by corporates. Some 30 Corporate execs have also been invited to help divide up the remaining spoils of the north american continent. Solidarity actions are being planned by Mexican collectives around the country.

The next item on the agenda was the No borders-Sin Fronteras camp that is due to happen along the US-Mexico border in the second week of November (noborderscamp.org/). This camp will be an attempt to create an autonomous zone on top of the imposed arbitrary line of the US-Mexican border. A week of action against borders, capitalism and racism is planned. This is a really exciting campaign as the border is a major political issue in the US. There is certainly potential to change the nature of the discourse around borders and by extension, capitalism and exploitation.

During the afternoon of the first day of the conference, we learned of the situation unfolding in Oaxaca. People who were going to an important cultural celebration were attacked and beaten by police. At least 40 people were arrested and one woman was murdered by police. Many many of the people at the conference were overcome with grief and astonishment at this unprovoked attack by the state after a period of relative calm. The conference issued a communiqué and many people attended a solidarity demonstration at the local prison in San Cristobal on Wednesday.

Further to the situation in Oaxaca, we had an extensive discussion about support for political prisoners, both in Mexico and around the world. Some of the ideas discussed included a project in Brazil where families come to a local radio station and broadcast messages etc to family members who have been jailed. Another project is the community policing being done in the Mexican state of Guerrero (www.policiacommunitaria.org). This project is largely to protect the local community from the police and military, and includes an autonomous justice system for dealing with issues within the community.

The Anarchist Black Cross (www.anarchistblackcross.org/content/index.html) is planning major days of action at the same time as ASPAN, ie. 19-21 August. My understanding is that one of these days coincides with the murders of anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti by the US state.

The analysis of La Otra Campana by a plenary session of the conference proved very interesting. Many of the participants have extensive experience working in Zapatista communities and have significant and relevant critiques of the EZLN and of La Otra. Some of the critiques include the hierarchical reality of some of the organising (as opposed to the rhetoric), the division between the EZLN and the working people in the cities of Mexico, the lack of indigenous commandants in the leadership, and the reality of the continued inequality of women in communities. One participant who has 10 experience working in these communities said that his collective had not signed up to La Otra because they felt that there was little room for criticism and that for years, they had not made criticisms because they had continued to hope that things would change. As you can imagine, the historical examples of anarchists putting aside their ideals in favour of the revolution now were invoked (e.g. Espana y Russia).

Having said these critiques, most of the participants felt that it was extremely important that anarchists continued to be involved in La Otra. On one hand because the Zapatistas had tried to make room within La Otra for them and that this represented one of the most important political spaces of our time. On the other hand, anarchists felt that they were very marginalized here and that it was important to participate even if it meant a continual struggle against authoritarian communists and socialist groups.

On the final night of the conference, the women presented a letter to the entire conference challenging the men to examine their participation in patriarchy. One woman specifically called a man out for his violent and abusive behaviour. This caused quite an emotional and heated response by a crowd of men who walked out of the conference. This action of attempting to hold people to account for their violence towards womyn was a first for Mexican anarchists and represents a great step. There is much work to be done, however, many men there are interested in accepting the challenge.

The Zapatista encuentro starts tomorrow (Friday) and goes for 10 days. Anarchists will feed into the conference at all opportunities and no doubt will learn much about organising autonomous spaces.

The Brazilian who established a library in Lebanon

posted by Blake

Pharès Zoghbi, born in the southeastern Brazilian state of Minas Gerais, moved to the Arab country at the age of 12, to live with his uncle. A passion and mania of reading and keeping books made Zoghbi establish one of the largest libraries in the country, with over 65,000 books, including some Brazilian works. ANBA.br profiles the man who built a library with legal books, as Zoghbi graduated in law, but the library also has literature, art, science, politics, sociology, religion and philosophy books, as well as biographies and rare collections of magazines, like "Espirit", a French magazine that has been published since 1932. "With his humanistic spirit, he always visited bookstores while travelling to Beirut, Iran, Iraq, Europe and Brazil. A true biographer," stated Roberto Khatlab, a writer and friend of Zoghbi's, who was also born in Brazil and lives in Lebanon.

The Militarization and Annexation of North America - by Stephen Lendman

Besides the Bush administration's imperial aims and permanent war on the world, add the one at home below the radar. Its weapons include the WTO, NAFTA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, CIA, NSA, NORTHCOM, militarized state and local police, National Guard forces, paramilitary mercenaries like Blackwater USA, and all other repressive instruments of state power and control. They target the people of three nations slowly becoming one headquartered in Washington. That's the apparent aim of those in power here wanting one continent, "indivisible" minus old-fashioned ideas like "liberty and justice for all" we used to believe in when, as kids, we recited our "Pledge of Allegiance." They now have a whole new meaning. They're just words drummed into young minds hoping they'll still believe them when they're old enough to know better.

There may be a greater scheme for the planet ahead, but this article only focuses on what we know about and how it's unfolding so far. It has a name, in fact, several, but they all aim for the same thing - one nation, indivisible, where three sovereign ones once stood, headquartered in Washington.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) or "Deep Integration" North American Union

SPP was formerly launched at a March 23, 2005 meeting in Waco, Texas attended by George Bush, Mexico's President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. It's a tri-national agreement hatched below the radar in Washington containing the recommendations of the Independent Task Force of North America. That's a group organized by the powerful US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), and Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. It advocates greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups formed to devise non-debatable agreements that, when completed, will be binding beyond the power of legislatures to change. It's also taking shape without public knowledge or consideration.

From what's already known, SPP unmasked isn't pretty. It's a corporate-led coup d'etat against the sovereignty of three nations enforced by a common hard line security strategy already in play separately in each country. It's a scheme to create a borderless North American Union under US control without barriers to trade and capital flows for corporate giants, mainly US ones. It's also to insure America gets free and unlimited access to Canadian and Mexican resources, mainly oil, and in the case of Canada water as well. It's to assure US energy security as a top priority while denying Canada and Mexico preferential access to their own resources henceforth earmarked for US markets.

It's also to create a fortress-North American security zone encompassing the whole continent under US control in the name of "national (and continental) security" with US borders effectively extended to the far reaches of the continent. The scheme, in short, is NAFTA on steroids combined with Pox Americana homeland security enforcement. It's the worst of all possible worlds headed for an unmasked police state, and it's the Bush administration's notion of "deep integration" or the "Big Idea" meaning we're boss, what we say goes, no outliers will be tolerated, public interest is off the table, and the people of three nations be damned.

It's also the next step in what GHW Bush had in mind when he delivered his "Toward a New World Order" speech to a joint session of Congress on another September 11 in 1990. At the onset of the "crisis in the Persian Gulf," he said "We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment (offering) a rare opportunity to move toward....a new world order" free from "the threat of terror....and more secure...." He spoke of a "new world....struggling to be born....quite different from the one we've known." He masked his intentions in language of peace and the pursuit of justice while preparing for war on Iraq and the region that's gone on for over 16 years with no end in sight. A new Bush administration is bringing that "New World Order" to the North American continent. Unless it can be stopped, the streets of Boston, Baltimore and Buffalo may one day look like occupied Baghdad or Bogota when drug barons clash and Colombia's US-financed military and paramilitaries step in.

SPP Unmasked

Establishing hard line security initiatives is key to making SPP's "deep integration" trade agenda work. It's being planned at a time of Washington's cooked up "war on terrorism" scheme unleashing imperial dreams not possible without the public traumatized enough to go along. Intended is a ramped up militarized police state of enhanced border and homeland security. It's based on the phony notion that doing business and protecting the national interest and public welfare require tough measures in place to secure them at a time of threatening global terrorism.

As outlandish as it sounds, the scheme is moving ahead toward implementation. It threatens Canadian, Mexican and US national sovereignty and priorities, and their people and ours are none the wiser about it. NAFTA is a glimpse of what's ahead. It's record in 12.5 years has been disastrous with huge numbers of job losses and growing insecurity in three countries. SPP guarantees more of the same on steroids with small businesses hurt as well. They continue being trampled by corporate giants they're no match for. Many go under or are bought out if they survive. They and working people aren't part of the SPP process, and their concerns aren't being addressed and are guaranteed to worsen as this initiative advances.

Its doing it at secret meetings like the one from September 12 - 14, 2006 in Banff, Alberta, Canada. It was co-chaired by three former high officials of the participating nations including a leading US cold warrior as Reagan Secretary of State, George Shultz. He has all the credentials SPP needs as a former Bechtel president and current board member also holding memberships at the hard right Hoover Institution and American Enterprise Institute, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, and the Committee on the Present Danger military lobbying group.

They were part of a high-powered group of present and former government officials; top military-industrial complex representatives, Big Oil and other corporate executives; leading policy analysts; high-ranking military brass; and a single Wall Street Journal self-styled Latin American expert editorialist known never to let facts conflict with the state and corporate interests she represents. She's a frequent target of this writer, and by now likely knows it - Mary Anastasia O'Grady.

Except for O'Grady, no journalists attended, and no press releases followed the meeting with its carefully scripted agenda and controlled media blackout. Yet veteran Canadian publisher, author, activist and former political candidate Mel Hurtig managed to get hold of the attendee list and published it online. He also posted topics discussed including: "A Vision for North America" (but not a people-friendly one), "A North American Energy Strategy" (for US energy security at the expense of Canada and Mexico), "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration," and "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" (aka Pox Americana).

Washington dominates the planning at all meetings with its interests getting primary attention. Along with what's mentioned above, efforts are to create uniform business practices and standards, ease the flow of US products into Canada and Mexico, remove labor constraints, and eliminate unwelcome environmental standards or restrictions interfering with the primary consideration of profits.

Also on the agenda is getting Canada and Mexico to allow more privatization of state-run enterprises like Mexico's nationalized oil company, PEMEX, and eventually open up Canada's medicare health care system to private investment. The US can't negotiate this way with its western European, Chinese or Japanese trading partners but can easily pressure most developing nations to go along with policies harming their own people, and neighboring accommodating ones like Canada, so long as their elite leading players share the benefits.

In February, 2007, a set of SPP private sector priorities were laid out by the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) that serves as an official tri-national SPP working group. It was created at the March, 2006 second annual SPP summit in Cancun, Mexico. The group is composed of representatives of 30 giant North American companies, with powerful US ones like GE, Ford, GM, Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, Merck and Chevron running things the way Orwell described in "Animal Farm" where "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

NACC's recommendations centered on "private sector involvement" being "a key step to enhancing North America's competitive position in global markets and is the driving force behind innovation and growth." It mentioned "border-crossing facilitation, standards and regulatory cooperation, and energy integration (with a top priority of) improving the secure flow of goods and people within North America." These issues and others were discussed above explaining what they're really all about, not the usual code language hiding their real purpose.

Without using the word, NACC stressed the importance establishing policies for maximum profits. Its report said "Every measure that adds to the cost or time to cross borders within North America is in effect a tax on enterprise, a tax on investment (fair taxes in both cases), or a tax on jobs (a slap at high wages) across the region, which ultimately results in incremental costs for the consumers in all three countries (untrue as cost savings accrue to bottom lines, not consumer pockets)." Also mentioned was the need to make the North American economy "work better (and strengthen) the security and well-being of citizens" without mentioning the "citizens" NACC has in mind are dominant corporate ones and the privileged only and doing it means hard line restraint on the public.

SPP wants "to cut red tape and give consumers better access to safe, less expensive, and innovative products" that only "red tape" can help assure. Regulations, it says "impede the efficiency and competitiveness of businesses in all three countries" except ones giving them a competitive advantage and even though regulations, in fact, serve (or should serve) to protect consumers, not harm them.

Recommendations in the report call for specific action in these sectors in the order the report listed them. It placed last the one of greatest importance, energy, but here's the order priority given: food and agriculture, financial services, transportation, protection of intellectual property rights and lastly energy integration specifically emphasizing Canada's vast oil sands that make its overall reserves second only to Saudi Arabia.

Canada aims to triple its oil sands production by 2015 to three million barrels daily to feed America's insatiable energy appetite these resources are earmarked for. Mexico's oil is also targeted, but the report hides NACC's aim for state oil company PEMEX to be opened to private investment saying only while the country is "blessed with abundant reserves, (it) faces major challenges in attracting capital" needed to realize their potential. NACC wants Mexico to "increase the competitiveness in (its) energy sector" without saying it wants it privatized so foreign investors can plunder them for profit.

It also wants governments and the private sector to "work together effectively in strengthening the competitive position of enterprises" in all three countries saying, in effect, end all restrictions on how we do business even if it harms your nations, people and environment. It made 50 total recommendations it wants mostly accomplished before the end of 2008 with some longer range ones targeting 2010. They cover the range of issues discussed above and specific ones listed below:

-- developing "national critical infrastructure protection strategies" with rules providing for legal protection;

-- enhancing emergency management and disaster planning;

-- implementing planned land clearance projects, meaning less for the people and more for corporate predators;

-- putting in place more business-friendly border security practices, meaning militarizing the border;

-- further simplifying NAFTA rules-of-origin requirements, meaning no restrictions on regional trade even for unsafe products;

-- simplifying the NAFTA certification process and requirements aiming at their total elimination;

-- ending the consumer-protective US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS);

-- removing regulatory standards and practices that impede trade even if doing it harms consumers;

-- working toward a goal of uniform global regulatory standards and practices regardless of the consequences or concern about national sovereignty;

-- easing cross-border tax burdens forcing consumers to pick up the difference;

-- cooperating in identifying common financial regulatory concerns, then work to eliminate them;

-- agreeing to unrestricted air cargo transport services between the US and Mexico;

-- completing a coordinated Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Strategy aimed at protecting them and keeping their prices high;

-- developing an initiative against counterfeiting and piracy; and

-- collaborating on expanding the supply of highly skilled people in the energy sector throughout North America and building a model to be applied to other knowledge-intensive sectors such as financial services.

NACC denies what's pretty clear about about its aims. Saying its recommendations aren't meant to "threaten the sovereign power of any of the three countries," there's no doubt that's the central objective. It wants a North American Union headquartered in Washington with policies in place benefitting corporate giants at the expense of working people. They'll be hammered by greater job losses, fewer social services, and a loss of personal security under militarized police state conditions in the name of "national (continental) security" in the age of concocted global terror threats.

North American Future 2025 Project

This is another secretive effort with the same objective run by the US-based conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It held closed-door meeting roundtables of Canadian business leaders in Calgary as part of a project by this name. CSIS former American political heavyweights are involved including Sam Nunn, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen, Henry Kissinger and others. The agenda involves preparing a final report to the US, Canadian and Mexican governments by September 30 expected to recommend the benefits of integrating the three nations into a single political, economic and security bloc.

What's known has activist groups upset including the Council of Canadians and Coalition for Water Aid. They're protesting what they say amounts to a sub rosa effort for corporate interests to control Canada's huge fresh water supply, estimated at one-fifth of the world's total. They want Canadian energy and other resources, too.

LIke NACC, CSIS carefully states its aims in what it's made public so far, showing the goals of both efforts are the same. CSIS's North America Future 2025 Project is its research effort to help policymakers "make sound, strategic, long-range policy decisions about North America, with emphasis on regional integration." It cites "six areas of critical importance to the trilateral relationship: labor mobility, energy, the environment, security, competitiveness and border infrastructure and logistics." This is all familiar terminology to be discussed in "seven closed-door roundtable sessions (with) 21 (to) 45 individuals - with an equal number from each nation."

They kicked off in Roundtable I discussing "Methodology of Global and North American Projections" followed by each of the above listed six "critical" areas. Protesters are planning to be at the third trilateral SPP summit Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper will host August 20 and 21 in Montebello, Quebec. They'll target SPP overall as well as the Harper government's efforts to advance the corporate-friendly "Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement" (TILMA) as one more nail in the coffin of Canadian national sovereignty.

The agreement between Alberta and British Columbia took effect April 1, 2007 and mandates harmonizing regulations and standards between the two provinces, removing barriers to economic development. Saskatchewan is now being targeted to sign on as efforts advance overall for a borderless North America with schemes like TILMA being used as stepping stones along the way to achieve it. TILMA for all Canada will allow Canadian companies the right to challenge any provincial laws conflicting the NAFTA provisions.

SPP North American integration will go much further, of course, and Joseph Watson reported "Globalists to Formally Propose Merger of US, Canada (and) Mexico" in his July 5 Prison Planet web site article. In it, he says CSIS "political heavyweights" will formally propose a North American union to Congress at summer's end after the conclusion of their seven secret roundtable meetings to devise it. It will contain provisions explained above that spell doom for the sovereignty of the three participating nations. Their leaders want them to become one in service to corporate giants' strategy for greater profits at the public's expense. A further aim is to harmonize regulatory standards with the European Union (EU) in a new transatlantic economic partnership that moves things closer to corporate America's dream of a militarized borderless world run by them.

The North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO)

This is another organization set up to facilitate the designs of NACC and the North American Future 2025 Project for continental integration. It's a trilateral provincial, state and local government coalition aligned with the goals of corporate giants in three countries. As its name suggests, it aims to develop an international, integrated, secure superhighway running the length of the continent. If built, it would extend from Winnipeg, Manitoba; Edmonton, Alberta; and Windsor, Ontario, Canada through Kansas City, San Antonio and Laredo, Texas into Neuvo Laredo, Guadalajara, and the ports of Manzanillo, Colima and Lazaro Cardenas, Mexico.

It's planned to be a comprehensive energy and commerce-related jugular vein-sized artery for transportation, trade and strategic resources like energy. According to NASCO documents, DHS will be in charge of monitoring the entire system through high-tech sensors and trackers as a further step to securing the continent for business at taxpayers expense. This is part of the massive infrastructure planned for North American integration. If completed, it'll be a boon to business at the expense of the environment and working people throughout the continent, always the ones to lose from grandiose schemes like this one.

Plan Puebla-Panama (PPP)

Mexican President Felipe Calderon wishes to revive former President Vincente Fox's PPP that flopped but didn't die. It's a multi-billion dollar development scheme to turn Southern Mexico and Central America, all the way to Panama, into a colossal free trade paradise displacing indigenous people, destroying their culture and sacred corn, and harming the environment for profit. Fox earlier and Calderon now want to induce private investment by shamelessly handing over to them the region's natural resources, including its oil, water, minerals, timber and ecological biodiversity.

The idea is to rip into the area with new ports, airports, bullet trains, bridges, superhighways, 25 hydroelectric dams, new telecommunication facilities, electrical grids, and a new Panama Canal - for starters, with more development to follow. Also envisioned is opening the country's wildlife reserves for bioprospecting with a huge giveaway to giant seed, chemical and drug companies and connect everything with new highways linking Mexico to Central America and no doubt would connect to the proposed NASCO superhighway. The idea is to develop and facilitate business throughout the region - meaning indigenous people have to leave to make way for it, like it or not, which they don't and will fight it.

The area planned for development is enormous and so far stalled. It covers 102 million hectares with 64 million inhabitants in eight countries, few of whom will benefit from a naked scheme to exploit. It masquerades as infrastructure, private development and more without consent of the people the way it's always done. It's the reason the plan went nowhere so far. It's irrelevant to the poor, rural South who'll lose everything so corporate predators can take their land and livelihoods for private gain. They then want to sell back to the people what's already theirs like Chiapas' fresh water. It's 40% of Mexico's total and the reason Coca-Cola is dying to get hold of it. It would also destroy the last significant tropical rain forest in Chiapas' Montes Azules Integral Biosphere in the Lacandon jungle where the government wants to remove native Mayans from lands belonging to them.

Enter Felipe Calderon. On April 9, he held a one-day conference in Campeche, Mexico attended by the presidents of all Central American countries except Belize and Nicaragua, who sent their prime minister and vice-president respectively. Washington no doubt is pushing this scheme as it would be a development bonanza for US corporations if implemented and a huge opportunity for many others if ever completed.

Militarizing A Continent As A First Step

No nation is more militarized today than America. It spends more on national defense and homeland security than all other nations combined. Add to those budgets all others related to defense, still others for intelligence and covert actions, plus the net interest cost attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays and it totals over $1 trillion for FY 2007 according to one analyst's estimate and heading way above that in FY 2008 if current budget proposals pass and become law which is almost certain.

Canada and Mexico are expected to share the load as part of Washington's "war on terrorism" and are doing it. Supporting Washington is central for Canada's Stephen Harper conservative administration. It includes adhering to the 2002 Binational Planning Agreement allowing US military forces to enter Canada on its own discretion, set up shop, and exercise authority over Canadians in their own country. Harper's more hard line than his predecessors. He believes Canadian political and business interests depend on it, and he's committed to serving them no matter how ordinary Canadians feel about it. He's submissive to Washington and has been massively ramping up military spending with plans to increase it over 50% above 2005 levels to $21.5 billion annually by 2010.

That's chump change by US standards but a major commitment for a nation traditionally spending at far lower levels. Canada faces no outside threat so spending hugely on its military, unlike in the past, defies tradition and public consensus favoring social spending that's being cut to pay for it. It's also contrary to Canada's traditionally eschewing militarism and foreign wars unlike its southern neighbor's thriving on them since the nation's founding.

Business interests, not national security or the public welfare, drive Harper's agenda. America accounts for 87% of Canada's exports, and Canadian businesses are closely allied with US ones. In many instances, it's as subsidiaries with US corporations owning 20% of Canada's non-financial sector, 33% of its oil and gas industry, and many Canadian defense companies linked to US ones as subsidiaries or in a sub-contracting capacity. Canada's influential Department of National Defense (DND), its new Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier and defence minister Gordon O'Connor are on board with Harper as well. They're committed to ramping up the nation's military spending and linking with America's "war on terrorism." It gives them more power to lock in even more as SPP advances and outlines a plan for it across the continent.

Mexico has its part to play as well. With threats and fear-mongering, it's using drug-related violence as a pretext for cracking down on simmering unrest wherever it surfaces with plenty of US military aid to do it. The scheme is to quiet and cow millions in the country opposing democracy, Mexican-style. It made National Action Party (PAN) Felipe Calderon president in a process decided before people ever voted last July 2 the way it's always worked in Mexican politics. It's got parts of the country, like Oaxaca, in open rebellion against its state governor, Ulises Ruiz Ortiz (known as URO).

It also made the country a tinderbox of discontent with growing numbers in it fed up with sham elections, decades of repression, deepening poverty and an entrenched system of privilege for the rich and powerful. Mega-billionaire Carlos Slim just passed Bill Gates by $8.6 billion to become the world's richest man in a country with the second largest number of billionaires in Latin America after Brazil and among the top ten in the world with the greatest number of them. The US tops all nations by a wide margin with far more in New York and Los Angeles alone than anywhere else.

Calderon to their rescue to make his own richer. He's got 30,000 troops stomping on the people and fighting Washington's wars on Mexico's streets and along its near-2000 mile northern border. He also has to protect state oil company Pemex after a series of July explosions attacked the company's gas pipelines in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato. It affected 800 companies incurring losses of $5 - 10 million a day and caused 5000 people to be evacuated from 20 surrounding communities.

A group called the Popular or People's Revolutionary Army (EPR) claimed responsibility saying it demands release of two men detained unjustly in Oaxaca in May and held as political prisoners. The group's communique also said the attacks were part of a "national campaign against the interests of the oligarchy and of this illegitimate government (in power from the stolen 2006 election) that has been put in motion." It's another sign how polarized Mexican society is with those losing out in it striking back.

In the US, poverty is growing and the wealth disparity is unprecedented. However, things are much worse in Mexico. It has the world's fourth largest number of millionaires, but poverty's been rising since the 1970s, and since the mid-1980s the nation's poor have been reeling under the affects of IMF-imposed structural adjustment policies mandating large-scale privatizations and wage restraints. Then came NAFTA in 1994. It devastated millions of Mexicans, forced many north to survive, and may by one estimate eventually displace 10 million small farmers from their land (plus their families) into poverty assuring they'll head north in desperation.

Today nearly one-third of Mexicans live on $2 or less a day, and millions can't afford basic needs like enough food, decent shelter and medical care when sick. It didn't help that Felipe Calderon allowed staple corn prices to skyrocket causing tortilla prices to spike by 50% in most regions devastating impoverished consumers. They can't afford the staple they rely on, and small Mexican corn producers are even less able to compete with subsidized imports that wasn't possible post-NAFTA.

These are the issues generating mass civil unrest and disobedience that simmer beneath the surface when they're not visible on the streets like in Oaxaca since last May, 2006. It's gone on in spite of harsh efforts to crush it violently with Federal Preventative Police (PFP) and military forces launched against it on the pretext of fighting drugs traffickers and terrorism.

Calderon's 30,000 Mexican troops are also in a third or more of the nation's states, civil rights are suspended and widespread abuses are reported because the military got a mandate to "use all necessary force to resolve disturbances and return peace to society." That's just a hint of what's coming across Mexico and the continent under full implementation of SPP that won't tolerate opposition and will crack down hard against it. Mexican law now allows it after passage of the draconian "International Terrorism Law" criminalizing dissent, calling it terrorism, and imposing harsh sentences for using "violence against persons, things, or public services that spread (enough) alarm or fear in the population....to threaten national security or pressure authorities to take certain determinations."

The press is also targeted with prohibitions against "publish(ing) or distribut(ing)....photos or images without the express consent of those featured," a condition impossible to meet. Social protests may be criminalized as well with resistance movements like the Zapatistas and Oaxacan Popular Peoples' Assembly (APPO) labeled terrorist organizations and their leaders subject to 40 year mandated prison terms if charged and convicted. And President Calderon wants Mexico's Congress to pass an amendment giving him constitutional powers to tap phones and search private residences without first obtaining court-ordered approval under any conditions he claims is "urgent."

Mexico's hard right Supreme Court of Nacional Justice (SCJN) is supportive. Last year it declared Mexico's military can aid police in cases of public security that can be anything the state says it is. The Court also ruled law enforcement officials need no court-ordered warrants to search and seize in "flagrant situations" that can also mean anything and that violates the American Convention of Human Rights adopted as Mexican law.

Then there's Calderon's war on drugs and the cartels that's, in fact, a war no different than Colombia's war on dissident resistance groups like the FARC and ELN. Like Plan Colombia, Washington has a similar one for Mexico, so call it what it is - Plan Mexico with tens of millions in funding, equipment and technology to back it up. Also call it US-supported and funded state terrorism in a grand scheme to militarize the country and crack down on dissent and resistance to authoritarian rule at the federal, state and local levels. It's partnered with Washington in its phony "war on terrorism" to maintain order, crush opposition and incarcerate anyone interfering or in the way.

US military elements already operate inside Mexico freely and covertly, and a 1994 Pentagon briefing paper, declassified under FOIA, hinted at a US invasion if the country became destabilized or the government faced the threat of being overthrown because of "widespread economic and social chaos" that would jeopardize US investments, access to oil, overall trade, and would create great numbers of immigrants heading north.

Plans are in place and are playing out to snuff out trouble before it spirals out of control, and the proposed US immigration bill was to provide funding for it through stepped up militarization. But even with the bill defeated, the money's coming and US forces will follow if needed. Congressional budgeting calls for millions in Mexican military aid and massive new border detention centers for up to 30,000 detainees for starters with two notorious ones discussed below already operating. What's planned on the border will also likely show up anywhere in all three SPP countries to defuse social discontent by disappearing a large new political prisoner population into black holes of repressive incarceration. That's SPP's promise and scheme to create police state North America making the continent safe for corporate interests by revoking ours.

Raymondville and Hutto Texas Immigrant Prison Detention Centers

The Willacy immigrant detention center at Raymondville, Texas, is oppressive enough to be called "Ritmo." It's run by the private for-profit MTC Corporation and is currently the largest immigrant prison in the country in the remote southern tip of the state. It cost $65 million to build, is a "tent city," and is ringed by barbed wire and 14-foot high chain-link fences. It currently holds over 2000 immigrant detainees under repressive conditions including 23 hour a day lockdowns in 10 windowless hothouses. Entire families are incarcerated there, fed poor or insufficient food, given inadequate and delayed medical care, and treated inhumanely in unsafe conditions for extended periods lasting months.

Conditions overall are abusive, disciplinary punishment harsh, with detainees having to put up with no partitions or doors separating five toilets, five sinks, five shower heads and eating areas where some days detainees lack utensils and eat with their hands. Lights are kept on round the clock, clothing is inadequate, and on cold days detainees are kept outside for an allowed daily hour in short-sleeved uniforms with no warm protective clothing like blankets, sweat shirts or jackets.

The Hutto Residential Center is another immigrant detention center in Taylor, Texas currently holding around 400 prisoners including 200 children and infants. Few detainees here or at other immigrant prisons committed crimes or were charged with any, yet they're treated like criminals because they were forced here to survive NAFTA and DR-CAFTA inflicted job losses. They're victims of US repressive trade policies but are treated like criminals made to suffer retribution for exploitative state practices committed against them.

Post 9/11, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed establishing the repressive Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and in March, 2003 its largest investigative and enforcement arm - the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). It's charged with protecting public safety by identifying and targeting "criminal" and "terrorist" threats to the country that include Latino and other desperate for work undocumented immigrants forced to come here to survive.

ICE was established to apprehend them at the border or hunt them down relentlessly once here. It has four integrated divisions, one of which is policing our southern border and conducting terror-raid undocumented immigrant worker roundups with those apprehended headed for abusive detention at facilities like Raymondville and Hutto. There and at other facilities like them, ICE-detained immigrants number around 28,000 on an average day with totals heading for 30,000 or more by year end.

Hutto is run by Corrections Corporation of American, the largest for-profit private prison operator in the country. It has 64 facilities in 19 states and the District of Columbia with a capacity for incarcerating over 69,000 inmates. It's reputation is unsavory based on former prisoner accounts of severe abuse, inadequate medical and educational services, poor or noxious food and overall inhumane conditions including rat and roach-infested cramped centers, inadequate basic hygiene, rapes, beatings and deaths at their facilities.

The Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas houses immigrant detainees. It's particularly notorious for treating young children no differently than adults, including some too young to know where they are or why and older ones with no idea why they're detained at all. Conditions are made worse by abusive guards and uncaring officials.

The daily routine is stultifying and cruel. Families are awakened at 5:30AM and allowed 30 minutes to bathe and dress. They then get 20 minutes to eat food that's often poor quality, inedible, and/or inadequate. If children haven't finished in time, their food is thrown out and they're left to go hungry.

Following meals, prisoners are returned to their cells, aren't allowed out, denied sleep during the day, and forced to sit and endure boredom to pass the time. No books are allowed, and frequent head counts are taken throughout the day to assure no one escaped. Educational facilities for children are pathetically inadequate at one hour a day in which practically nothing is taught, and conditions and treatment overall are so bad the ACLU sued DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff on March 6 on behalf of 10 abused children at Hutto. The US District Court judge hearing the case, Sam Sparks, set an expedited trial date for August, agreeing with the plaintiff that detainee treatment at Hutto fails to meet federal standards.

Homeland Security Police State Justice for Everyone

Post-9/11, Muslims and Latino immigrants have been targeted by the Bush administration, falsely charged with terrorism and other crimes, and subjected to abusive harassment and persecution. They've been victimized by mass roundups, detentions, prosecutions and deportations the result of baseless claims they threaten national security. If full-blown SPP security measures are implemented, anyone challenging, or seen threatening, state authority may henceforth be subjected to similar harsh treatment. It's practically that way now, but expect lots worse ahead. The rule of law will be weakened or ignored, civil liberties and essential human needs further eroded, and state and corporate power tightened enough to be in full control.

Dissent no longer will be tolerated, and anyone seen as a threat in an age of a "war on terrorism" will be targeted, just as Muslims and immigrants are today. Preparations are in progress for mass detentions with Halliburton the beneficiary of a DHS contingency contract worth up to $385 million to build US-based detention centers. Their stated purpose is for "detention and processing" in case of an "emergency influx of immigrants....or to support the rapid development of new programs (for planned) expansion facilities (able to hold 5000 or more persons)."

This language provides cover for planned concentration camps targeting anyone for indefinite detention as a perceived enemy of the state or threat to national security any time henceforth. The idea is to have facilities ready in case martial law is declared for any reason. It might include the kind of major "terrorist" attack DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff practically signaled is coming later this summer to a Chicago Tribune editorial board July 10. ABC News also hyped the story citing a new FBI analysis of Al-Queda messages warning of "continued messages that convey their strategic intent to strike the US homeland and US interests worldwide (that) should not be discounted as merely deceptive noise." The rest of the corporate media jumped on the story as well to prepare the public for full militarization of the country if what Chertoff and a number of intelligence analysts believe is virtually certain ahead.

The Pentagon is ready if it comes with an action plan prepared in a DOD document called "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support." It envisions an "active, layered defense" both within and outside the US pledging to "transform US military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the....US homeland." It lays out a strategy for increased reconnaissance and surveillance to "defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States." It also "maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us."

These are ominous developments signaled with very dangerous language. It suggests the likelihood of an impending terror attack severe enough to warrant suspension of the Constitution followed by martial law. It means anyone may be considered a threat to national security and detained indefinitely with or without evidence to prove it. It further empowers the state, through the military, to act preventively through mass roundups and detentions. No one will be safe or spared if targeted and will be subject to police state justice granting them none.

A full-scale militarization of the country can be implemented any time on what a 1988 Reagan era Executive Order 12656 called any "national security emergency" defined as "Any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States."

Other repressive legislation's already in place as well. Under Patriot and Military Commission Acts justice, constitutional rights are severely weakened, and we're all "enemy combatants" stripped of our habeas and due process rights, subject to indefinite detentions, denied our right to counsel and at the mercy of military tribunal justice with no right of appeal.

Welcome to North America's Security and Prosperity Partnership guaranteeing it to elitist interests by denying it to the people of three nations. They're to be parts of the new "united continent of America," or North American Union, run by dark forces in Washington that won't move out when a new president moves in January 20, 2009.

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 The MicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time. posted by Steve Lendman

July 18, 2007

Free Trade and Immigration: Cause and Effect

The just-taken Congressional action by The House leadership against enacting the free trade pact entered into by the Bush administration with Colombia represents a striking setback against President Alvaro Uribe and the U.S. president. Nevertheless, it is a victory for probity, a blow against Bogotá’s scandal-ridden government, and a denouncement of Uribe’s indifference to human rights.

• Although discussion of free trade and immigration issues has recently stalled in Congress, supporters on both sides of the aisle are attempting to revive the debate as perspectives continue to polarize.

• The combination of free trade and heavy U.S. subsidies has crippled the Mexican agricultural sector, causing impoverished former subsistence farmers to immigrate to the U.S. by any means necessary.

• Immigration is not the demon it is often portrayed as—nor is it devoid of any profound dangers to the well-being of the U.S., as pro-immigration forces insist.

• Conservative policies of supporting free trade while restricting immigration are inherently incompatible.

In recent months, the U.S. Congress has circumvented the will of President George Bush by delaying any action on free trade agreements with Peru and Panama. Moreover, the Congressional leadership has just decided to refuse to further discuss the Colombian free trade agreement at this time, damning one of President Alvaro Uribe’s most prized economic initiatives. Now, these issues, much like the immigration debate, will most likely not be revived until after the 2008 elections, if at all. In the meantime, it is vital that all parties involved examine the inextricable link between these two failed policies—immigration reform and expansion of free trade. As U.S. concern over both immigration and free trade issues were reaching a fever pitch, the reality of how the latter impacts the former has not been adequately addressed. It is likely that the group most directly affected by these issues has been the rural, agrarian population of Mexico. Since 1994, the year in which the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect, immigration from Mexico to the U.S. has more than doubled, due, in large part, to the trade pact.

Why Immigration Has Spiked
In recent years, subsidies received by U.S. corn farmers have resulted in overproduction—flooding the market and causing large dips in the price of the crop. Under Washington’s agricultural subsidy program, in 2000, U.S. corn producers alone received $10.1 billion in payments from the U.S. government—ten times the Mexican government’s annual agricultural budget. Subsidies are determined by a farm’s land area and historical output; thus, due to these factors, the vast majority of the aid goes to large agribusinesses. In the U.S., the top ten percent of agricultural subsidy recipients (most of whom earn, on average, over a quarter million dollars per year) receive over 70 percent of the subsidy dollars. There are also provisions for “counter cyclical payments,” which are subsidies given to U.S. farmers for the sole purpose of protecting their produce from price fluctuations within the global market.

The U.S. has established a pattern in which it seeks to open its borders by means of free trade deals, bringing supply and demand capitalism to a developing world, hoping, at best, to create mutually beneficial trade arrangements, which, in many instances, do not work out that way. Meanwhile, Washington protects its own farmers against the self-correcting mechanisms inherent in the capitalist model by rewarding overproduction at home, economically penalizing small farmers in other parts of the world.

NAFTA has caused unemployment within the agricultural sector of Mexico to skyrocket. According to the Economic Policy Institute, at the end of 2004 there were 6.8 million unemployed agricultural workers in Mexico. Corn producers were perhaps the hardest hit by the free trade agreement: over one million of the crop’s cultivators have lost their jobs since the end of 1993, with many of them being forced to sell off their land at artificially low prices. Overall, paid wages to Mexicans working on corn farms have fallen 70 percent and, according to Witness for Peace, rural poverty rates in Mexico have risen to 81 percent. Between 1991 and 2004, the percentage of the Mexican population involved in the agricultural sector fell by over 10 percent.

Although NAFTA has certainly sharpened Mexico’s agricultural problems, it alone is not wholly to blame for the country’s now struggling economic sectors. According to the Latin American Regional Report, subsidies to support Mexican farmers do exist, but, much like those in the U.S., they are usually given to large-scale operations. Mexico’s richest farmers and agribusinesses pay neither income tax nor irrigation costs, actually resulting in their receiving more aid than the average U.S. farmer enjoys. By contrast, the poorest and smallest Mexican farming operations receive only insignificant amounts of support, consisting exclusively of subsidized fertilizer and awards from the Procampo program—a modest initiative instituted by the Mexican government to curb migration resulting from NAFTA. But, according to Quentin Wodon of the World Bank and Gabriel Gonzalez-Konig of Universidad de Guanajuato, Procampo has only been marginally successful (at the five percent level). Moreover, the subsidy payouts can actually be used by impoverished families to cover migration costs, intensifying the very immigration problem the program seeks to curb. With Procampo expiring in 2008, the Mexican government favoring wealthy farmers through subsidies and with NAFTA as an ongoing fact of life, it can be expected that immigration to the U.S. will continue to increase in the coming years.

Immigration to the U.S.
Some argue that, even with the weakening of Mexico’s agricultural sector in NAFTA’s wake, there is no compelling excuse for illegal immigration to the U.S., citing alternatives available in both countries. However, because of the damage NAFTA has done to other, non-agrarian sectors of the Mexican economy, workers are being left with minimal options. Since 2001, over 850,000 jobs have been lost in the Mexican manufacturing industry, real wages have fallen by 20 percent, and the marginalized informal market has grown to encompass more than half of the Mexican economy, with impoverished earnings being its usual reward. As a result, workers flee Mexico in favor of the U.S., where, through myth or reality, they have come to believe that ample opportunities exist to improve their lives. Their hope is often warranted: the estimated prevailing wage difference between California and the Mexican state of Guanajuato was 13:1 in 2000. In 2005, over $20 billion were sent to Mexico by Mexicans living in the U.S., a 17 percent increase from the previous year, with future increases being justifiably anticipated. Because of this vast disparity in income potential, the demand for passage to the U.S. has radically escalated. According to the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), the influx of Mexican immigration to the U.S. is a relatively recent phenomenon: in 1970, the Mexican immigrant population in the U.S. was only 800,000, but today that figure has jumped to around 12 million. According to Witness for Peace, the influx is so significant, and the value of the prize—successful immigration with a relatively high minimum wage—is so irresistible, that the cost of an illegal crossing guide has risen from $300 to $2,000 over the last several years.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center’s report Rise, Peak, and Decline: Trends in U.S. Immigration 1992-2004, post-NAFTA annual immigration peaked at over 1,500,000 Hispanic migrants per year, with over 650,000 moving here illegally (Figure 1a). In 2000, over 530,000 Mexicans immigrated to the U.S. In a COHA interview, Jeffery Rassel, Senior Research Associate at the Center, said that the numbers from the report are “actually a bit low,” revealing that the most recent figures estimate that 80 percent of all immigration from Mexico is illegal. Those choosing to make the illegal trek into the U.S. must endure extreme natural and physical conditions. Deaths are disturbingly common along the U.S.-Mexican border. In 2005, over 460 Mexicans died attempting to cross into the U.S. In 1993, the year prior to NAFTA’s enactment, there were only 205 immigrant deaths. A Witness for Peace study revealed that in 1998, weather-related deaths (hyper- and hypothermia) among immigrants were three times higher than they were in the 1980s.

According to a report by the University of California, Davis’ Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Mexican-born persons represented 77 percent of the U.S. farm workforce in 1997-98, a 20 percent spike from a 1990 pre-NAFTA survey of farm workers. Of these laborers, 52 percent were unauthorized, with an overwhelming majority of them hailing from the rural areas of Mexico most impacted by the negative agricultural consequences of NAFTA. Although supporters of NAFTA claimed that the pact would curtail immigration to the U.S. from Mexico by significantly improving the Mexican economy, it is evident that the agricultural sector has experienced the opposite effect, with the UC Davis report stating that, “econometric results suggest that… NAFTA increased the U.S. farm labor supply.”

The Economics of Immigration
Although immigration from Mexico to the U.S., legal and otherwise, is increasing, anti-immigration pundits should not immediately rush to use such findings as an excuse to call for closed borders. The influx of laborers has actually brought with it various economic benefits. According to Steven A. Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies, since the vast majority of native-born U.S. citizens have completed high school and are employed in higher-skilled occupations, they do not face significant job competition from Mexican immigrants. President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers reported that immigrants enhance the productivity of native-born workers and increase their earnings by an estimated $37 billion per year. Considering the aforementioned income disparities between Mexican sender states and the U.S., coupled with the economic benefits native-born Americans enjoy as a result of immigration, anecdotally, it actually seems to be a reciprocally beneficial relationship for those directly affected, despite what is often portrayed. This, of course, does not mean that Mexico, as a nation, is more helped than harmed.

Confused Policies
Ultimately, free trade and immigration are not only inextricably linked, but their supporters and opponents are also entangled by incompatible policies. On one hand, conservatives generally support free trade measures and oppose more open immigration policies, which somewhat confounds issues, considering that NAFTA actually has generated immigration on a macro scale due to the agro-economic disaster it caused within Mexico. On the other hand, liberals most often oppose unchecked free trade measures and support open immigration. Ideally, the U.S. would enact policy initiatives that would allow for Mexican farmers to simultaneously thrive in their homeland by strengthening the domestic economy and reduce food costs in the U.S. through the application of far-sighted trade pacts, stimulating both economies. In the meantime, U.S. officials would be wise to judiciously treat the incoming immigrant population and the assets and liabilities it brings for the well being of this country, Mexico, and the entire region.

Figure 1a

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Jacob Hill

Behind the fire: Ben Dangl on struggles in Latin America

by Shay Totten
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Vermont Guardian

Vermont Guardian: In the research for your book, The Price of Fire:
Resource Wars and Social Movements in Bolivia, what did you find to be
the biggest misconception that people in the United States have about
the struggles facing many of the indigenous people in Latin and South
America?

Ben Dangl: There is a lot of romanticizing about the realities of
indigenous struggles in South America, that these groups are all
extremely democratic and united across borders. Many indigenous
organizations in Bolivia for example are very hierarchical and totally
dominated by men. Another misconception is that the electoral victory of
indigenous president Evo Morales in Bolivia is a maximum victory for
indigenous struggles in South America. It is symbolically, culturally
and socially important, and can help to end a certain amount of racism
and disregard for indigenous customs and culture. But outside of just
being president, Evo has to do things to aid in the self-determination
and empowerment of indigenous groups. For this to happen -- both in
Bolivia and elsewhere -- there needs to pressure from below from these
groups for change.

VG: The U.S. media plays a large role in shaping this perception. Are
there media outlets that are covering these struggles fairly and
accurately, or do most mostly follow the Bush administration's lead?

BD: Most large media outlets don’t report on South American issues at
all. When they do, it is often to push an agenda for devastating free
trade policies, or demonize leaders like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. The
herd mentality among large media outlets is a big problem, so a lot of
newsworthy material off the beaten path is disregarded. There needs to
be a critical look at the leftist shift in politics and social movements
in Latin America. It’s important to look at the history that led up to
this moment. For independent media it’s important to go beyond simple
cheerleading of any socialistic electoral victory. For people in the
United States to understand what’s happening in South America, there
needs to be media that looks at the good and the bad side of these
leftist leaders and movements. It’s important to report on them honestly
so that U.S. citizens can learn from the failures and successes of
people like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, the landless movements in Brazil,
the coca farmers in Bolivia and the worker cooperatives in Argentina.
Simply saying "there is a revolution in South America and everything is
fine" without taking a look at the negative side of these movements
significantly limits what US based groups could learn in order to bring
social change here in the empire. Some resources in English that are
doing excellent reporting on the region include http://www.Nacla.org ,
http://www.Americas.org , http://www.Americaspolicy.org ,
http://www.upsidedownworld.org and http://www.TowardFreedom.com .

VG: What is the future for the region? What economic and social policies
are succeeding that will have longevity beyond any one politician? And,
what nations are next to follow in the footsteps in revolt against
neoliberalism? What nations are likely to continue with neoliberal policies?

BD: There is a large move on the part of progressive governments in
South America to generate a trade bloc outside the sphere of Washington
and harmful neoliberal policies. This regional integration is happening
now, and could provide a long term solution to corporate exploitation
and U.S. imperialism. Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia are the most radical
of this bloc. Chile, Colombia and Peru are further to the right,
generally speaking. South American liberator Simon Bolivar had a dream
and a mission to unite all of South America. This is happening today.
Washington and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) -- long times
bosses in the region -- are now losing clout in South America. There is
now more of an interest, among the populations and left of center
political leaders, to go down a different socialistic route aimed at
state control of natural resources, increased social spending, and less
crippling debt to institutions like the IMF. Things to look out for in
this regional integration is what kind of environmental destruction are
we talking about with state-controlled mines, oil and gas industries.
Another issue is whether or not these progressive governments are
inclusive enough. Are they bringing diverse voices and movements into
the political realm, or are they consolidating their own power, and
leaving the radical voices that put them in office out of the assemblies
and government palaces.

VG: Will there continue to be these ongoing struggles over access to
resources, or will recent moves to put the state in control of such
resources assuage these fights?

BD: If the government-run water system is sufficient and affordable,
people won’t revolt. If farmers have access to land, if people see their
mineral, oil and gas wealth used nationally, or going toward
developments in healthcare, education and roads, there will be less
conflict. If coca growers can expand their crops and produce in peace,
without U.S.-funded military and police terrorizing them, then they
won’t protest as much. These advances are happening across the
continent, with contradictions and problems, but heading in a positive
direction.

Though the state might be largely in control of gas resources in
Bolivia, Evo’s "nationalization" is more of a renegotiation with
corporations. Bolivia’s state company is still struggling to operate
independently. The right, and the large corporations, the political
elite that have a lot to lose from state-ownership will not give up
fighting. They have the money, connections and experience to fight
against governments like that of Chavez and Morales with the media and
other means.

VG: What resources remain at issues for the people of the region, in
terms of keeping control of their farmland and forests?

BD: The expansion of genetically modified soy crops in Paraguay is
destroying small farmers, their crops, forests and water sources. The
pesticides and herbicides used by soy companies poison water, kill farm
animals and give humans headaches, stomach problems, loss of eyesight
and cancer. Instead of rainforest, animal and plant diversity and
healthy rivers, much of Paraguay is a green sea of soy crops. Those
Paraguayans who don’t sell their land to escape the health problems are
forced to leave by thugs hired by soy companies.

Outside of continued conflicts over gas, oil and minerals, conflicts
over access to fresh water are likely to increase in the coming years.
The Guarani aquifer in Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, one of the
largest sources of fresh water in the western hemisphere, is likely to
be the source of a future resource war.

VG: Has the move away from the neoliberal policies that embrace more use
of private companies to harvest natural resources slowed down the
extraction of some resources in the region, or merely put profits from
these operations into the hands of the governments?

BD: In Bolivia, the state run company is still struggling to operate
with low funds and a relative lack of expertise and infrastructure. In
Venezuela, this state-run industry is further along in its developments
as Chavez has been in office since 1998, and Evo "nationalized" Bolivian
gas just this past year. In both cases, private and state corporations
are working together for extraction, refinement etc. In Bolivia, the
government is making more money from this business, and has more control
over it. The natural gas industry in Bolivia has gone in and out of
state hands over the past century. This history shows that a state
ownership of the industry can be extremely profitable for the
government, efficiently run and beneficial for Bolivians. In both
Venezuela and Bolivia increased revenue from partially nationalized oil
and gas industries has allowed governments to increase social spending.

***

Benjamin Dangl is the author of The Price of Fire: Resource Wars and
Social Movements in Bolivia (March, 2007 AK Press). He is the editor of
TowardFreedom.com.

This interview was first published in The Vermont Guardian.

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_
http://amazon.com/o/ASIN/1587154838/ref=nosim/thedanclorenecro
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

"Don't just question authority,
Don't forget to question me."
-- Jello Biafra

Juntos Podemos? Together We CAN: Chile and the Andean Community’s Quest for Free Trade

Another communiqué in COHA’s series of memos on free trade

Is It a Question of “What’s in it for Santiago?”
After a 30 year hiatus from participation in the South American trading bloc it once helped to establish, Chile rejoined the Andean Community of Nations (Comunidad Andina de Naciones – CAN by its Spanish acronym) as an associate member, on June 8, 2007. Chile, South America’s perpetual “Rising Star,” promises to bring back its economic prowess to the organization, whose full members include Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. A number of months ago, CAN lost Venezuela as a member because President Chavez found the organization too dependent on Washington’s influence. Now, Chile promises to pump up the group’s economic partnership, especially by exploring new initiatives regarding Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.

There is no question that Chile will bring genuine assets and skills to CAN as well as sterling connections that will help its regional neighbors to expand their ties to the European and Asia-Pacific regions. But a number of regional figures have told COHA that Chile has a long history of servicing its own national interests, liberally defined, and that Santiago will see to it that under no circumstances will it be one of the losers when it comes to exacting benefits upon joining the free trade group. Critics will recall the manner in which Brazil and Argentina are today bitterly viewed by MERCOSUR’s smaller members as the prime beneficiaries of that trade bloc.

Chilean President Michelle Bachelet’s attendance at the June 11-14 CAN summit in Tarija, Bolivia, along with other area heads of state hoped to demonstrate her nation’s commitment to renewed involvement in promoting CAN’s activities to promote intra-community trade, cooperative economic integration and common foreign trade agreements. Statements by various members of the Chilean government suggest that Santiago is optimistic that it will be able to enhance the importance of CAN through its participation, especially with its already broadly established economic ties to the region and beyond. According to Pablo Arriaran, First Secretary of Political Affairs at the Chilean embassy in the U.S., “Chile’s participation in CAN is consistent with our foreign policy objectives in commercial matters and for regional integration.”

Chile’s revived membership in CAN may be just the catalyst for invigorating the organization’s capability to promote free trade not only in the Andean region and throughout South America, but also across the Pacific, a prime field of its interest. This is of particular significance at a time when the Andean Community faces uncertainty due to a lack of cooperation among some of its members as well as heated competition with other South American economic conglomerates (like the MERCOSUR bloc).

Aimless Andean Community Members Come and Go
Originally established in 1969 as the Andean Pact (with Chile as a founding member), the organization promotes a neo-liberal economic agenda that advocates free trade and open markets. Chile withdrew from CAN in 1976 when the country was under the military dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet, who cited the group’s economic incompatibility with the direction of his own self-imposed economic reforms for Chile, as the rationale for its withdrawal. After recovering from Pinochet’s brutal military dictatorship and reverting to its democratic roots in 1990, Chile’s liberal open market and free trade-oriented economy has prospered, allowing it to have one of the most vibrant and stable economies in South America. In order to perpetuate its economic viability, current Chilean President Michelle Bachelet has committed her country to strengthening regional trade pacts. The nation’s reintegration into CAN is evidence of the proactive approach by Chile’s ruling coalition, the Concertación Alliance, and its prudent “open regionalism” foreign policy which will be sustained as long as Bachelet is president.

Today, Chile is a major sub-regional power and is as much highly nationalistic as anything else. President Bachelet has a conciliatory personality and is much admired by regional leaders. But their feelings for Chile’s likely future president, Jose Miguel Insulza, are slightly more guarded. Hopefully, Bachelet can set a solid precedent for her predecessor to follow in the area of regional economic integration and Chile’s role in it, if he, in fact, rises to be the country’s chief executive. Insulza, the current Secretary General of the Organization of American States, while Chile’s foreign minister, aggressively, and even sneeringly asserted Chile’s rights to the point of offending some of his then-counterparts, who dismissed this attitude as being “high handed” and “unhelpful.”

Prior to Chile’s re-entry into CAN, Venezuela was the bloc’s political and economic fulcrum, but its withdrawal in April 2006 severely jolted the internal dynamics and symmetry of the group until Chile’s potentially revitalizing return. Venezuela abruptly had departed from the trading bloc as a result of President Hugo Chavez’s negative reaction to Colombia and Peru’s announced intentions of signing free trade agreements with the U.S. Even though Chavez has rejected calls from the Bolivian and Colombian governments to resume Venezuela’s membership in CAN, the group’s leaders continue to urge CAN Secretary General Freddy Elhers to make renewed overtures to Chavez to change his mind. Following its exit from CAN, Venezuela has become a member of MERCOSUR (a rival South American trading bloc). However, Chavez has managed to estrange himself from several fellow MERCOSUR heads of state in recent months, and particularly the legislative bodies of Brazil and Peru. Additionally, Chavez is now promoting on the side his own alternative to continental economic integration — the Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas (Alba) — and may be trying to lure his allies, Bolivia and Ecuador, away from MERCOSUR and CAN.

Recent calls from three Peruvian cabinet ministers that Lima should consider withdrawing from CAN have also raised questions regarding the vitality of the institution. On June 7, Agriculture Minister Ismael Benavides, Foreign Trade and Tourism Minister Mercedes Aráoz, and Production Minister Rafael Rey voiced their opposition to continued membership in CAN, declaring that Peru was not receiving any returns from years of investment in the organization. To date, President Alan Garcia has not responded to these strong words from his cabinet colleagues, yet this internal discontent with CAN appears to be one more instance of the destabilizing uncertainty among its members, and raises questions concerning their commitment to the organization. However, analysts now believe that Chile’s renewed membership may help strengthen Andean economic ties and its extended reach abroad, so long as CAN is able to stay intact long enough to see results. But the one thing everyone remembers is that Chile sees itself as not having permanent friends or associations, but mainly permanent interests, and that just as it left MERCOSUR and CAN and later returned, Santiago’s bonds are constructed of paste and not tenacious glue.

Chile (Re)Joins the Club
Upon the prodding of newly inaugurated Peruvian President Alan Garcia, the CAN members sent a formal invitation to Chile on August 7, 2006 to rejoin the organization. Two weeks later, President Bachelet confirmed her nation’s interest, initiating the negotiations that led to its associate-member status being granted 11 months later. Since Chile already had signed Bilateral Economic Cooperation Agreements with Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru (thereby paving the way for more extensive areas of economic cooperation, or free trade zones), it was relatively easy for Santiago to be reintegrated into CAN since it already qualified for the organization’s conditions for membership.

With her attendance (the first time for a Chilean head of state in over 30 years) at the recent CAN summit in Tarija, Bolivia, President Bachelet has made it very clear that under her administration, Chile intends to repair its broken ties with the organization in hopes of renewing the Andean community brotherhood. As part of Bachelet’s commitment to renew regional trade pacts and with a bow to the Concertación’s foreign policy of “open regionalism,” which promotes free trade agreements as a mechanism for the expansion of commerce and investment, she professed Chile’s solidarity with CAN members. At the CAN summit on June 14, President Bachelet reiterated Santiago’s dedication to active membership in the organization, stating that “this is more than a presidential summit, it’s a meeting of great significance. The Andean Presidential Council has met to embrace Chile as an associate member of the Andean Community; we say, Chile returns to where they should have never left.” Outlining the importance of Chile’s reincorporation into CAN, Bachelet observed: “it signifies the re-encounter of my country with one of the most important processes of integration of Latin America . . . [this is] an instrument that permits us to bring together our countries and our people. With pride we say: Chile is an Andean country.” Bachelet also noted that Chile’s CAN membership aims to strengthen Andean political and economic ties, and that she hoped that her nation would help provide the organization with the face-lift it patently needed to unify its members and achieve its goals.

Chile’s Geopolitical Reach
Since rejoining, Bachelet has pledged support for CAN’s future projects – including completion of on-going negotiations with the European Union (EU) and expanding trade relations with the Asia-Pacific region. With its unique geopolitical position as a nation aligned with almost all of its Latin American neighbors in addition to its significant ties to Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as the U.S., through previously formulated trade agreements (such as a free trade pact with the European Union and membership in the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation negotiating bloc), Chile could serve as a gateway to expanded economic opportunities for other Andean nations. Chile already has established free trade pacts with the U.S., numerous Latin American nations, and several nations in the Asia-Pacific region (most notably with China); this pioneering could help the other Andean Community members to gain preferential trade agreements with the economic super-giant that is the EU, and the potentially lucrative and heavily populated Asia-Pacific region. According to a 2006 MercoPress analysis, as “the continent’s star economy, Chile wants to become a gateway nation between South America and Asia-Pacific countries and is working to establish ties on both sides of the oceanic divide.”

Expanding Horizons
Chilean government officials and other CAN members are hoping that the organization can reap sizeable benefits from using Chile’s already established connections to expand the geopolitical reach of the CAN trading bloc. As Bachelet has reflected: “the Asia-Pacific zone is probably the most dynamic economy today . . . Countries that look towards Asia can make individual treaties, but we can also collectively unite and offer a greater strengthened market.” With its recently negotiated trade deal with China, and its free trade agreements with more than fifty other nations worldwide, Chile sees itself as an important portal in shaping economic links between the Asia-Pacific region and South America. As Chile began the process for CAN re-entry, Alfredo Fuentes, a Colombian and former Acting Secretary General of the Andean Community stated in August 2006, “Chile’s association means that the Andean Community can further its focus on the Pacific region. But most importantly, it allows for the continued integration of our economic, political and social affairs. The relationship with Chile is important, allowing us to envision a common future on the way towards a Community of South American Nations [now known as UNASUR].” Clearly, the ramifications of Chile’s participation in CAN will generate widespread appeal in short and long-term growth towards the economic and political integration of South American countries and their relationship with other regions of the world.

Bachelet’s “open regionalism” foreign policy has placed the fostering of better political and economic relations with Chile’s fellow Latin American states at the forefront of her agenda, but her administration’s foreign policy goals also include obtaining a greater presence in the Asia-Pacific area. Chile’s membership in CAN may serve as a bridge for increased political and economic ties within their backyard and the deep blue sea beyond. Chilean trade with Asia has increased dramatically in recent years. In 2006, Santiago signed a free trade agreement with China, making that nation with its market of 1.3 billion people, Chile’s second largest trading partner after the U.S. Chile’s Foreign Minister Alejandro Foxley has stated that the free trade agreement with China “is especially important for Chile, as it is a decisive step towards establishing its position in the Asia-Pacific region, a highly dynamic region with great commercial and economic power; and it also gives further backing to our idea of making Chile the bridge that will unite Asia and South America.”

CAN Negotiations with the European Union
Chile hopes that its participation in CAN will help reenergize the group’s stalled negotiations with the EU. CAN began negotiations on a bloc-to-bloc free trade agreement with the EU in 2003, but divisions among CAN members on economic policies have riddled the process with setbacks. After months of disagreement on the logistics of the prospective EU-CAN free trade deal, CAN members finally decided to approach the negotiations on a country-by-country basis, with Colombia and Peru working at a faster pace than their neighbors, Bolivia and Ecuador. Since Chile established a free trade agreement with the EU in 2006, its government believes that it can help the rest of the Andean Community advance pending trade deals with the EU. As Foxley has noted, “we have a certain advantage in the opening of markets, with Asia, the United States and Europe. Therefore, we can render technical collaboration in the CAN negotiations with the European Union, and other fields.” At the recent CAN summit in Tarija, Bolivia, it was announced that negotiations for a comprehensive Association Agreement between both regions officially had been launched. The first round of negotiations is expected to begin in earnest in September of this year and, as stated in a joint EU-CAN press release on June 14, the objective of the Association Agreement is “to enhance the political dialogue between both regions, to intensify and improve their cooperation in a vast variety of areas and to enhance and facilitate bi-regional trade and investments.” Yet it remains to be seen whether Chile’s involvement will really make much difference, aside from mood and setting, in the crafting of the proposed EU-CAN trade deal.

Regional Trade Blocs – Helping or Hindering?
At a time when the vitality of regional trade blocs in South America and their overall effectiveness are being questioned, especially as nations consider swapping membership proposals between the two major groups, CAN and MERCOSUR, Chile is hoping to play the role of mediator and expeditor. As an associate member of both organizations, Chile clearly has been fence-sitting up to now, yet still receives the benefits of membership in both MERCOSUR, and now CAN. Each of the bodies has its own distinct political and economic agenda as well as a distinct style of in-fighting that could threaten the overall likelihood of successfully improving their level of cooperation. However, Chile has called for increased cooperation between these two rival forces. President Bachelet implored her fellow hermanidad andina at the recent CAN summit to “continue the convergence between CAN and MERCOSUR, and advance open and flexible global integration.” The process is already underway, since the two trading blocs signed a free trade agreement in December 2003. Unfortunately, further substantial progress on cooperative efforts has not been made since then due to internal conflict involving their preferred economic directions and goals. Adding new dynamics to the cooperative process, some analysts, like former Peruvian ambassador to Venezuela, Carlos Urrutia, see a future of regional relations and alliances being guided by scenarios “in which trade flows are stronger than political convergences.” Clearly, Chile sees itself riding the wave of the future, while other nearby nations seem to be on the verge of experiencing a shipwreck. But an ebullient Chile is not necessarily a welcome sight to the rest of CAN, since Santiago is not beloved by all.

South American nations seem more likely to be advancing their own individual strategies for their own benefits, without necessarily taking into consideration the regional ramifications that accompany a lack of true unity. Since global markets such as the European Union and the Asia-Pacific region have explicitly demonstrated the benefits of transnational economic cooperation, Chile appears to be attempting to bridge the divide and lure its neighbors back into planning a more unified South American response to the promotion of free trade. With its dual participation in the region’s major economic groups, Chile is wisely protecting its own interests while simultaneously promoting intra-regional cooperation that is important to Latin America’s economic vitality. Nevertheless, the verdict has yet to be delivered on Santiago’s bona fides in this respect. There is too much historic bitterness to allow ancient misgivings to simply burn off in a moment.

Greater Chilean involvement in the Andean Community may also soften its difficult record of strained bilateral relations with its neighbors Bolivia and Peru. And, as Chile’s foreign minister Alejandro Foxley has asserted, “there are people who think that we are isolated, but our country is present in all the instances of integration in South America and Latin America.” Not only is Chile merely present in regional economic forums, it is also one of the major players in paving the way for what it hopes to someday help to unveil as a successfully-implemented Latin American integrationist project. This originally was conceived centuries ago by the region’s political liberators, and has evolved to its present form known as the Union of South American Nations (Unasur), with the dream of spreading economic liberation and fraternity to all the nations on the continent.

Return the Huáscar: Enkindle CAN
Good feelings towards Chile from the international community as well as the Andean grouping conceivably would more readily flow if Santiago improved its often testy relations with its neighboring countries. An example of this would