Message to the Venezuelan Opposition: Sorry, Suckers

Looks like Chavez has the campaign for constitutional reform in the bag

By Justin Delacour

November 29, 2007

Anyone who knows anything about Venezuelan polling knows that the pollster Germán Campos does not mess around. Every electoral projection I've seen from him has proven accurate. In fact, of all his electoral projections that I've seen, none has overestimated Chavez's margin of victory.

Unlike the rest of Venezuela's pollsters, Campos understands the basic principle that partisan politics and political polling do not mix. (As you might have recognized by now, I could never get into the business of polling because I wear my politics on my sleeve, just as Venezuela's opposition pollsters do).

If Campos has the "Yes" campaign up by 16 points among likely voters, you can pretty much rest assured that "No" is going down.

The problem right now is that a number of openly opposition pollsters appear to be cooking their numbers in favor of the "No" campaign so as to either increase opposition turnout in the Sunday referendum or to lay the groundwork for claims of "fraud" in the aftermath of another impending defeat. For some time, the concern among the opposition pollsters has been that some in the opposition's ranks would abstain from the vote. Thus, the strategy of the opposition pollsters is to fluff their numbers at the last minute so as to either boost morale among their ranks (and thereby boost their side's turnout) or to lay the groundwork for claims of "fraud." We can get a glimpse of what's happening by contrasting Datanalisis' cooked numbers with what the firm's director actually says about the probable outcome of the vote.

Of course, not all the opposition pollsters would be employing such an unethical strategy if Chavez's advantage were as great as it was in, say, the 2006 presidential race. Some opposition pollsters are doing this because they think they can make it a close race and thereby boost the opposition's long-term political prospects in the process. Indeed, Chavez's side will not win by as large of a margin as he did in the 2006 presidential election. (Chavez won 63 percent of the vote in that election).

Nevertheless, in all likelihood, Chavez's side will win. For the most part, Chavistas will not cross over to the other side in a vote on the constitutional reforms because the base of the "No" campaign is much more repellent to most Chavistas than whatever problems some might see in the reforms.

Moreover, the opposition needs to learn some basic math. As Bloomberg recently reported, Venezuela has now undergone fifteen straight quarters of robust economic expansion. I doubt very seriously that any Latin American population would vote against a sitting government that has overseen fifteen straight quarters of robust economic expansion. Amidst such propitious socio-economic conditions, governments don't lose political fights.

U.S. Companies Behind Anti-Reform Propaganda in Venezuela

November 27th 2007, by Michael Fox - Venezuelanalysis.com

"I voted for Chavez for President, but not now. Because they told me that if the reform passes, they're going to take my son, because he will belong to the state," said Gladys Castro last week, a Colombian immigrant who has lived in Venezuela for 16 years, and cleans houses for a living.

Gladys is not the only one to believe the false rumors she's heard. Thousands of Venezuelans, many of them Chavez supporters, have bought the exaggerations and lies about Venezuela's Constitutional Reform that have been circulating across the country for months. Just a few weeks ago, however, the disinformation campaign ratcheted up various notches as opposition groups and anti-reform coalitions placed large ads in major Venezuelan papers.

The most scandalous was an anonymous two-page spread in the country's largest circulation newspaper, Últimas Noticias, which claimed about the Constitutional Reform:

"If you are a Mother, YOU LOSE! Because you will lose your house, your family and your children (children will belong to the state)."

The illegal ad, which was caught and suspended by the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE) after a few days in the press, has received relatively high-profile attention in the Venezuelan press, and even Chavez joked about it last Friday on the nightly pro-Chavez talk show, La Hojilla. What appears to have gone completely ignored, however, is the fact that the ad itself was placed by an organization which has at its core, dozens of subsidiaries of the largest US corporations working in Venezuela.

Disinformation & Propaganda

The scare tactic against Venezuelan mothers isn't the only piece of misinformation in the anonymous advertisement. Under the title, "Who wins and who loses," it goes on to tell readers that under the new reform, they will lose their right to religion; that 9.5 million people will lose their job; that small, large or cooperative businesspeople will lose their "store, home, business, taxi or cooperative"; that urban, rural and mountain militias are going to replace the National Armed Forces; that students will lose their right to decide what they want to study; that campesinos are going to lose out because they won't be owners of their own land; and that the value of the Venezuelan currency, the Bolivar, is going to drop along with the value of Venezuelan homes, cars, farm lands (finca), and educational studies.

Comments in the ad refer to specific reformed articles in the Constitution, as if providing a reference for readers to verify the claim. Of course, briefly examining the article in reference verifies that each claim is either completely false, or a ridiculous exaggeration and manipulation of the reform. Article 112, for instance, which the advertisement says will take Venezuelan children from their families, in actuality discusses economic development and production.

Last week, after a barrage of illegal propaganda on the part of both the pro and anti reform camps, Venezuela's National Electoral Council (CNE) began to crack down, following through with their promise to regulate the propaganda. In an announcement last week, Tibisay Lucena, President of the CNE made specific reference to the "Who wins and who loses" piece, pointing out its illegality because of the falsities and its anonymity. Although published as an anonymous article, Lucena announced that according to the official tax number (RIF) published with the article, the advertisement was actually placed by the Cámara de Industriales del estado Carabobo (The Carabobo State Chamber of Industry).

The Carabobo State Chamber of Industry (CIEC)

The CIEC is a 71 year-old organization, headquartered in the Carabobo state capital of Valencia, which groups together more than 250 businesses in the region. Among those are dozens of subsidiaries which compose literally a who's who list of some of the largest and most powerful US corporations, including (among others): Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Bridgestone Firestone, Goodyear, Alcoa, Shell, Pfizer, Dupont, Cargill, Coca-Cola, Kraft, Novartis, Unilever, Heinz, Johnson & Johnson, Citibank, Colgate Palmolive, DHL and Owens Illinois.

Without a doubt, the region carries important weight with heavy US interests. The new US Ambassador to Venezuela, Patrick Duddy, even said so when he visited Carabobo a few weeks ago on his first official trip within Venezuela.

"Valencia is a very important industrial center with a presence of American companies that create thousands of jobs and that also run social programs that benefit both their surrounding communities and their employees," said Ambassador Duddy.

According to an article on the US embassy website, during his stay in Valencia, Duddy met the board of the Venezuelan-American Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the board of Fedecámaras in Carabobo, and with a number of the above mentioned subsidiaries, including GM, Chrysler, and Ford. He also spent time with the CIEC board, and in particular, then CIEC President Ernesto Vogeler, who also happens to be Chief Executive Officer for Protinal/Proagro, a subsidiary for the Ag Processing, Inc. (AGP), an Omaha-based AG coop.

In a normal state of affairs, this would all seem completely normal: The foreign ambassador meeting with his country's major subsidiaries, and the president of the chamber of industry to which they belong. However, we should briefly remember the role that US businesses have played across Latin America, whether we are talking about the United Fruit Company's destabilization attacks against Guatemala's democratically-elected President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán in the 1950s, or Anaconda Copper's support of the overthrow of Chile's Salvador Allende in the 1970s. Alcoa, GM, Citibank and most of the above-mentioned companies know how to throw their weight around, be it by technically legal, or more subversive means.

Reforms

Of course, it makes sense why US corporations based in Venezuela would be against the reform. Various articles, if applied, could potentially cut in on potential profits, such as the reform of article 301. Under the 1999 Constitution this article stated:

"Foreign people, businesses, and organisms can not be given more beneficial concessions than those established for national entities."

However, under the reform, the last sentence was cut:

"Foreign investment is subject to the same conditions as national investment."

One can thus infer that national investment may be given more favorable conditions than foreign investment.

Article 115 protects new forms of social and collective property, which anti-reform proponents fear may be used to expropriate private property.

On top of this, the Venezuelan government recently passed new rules on the growing automobile industry in Venezuela, which may have US automobile giants, GM, Chrysler, and Ford nervous about their the foreseeable future in Venezuela. Although car sales in Venezuela have jumped by nearly 300% over the last three years, in an attempt to push for more domestic production, the Venezuelan government has passed new laws regulating the automobile industry, according to an early November article in the Venezuelan daily El Nacional. Among them, the requirement of an "import license" in order to sell foreign cars, the mandate to install natural gas inputs in all vehicles produced after 2007, and the importation of only unassembled motors after 2010, in order to use to use nationally produced motor parts.

Protests in Valencia

According to reports, in Valencia last week, full color CIEC fliers against the reform were passed out during opposition student marches. According to today's major papers, violent protests in Valencia yesterday left one dead, various wounded, and at least 15 detained.

It would be irresponsible to make accusations without evidence, but it is important to be conscious of where our information is coming from, if it is verifiable, and who are the interests involved. This is the case now, only a few days before Venezuela's Constitutional Reform Referendum. Hopefully the Venezuelan people will be able to decipher fact from fiction and make their own educated decision whether to vote "sí" or "no" next Sunday.

Like Gladys Castro, who has reconsidered her staunch position against the reform. As she said last week, when she realized that the rumors she has been hearing are false, "Well, I'm going to read [the reform], think some more, and maybe I will vote for it after all." She's probably not the only one.

Relevant links:

• CIEC
• Article from the US Embassy on Duddy's trip to Valencia

Amy & Juan Interview James Petras

JUAN GONZALEZ: In Venezuela, tens of thousands of protesters marched through the capital city of Caracas Thursday to oppose a series of constitutional changes proposed by President Hugo Chavez.

The referendum is coming to a vote on Sunday. Chavez plans to lead rallies in favor of the reforms today. Venezuelans will vote on sixty-nine proposed changes to the nation’s constitution that include eliminating presidential term limits, creating forms of communal property and cutting the workday from eight hours to six.

Thursday’s demonstration was the biggest show of opposition to the constitutional overhauls so far. On Wednesday, hundreds of students clashed with police and the Venezuelan national guard. Most surveys say the outcome of the December 2nd vote is too close to call.

AMY GOODMAN: This week, President Chavez claimed the US government is fomenting unrest to challenge the referendum. His foreign minister went on television late Wednesday revealing what he said was a CIA plan to secure a “no” victory. The confidential memo was reportedly sent from the US embassy in Caracas and addressed to the director of Central Intelligence, Michael Hayden.

James Petras is a former professor of sociology and Latin American studies at Binghamton University. He is author of a number of books, including Social Movements and State Power. His exclusive article in “Counterpunch” is called "CIA Venezuela Destabilization Memo Surfaces.” Professor Petras joins us now from Binghamton, New York.

Welcome, Professor Petras. Can you start off by talking about what exactly this memo is? Have you actually seen it? What is it reported to say?

JAMES PETRAS: Well, I picked it up off the Venezuelan government program. It describes in some detail what the strategy of the US embassy has been, and most likely the author, Michael Middleton Steere, who’s listed as US embassy, may be a CIA operative, because he sends the report to Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA.

Now, what the memo talks about essentially is, first of all, the effectiveness of their campaign against the constitutional amendments, and it concedes that the amendment will be approved, but it does mention the fact that they’ve reduced the margin of victory by six percentage points. The second part is more interesting. It actually mentions the fact that the US strategy is what they call a “pincer operation.” That’s the name of the document itself. It’s—“pincer” is “tenaza,” and it’s, first of all, to try to undermine the electoral process, the vote itself, and then secondly, once the vote goes through, if they are not able to stop the vote, is to engage in a massive campaign calling fraud and rejecting the outcome that comes from the election. So, on one hand, they’re calling a no vote, and on the other hand, they’re denouncing the outcome if they lose.

Now, the other part that’s interesting about this document is what it outlines as the immediate tasks in the last phase. And that includes getting people out in the street, particularly the students. And interestingly enough, there is a mixture here of extreme rightists and some social democrats and even some ex-Maoists and Trotskyists. They mention the Red Flag, Bandera Roja, and praise them actually for their street-fighting ability and causing attacks on public institutions like the electoral tribunal.

But more interestingly is their efforts to intensify their contacts with military offices. And what they seem to have on their agenda is to try to seize either a territorial base or an institutional base around which to rally discontented citizens and call on the military—and it particularly mentions the National Guard—to rally in overthrowing the referendum outcome and the government. So this does include a section on a military uprising.

And it complains about the fact that the groups under its umbrella or its partners are not all unified on this strategy, and some have abandoned the umbrella operation and, secondly, that the government intelligence has discovered some of their storage warehouses of armaments and have even picked up some of their operatives. And they hope in this that this is not going to upset their plans.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, James Petras, this is obviously a very explosive memo, coming just a few days before the actual referendum. And while it certainly sounds like many of the types of tactics that the CIA has used in prior international adventures, has there been any confirmation whether this memo is—

JAMES PETRAS: Well, obviously, it’s a memo that the US will denounce. They always have this clause in their operation that they should be able to have an out.

Secondly, the Venezuelans are very tolerant of their opposition. The Chavez government has not expelled the operative here, Michael Middleton Steere. There have been discussions, I’ve gotten from my sources in Venezuela, in the foreign office to expel this official, but they haven’t actually taken that step. And it goes along with this very libertarian outlook in Venezuelan government. You know, many of the people involved in the overthrow of the president, the military takeover for forty-eight hours in 2002, many of them never were put on trial and never were arrested, and they’re back in action in this referendum. So law enforcement regarding what would normally be called insurrectionary activity in the United States—many of these people would have been locked in Fort Leavenworth and the key thrown away—in Venezuela, the golpistas, the people involved in coup planning and operations, are having a second, third chance.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, in this country, the main focus has been, obviously, in the corporate media on the attempt to do away with term limits for the president. But this is a very extensive major reform of Venezuela’s laws or its constitution. Could you talk about the various other reforms that are involved in this vote on Sunday?

JAMES PETRAS: Yes. One of them, and probably one that’s going to turn out the biggest votes for Chavez, is the universal social security coverage for many of the street vendors, domestic servants, other people that are in the so-called informal sector, which covers up to 40% of the labor force. So this 40% of the labor force will be covered now by universal social security coverage.

The second thing is the thirty-six-hour work week.

The third is the devolution of community funds directly to local neighborhood organizations and what they call communal councils, which incorporate several neighborhood councils. They will be directly funded by the federal government, instead of the money going through municipal and state governors, where a lot of it is skimmed off the top. So there’s another very positive factor.

It also will facilitate the government’s ability to expropriate property, especially large areas in the countryside that are now fallow and where you have hundreds of thousands of landless agricultural and small farmers. So it’s a way of facilitating social change.

It also stipulates that the economy will continue to be a mixed economy, with private-public, public-private associations, partnerships, as well as cooperative property. The cooperative property is largely an employment absorption sector. It doesn’t contribute that much to the GNP, but is seen as a way of absorbing the large numbers of people in the unemployment or low-paid sector.

These are some of the major provisions. The government has argued, with some effectiveness, that in the parliamentary systems you have indefinite terms of office. And they mention in the case of England with Tony Blair being reelected as many times as he wanted. They could have cited the President Howard of Australia, who was elected innumerable times. And they cite the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party, which has been in power for the last fifty years, with different prime ministers, but at least an organization with an enormous capacity to be reelected. So they don’t see this as—they don’t describe this as an unusual happening, much more like a parliamentary system, rather than a presidential system, though in this case—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you, are there also some protections or new sections of the constitution dealing with racial minorities and also with gender orientation?

JAMES PETRAS: There is guarantees, constitutional guarantees, for women and homosexuals and especially Afro-Venezuelans. Of course, Chavez himself is part-Indian, part-African and part-white. So, essentially, Chavez has made racial equality, not only legally, but in substance, a major point on his agenda. And I would say, in my visits and conversations, that even among his middle- and upper middle-class opponents, there is definitely a factor here of race. This is going to be not only a class-polarized referendum, but the race issue is prominent, and the right has emphasized the fact that—in a very hostile way—that Chavez is of African descent. And they have in the past put caricatures in their publications depicting him as a gorilla. And when Mugabe of Africa, president, visited, they had Chavez and Mugabe walking as if they were two gorillas. And this is national newspaper; this isn’t simply yellow-sheet publications.

AMY GOODMAN: James Petras, we have to take a break, but we’re going to come back to this discussion. Professor James Petrus is a Professor Emeritus of sociology and Latin American studies at Binghamton University in New York. We’re talking about Venezuela. We’ll also talk about the latest in Bolivia and Chavez negotiating with the rebels in Colombia and Uribe, the Colombian president, cutting that off. This is Democracy Now! Back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Professor Emeritus James Petras—taught at Binghamton University, Latin American studies, in New York—talking about what’s happening now in Latin America, particularly focusing on Venezuela. Juan?

JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah. Professor Petras, I’d like to ask you, you’re a longtime respected observer of the developments in Latin America and the left in Latin America. And I have a question about this, the issue of the term limits. Many people who support Chavez are still worried about this attempt to eliminate term limits and create a possible lifetime presidency, in that it seems to once again focus on the individual, rather than on building the kinds of organizations and structures that can, in essence, change a society, transform a society, the emphasis on the cult of the individual, as opposed to building organizations and political parties that will carry on after that leader has gone. Your response to that?

JAMES PETRAS: Well, President Chavez has been very supportive of local organizations. I mentioned these community-based, neighborhood-based organizations. He has also launched a political party, not a single party state, but a party, the party of socialists, Venezuelan Socialist Unity. And so, he’s making big attempts to institutionalize the basis of his policies, and he’s encouraged new trade unions and also peasant organizations.

One of the serious problems is that when Chavez’s popularity rose, a great many individuals, politicians, jumped on the bandwagon from very diverse backgrounds, from conservatives to Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Marxists, etc. And this has been a problem for two reasons: one, it has eroded internal coherence in their ability to carry through and implement some of the policies that they’ve passed; and second of all, there is a great many people with a career of corruption that have entered into the Chavista movement, particularly in administrative posts.

And Chavez is very aware of this, and he’s aware of the hostility of many of his rank-and-file supporters to many of the especially elected officials in the municipal and even state governments. So he’s assumed political leadership with the support of his mass base in order to counteract some of these internal problems that they have, and it may have unfavorable consequences in the future. But in the short run, it allows for at least some resonance in the executive branch with the popular aspirations.

And this is a very hot issue now, because the government—not exactly Chavez, but the ministers have not intervened to end the scarcity of some basic commodities. There has been a campaign by retailers and commercial outlets and distributors at hoarding and creating artificial scarcities; despite the fact the government is importing millions and hundreds of millions of dollars in foodstuffs, they’re not getting onto the shelves.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Petras, I wanted to ask quickly about Bolivia, the proposed constitutional changes there. On Wednesday, opposition groups staged a general strike in six of Bolivia’s nine provinces against the government-backed changes. Bolivian President Evo Morales says the plans will give Bolivia’s indigenous and poor communities a greater voice in running the country. The proposals will go before a national referendum in the coming months. This is President Morales speaking from the presidential palace in La Paz.

PRESIDENT EVO MORALES: [translated] I hope that tomorrow morning these five governors are here to have a dialogue. I hope that in five or nine of our departments that we can lay down new social policies together for Bolivia, because this is a government for all Bolivians, not a government for just one sector of them, as some of our companions have said.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Petras, Bolivia and Evo Morales, do you see similarities with what’s happening in Venezuela?

JAMES PETRAS: No, because Morales has adopted a policy of conciliation with the elites, hoping that he could construct what he calls Andean capitalism, in which there’d be subsidiary benefits for the Indian communities, largely creating greater degrees of autonomy. But the autonomy issue has been taken up by the states, the rightwing states, and it’s become a trampoline for a secessionist movement. And I think these measures of autonomy have been reinterpreted by the extreme right, and they have assumed the leadership in five of the nine provinces. And they’re heading for a major political and constitutional confrontation.

And let us be absolutely clear what this is all about. The oil and gas wealth is precisely in the states that the right controls, and they are in favor of secession, in which they will control Bolivia’s wealth, even though they may be less than a majority of the population. So this is just like in the United States. This is the equivalent of the Confederates, and they’ve been running roughshod in their states on opposition.

Let me give you just one quick example. They have been assaulting the delegates at a constitutional convention. The government of Morales has not intervened with the military to protect these people. In fact, they’re holed up now in a military school, where they’re carrying on their constitutional deliberations. And we’ve had other cases of assaults on Indian groups in Santa Cruz, in Beni and other provinces that are associated with the secessionists. And it’s both a racial issue once again, as well as an oil and gas issue, and it’s all hung around the issue of a secession, a white-dominated confederacy in which there will be no land reform. The wealth will continue to be shared between foreign corporations and the oligarchy.

AMY GOODMAN: James Petras, I want to thank you for being with us, Professor Emeritus of sociology and Latin American studies at Binghamton University.

JAMES PETRAS: Keep up your good work, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Thanks very—

JAMES PETRAS: It’s extremely helpful to all of us researchers and scholars and students of Latin American and world affairs.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, thank you for your work, as well, Professor James Petras in Binghamton.

100 Years of Myth-Making in Mexico

The Death of Latin America's First Revolution

By JOHN ROSS

Mexico City.

A specter is haunting Mexico. With the 100th anniversary of the Mexican Revolution and the bicentennial of liberation from the European yoke looming just three years down history's pike, this November 20, the day set aside to commemorate the inception of Latin America's first revolution of the poor and landless, was fraught with nervous anticipation.

If history is any gauge, Mexico's political metabolism seems to rise in revolution every hundred years in the tenth year of the century. In 1810, under the tutelage of the rebel priest Miguel Hidalgo, the brown and black underclass rose against their Spanish masters, eventually achieving independence a decade later. Similarly in 1910, Mexico's landless peasants behind the insurrectionary generals Francisco Villa and Emiliano Zapata overthrew the 34-year rule of the dictator Porfirio Diaz and launched a revolution which like the revolt of 1810 played itself out over the next ten years, taking over a million lives with it before fizzling into memory and myth.

In a November 20th ceremony set under the great dome of the Monument to the Revolution where many of the luminaries of that glorious epoch are entombed, and surrounded by military brass that have been so vital to governance ever since Felipe Calderon was awarded the presidency in the fraud-smeared 2006 elections, the freshman head of the Mexican state envisioned the 2010 coalescing of centennials as a time of national unity in which the rancorous confrontations of the past would dissolve in a monumental love-in.

While Calderon spoke, hundreds of supporters of leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) who continues to insist he was defrauded out of victory by Calderon last year, were herded up behind metal barricades erected by military police and kept at bay four blocks away from the commemoration.

As culmination of the festivities, the President's point man on the duel centennials, Rafael Tovar y Teresa, outlined 400 projects the federal government will initiate to honor independence and revolution in 2010. No budget was announced.

The past is always present in Mexican politics. Back in 1910, the dictator Diaz eviscerated the education budget to inaugurate a similar array of public works
to commemorate the nation's first hundred years, an allocation that so infuriated the middle classes that they eventually aligned themselves with the coming revolution.

The Mexican Revolution was a long time in coming and, indeed, was rooted in the deep inequities that emerged once the "Criollos" (Europeans born in the New World) finally wrested liberation from Spain in 1821 and consolidated control over the darker underclasses. But the immediate genesis of the Revolution was in the brutal rule of Porfirio Diaz between 1876 and 1910. Under Diaz, the Indians were stripped of their lands and attached to the great haciendas in virtual bondage. Diaz protected the tiny ruling class assiduously with all the force of his fearsome "Federales." Natural resources and public services were franchised to European and U.S. tycoons. The rule of the few over the many was the law.

But by 1910, Diaz and his dictatorship were showing signs of exhaustion. In a moment that telegraphed his encroaching senility, General Diaz invited independent candidates to compete in the presidential elections and Francisco Madero, a liberal landowner from the north who had been schooled in Berkeley California, declared his availability on the "No Re-election" ticket. Yet, at the last minute, Diaz came to his senses, clapped Madero in prison, and stole the July election as usual - much as AMLO has accused Calderon of replicating in 2006.

Madero, who had cross-class support, soon escaped from jail in his native San Luis Potosi and made his way to El Paso where he proclaimed the Mexican Revolution which was set to begin November 20th when he urged his compatriots to go to the plazas of their cities and towns and declare themselves in rebellion against the dictator. Hardly anyone did, of course, and those intrepid souls who ventured out that day were slaughtered by Diaz's Federals.

But Mexicans are not celebrated for being punctual and months later Francisco Villa in Chihuahua and the governors of Coahuila and Sonora states Venustiano Carranza and Alvaro Obregon rose in the north and Emiliano Zapata and his Liberating Army of the South joined forces and the rebel armies converged on the capital. Revolutions rise regionally in Mexico.

Reading the handwriting on the wall, Diaz hopped the first boat out for Paris France and in repeat elections held in 1911, Francisco Madero was overwhelmingly elected president of Mexico. This was the first Mexican Revolution.

But Madero, a hacienda owner from the north, held private property to be sacrosanct, thus severely disaffecting Zapata who fought on in the state of Morelos just south of the capital for the return of his village lands in the Nahua community of Anenecuilco. And just as Madero did not satisfy Zapata and his ally Villa, his occupation of the presidency did not please U.S. Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson who feared Washington's interests would be compromised by the liberal. Lane Wilson, an engineer of the U.S. holocaust in the Philippines, was soon up to his ears in the plot that ended with Madero's assassination outside the Black Palace prison here and the installation of the drunken general Vittoriano Huerta, fresh from riding down Zapata's ragtag army, as the new dictator.

Then as now with its $1.4 billion USD Plan Mexico security blanket, Washington saw its southern neighbor both as a threat and an opportunity. The ogre Huerta disaffected newly-elected liberal president Woodrow Wilson who supplanted Lane Wilson's big business boss William Howard Taft in the vote-taking of 1912 and Wilson was determined to teach the Mexicans all about democracy - much as George Bush has been teaching the Iraqis.

When Wilson landed the Marines in Veracruz in 1914, Huerta had crushed the revolution beneath his iron heel and the forces of Zapata and Villa, Carranza and Obregon were divided, scattered, and dormant. But the U.S. president's bonehead deployment reactivated and united the rebel armies against both the hatedYanqui invaders and the equally odious Huerta and the General soon joined Diaz on a slow boat to Europe. That was the second Mexican revolution.

The inevitable power struggle ensued: Zapata and Villa were aligned against Carranza and Obregon. It was not unlike tag team wrestling. In late 1914, the patrician Carranza capitalized on rampant anti-Americanism by establishing his version of the revolutionary government in Veracruz once the gringos had abandoned the port. Meanwhile, the top tier representatives of Zapata and Villa struck common cause behind rebel lines in the state of Aguascalientes at the first National Democratic Convention - both the neo-Zapatista Army of National Liberation and AMLO have since staged similarly-named conventions.

By autumn, Villa and Zapata had taken Mexico City. Their celebrated meeting under an Ahuehuete tree on a "chinampa" (floating island) in the southern district of Xochimilco is considered the apogee of all the Mexican revolutions. But the two rebel leaders sensed that they were not cut out for the presidency of their country. They were men of action and could not stomach political intrigue. Villa yearned for the wide open spaces of his beloved Norte and Zapata pledged to return to Anenecuilco. By the beginning of 1915, both had abandoned the capital to a caretaker government that Carranza promptly annihilated.

On his march north, Villa's elite "Dorados" or "Golden Ones" were decimated by Obregon in central Mexico at the battles of Celaya and Leon. And by 1916, Wilson, nudged by U.S. leftists like John Kenneth Turner and Upton Sinclair, had thrown in with Carranza. Villa, indignant at what he considered the U.S. president's perfidy, launched a surprise attack on Columbus, New Mexico, the first land invasion of the United States since 1812. Wilson immediately dispatched General Black Jack Pershing (he earned the sobriquet as the commander of black troops in the so-called Spanish-American War) to pursue Pancho Villa into Mexico, a failed expedition whose futility is celebrated in legend and corridos (border ballads) south of the border.

Washington's intervention in World War I ended Pershing's foolish escapade and Wilson, who had been tormented by the Mexican Revolution during two and half turns in the White House, suffered a paralyzing stroke. Mexico became a dead issue in Washington.

As the revolution wound down, Zapata had been reduced to fighting a guerrilla war in Morelos. In embedding the Caudillo's agrarian reform program - the Plan de Ayala - in his 1917 revolutionary constitution, Carranza further undercut Zapata's constituency. Still the incorruptible revolutionary battled on against federal troops until finally he was tricked by the traitor Guajardo who, under the pretext of re-supplying Zapata's bedraggled fighters with fresh arms and ammunition, lured him to the Chinameca Hacienda where on April 10th 1919 he was gunned down by Carranza's sharpshooters and many say, the Mexican Revolution died with him.

The Mexican Revolution was really three or four revolutions depending on how you define a revolution - but not one of them was a real revolution. The class structure remained unaltered although the "revolutionary" generals and their descendants got a bigger piece of the pie. The campesinos, in whose name the Mexican Revolution had been fought, waited 30 years for the expropriation of the great landholdings and then received crumbs and the worst lands. Workers did not take over the means of production nor was socialism ever a consideration as an operating principle of the economy. The Indians were monumentalized in the murals of Rivera and Orozco and Siquieros et al but racism thrived. First the PRI and now Calderon's PAN steal one election after another with impunity just like Porfirio Diaz did back in 1910.

Indeed, the Mexican Revolution's most enduring legacy has been its mythification. The mythology that the underclass can rise up to power inspired 20th century revolutions from the Russian to the Cuban and to the extent the people continue to believe in this myth, another Mexican Revolution is possible.

"Eye on Mexico" (parts one and two) is drawn from a talk of the same name delivered by John Ross in San Francisco this November at a benefit to buy the author a new eye. Contact johnross@igc.org if you have further information.

Another CIA sponsored Coup D'Etat? Venezuela’s D-Day: Democratic Socialism or Imperial Counter-Revolution

The December 2, 2007 Constituent Referendum

by Prof James Petras

Global Research, November 28, 2007

On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday (December 2, 2007).

The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the head of the CIA, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled ‘Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer’ and updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym ‘HUMINT’ (Human Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government. The Embassy-CIA’s polls concede that 57% of the voters approved of the constitutional amendments proposed by Chavez but also predicted a 60% abstention.

The US operatives emphasized their capacity to recruit former Chavez supporters among the social democrats (PODEMOS) and the former Minister of Defense Baduel, claiming to have reduced the ‘yes’ vote by 6% from its original margin. Nevertheless the Embassy operatives concede that they have reached their ceiling, recognizing they cannot defeat the amendments via the electoral route.

The memo then recommends that Operation Pincer (OP) [Operación Tenaza] be operationalized. OP involves a two-pronged strategy of impeding the referendum, rejecting the outcome at the same time as calling for a ‘no’ vote. The run up to the referendum includes running phony polls, attacking electoral officials and running propaganda through the private media accusing the government of fraud and calling for a ‘no’ vote. Contradictions, the report cynically emphasizes, are of no matter.

The CIA-Embassy reports internal division and recriminations among the opponents of the amendments including several defections from their ‘umbrella group’. The key and most dangerous threats to democracy raised by the Embassy memo point to their success in mobilizing the private university students (backed by top administrators) to attack key government buildings including the Presidential Palace, Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council. The Embassy is especially praiseworthy of the ex-Maoist ‘Red Flag’ group for its violent street fighting activity. Ironically, small Trotskyist sects and their trade unionists join the ex-Maoists in opposing the constitutional amendments. The Embassy, while discarding their ‘Marxist rhetoric’, perceives their opposition as fitting in with their overall strategy.

The ultimate objective of ‘Operation Pincer’ is to seize a territorial or institutional base with the ‘massive support’ of the defeated electoral minority within three or four days (before or after the elections – is not clear. JP) backed by an uprising by oppositionist military officers principally in the National Guard. The Embassy operative concede that the military plotters have run into serous problems as key intelligence operatives were detected, stores of arms were decommissioned and several plotters are under tight surveillance.

Apart from the deep involvement of the US, the primary organization of the Venezuelan business elite (FEDECAMARAS), as well as all the major private television, radio and newspaper outlets have been engaged in a vicious fear and intimidation campaign. Food producers, wholesale and retail distributors have created artificial shortages of basic food items and have provoked large scale capital flight to sow chaos in the hopes of reaping a ‘no’ vote.

President Chavez Counter-Attacks

In a speech to pro-Chavez, pro-amendment nationalist business-people (Entrepreneurs for Venezuela – EMPREVEN) Chavez warned the President of FEDECAMARAS that if he continues to threaten the government with a coup, he would nationalize all their business affiliates. With the exception of the Trotskyist and other sects, the vast majority of organized workers, peasants, small farmers, poor neighborhood councils, informal self-employed and public school students have mobilized and demonstrated in favor of the constitutional amendments.

The reason for the popular majority is found in a few of the key amendments: One article expedites land expropriation facilitating re-distribution to the landless and small producers. Chavez has already settled over 150,000 landless workers on 2 million acres of land. Another amendment provides universal social security coverage for the entire informal sector (street sellers, domestic workers, self-employed) amounting to 40% of the labor force. Organized and unorganized workers’ workweek will be reduced from 40 to 36 hours a week (Monday to Friday noon) with no reduction in pay. Open admission and universal free higher education will open greater educational opportunities for lower class students. Amendments will allow the government to by-pass current bureaucratic blockage of the socialization of strategic industries, thus creating greater employment and lower utility costs. Most important, an amendment will increase the power and budget of neighborhood councils to legislate and invest in their communities.

The electorate supporting the constitutional amendments is voting in favor of their socio-economic and class interests; the issue of extended re-election of the President is not high on their priorities: And that is the issue that the Right has focused on in calling Chavez a ‘dictator’ and the referendum a ‘coup’.

The Opposition

With strong financial backing from the US Embassy ($8 million dollars in propaganda alone according to the Embassy memo) and the business elite and ‘free time’ by the right-wing media, the Right has organized a majority of the upper middle class students from the private universities, backed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, large swaths of the affluent middle class neighborhoods, entire sectors of the commercial, real estate and financial middle classes and apparently sectors of the military, especially officials in the National Guard. While the Right has control over the major private media, public television and radio back the constitutional reforms. While the Right has its followers among some generals and the National Guard, Chavez has the backing of the paratroops and legions of middle rank officers and most other generals.

The outcome of the Referendum of December 2 is a decisive historical event first and foremost for Venezuela but also for the rest of the Americas. A positive vote (Vota ‘Sí’) will provide the legal framework for the democratization of the political system, the socialization of strategic economic sectors, empower the poor and provide the basis for a self-managed factory system. A negative vote (or a successful US-backed civil-military uprising) will reverse the most promising living experience of popular self-rule, of advanced social welfare and democratically based socialism. A reversal, especially a military dictated outcome, will lead to a massive blood bath, such as we have not seen since the days of the Indonesian Generals’ Coup of 1966, which killed over a million workers and peasants or the Argentine Coup of 1976 in which over 30,000 Argentines were murdered by the US backed Generals.

A decisive vote for ‘Sí’ will not end US military and political destabilization campaigns but it will certainly undermine and demoralize their collaborators. On December 2, 2007 the Venezuelans have a rendezvous with history.

James Petras is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by James Petras

What’s Really Happening in Venezuela?

November 29th 2007, by Lee Sustar - Socialist Worker

VENEZUELANS WILL vote December 2 on constitutional reforms proposed by President Hugo Chávez and his supporters, capping weeks of sometimes-violent protests by right-wing opposition forces, a defection by a top Chávez political ally, and mass mobilizations by Chávez supporters.

LEE SUSTAR, recently returned from Venezuela, looks at the aims of Chávez’s proposals, the response of the opposition and the shape of Venezuelan politics today.

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

FOR THE U.S. mainstream media, Venezuela’s vote on constitutional reforms December 2 is simply the latest power grab in authoritarian President Hugo Chávez’s bid to crush dissent, make himself president for life and impose a state-controlled economy.

The view from the streets of the Caracas barrio of 23 de Enero, however, is very different.

A densely populated, impoverished neighborhood seldom visited by U.S. reporters, it is famous for its role in mobilizing in January 1958 to overthrow a Venezuelan military dictator on the date that gave the barrio its name.

These days, it is home to an active local branch, or battalion, of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV, according to its Spanish initials). On a rainy mid-November evening, activists gathered to distribute copies of the proposed reform by going door to door.

What else to read Lee Sustar’s article “Where is Venezuela going?” in the July-August 2007 issue of the International Socialist Review is an extensive and in-depth look at Hugo Chávez and the meaning of 21st century socialism. The best source in English for current news and analysis of Venezuela is the Venezuelanalysis.com Web site. Readers of Spanish should visit Aporrea.org, the widely read, frequently updated and most important Web site of the Venezuelan left. Changing Venezuela: The History and Policies of the Chávez Government, a book by Gregory Wilpert, editor of the Venezuelanalysis.com Web site, looks at politics and policy in the debate over socialism. Another very useful book is Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict, edited by Daniel Hellinger and Steve Ellner.

Of the 30 or so people who turned out--all but four of them women--just two had prior political experience in Chávez’s original political party, the Fifth Republic Movement (MVR). Only one--Rosaida Hernández--is an experienced politico, having served as a functionary of the Fifth Republic Movement and won election to Caracas’ municipal council.

More typical was Iraima Díaz, a neighborhood resident in her 30s who had long supported Chávez and benefited from his government’s social programs, but hadn’t been politically active. “I got involved to solve the problems of my community,” she said.

Another activist, Lúz Estella, a social worker whose father lives in the area, also became active recently, fed up with the opposition media and wanting to get involved.

Now Díaz and Estella find themselves members of Chávez’s own PSUV battalion--the president often turns up at the weekly Saturday meetings held at the military museum in the neighborhood.

The facility also serves as a place for enrollment in government “missions”--national social welfare programs initiated by Chávez in 2003, which evolved from offering free medical care to literacy and education programs, subsidized grocery stores and a great deal more, thanks to revenues from oil exports and some of the fastest economic growth rates in the world.

Despite its well-known member and proximity to local missions, the 23 de Enero PSUV battalion faces a challenges common to its counterparts across the country--how to mobilize the 5.7 million people who have registered for the party since it was formed earlier this year through a merger of parties of Chávez’s governing coalition.

Nevertheless, as the group, singing campaign songs, made its way through the narrow streets on steep hillsides of the barrio, people came to their windows to take copies of the reform and discuss it briefly--an elderly man alone in his small apartment; a young woman of African descent breastfeeding an infant; the proprietor of a tiny store situated in what was once a living room, with a window facing the street; a group of young men in their 20s gathered outside a small restaurant.

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

THE IMPACT of Chávez’s reforms is visible on the streets of 23 de Enero and other barrios--people are better fed and better dressed.

As is often the case in Venezuela, the political direction in the barrios is the opposite Caracas’ well-off neighborhoods and the suburbs, where the upper middle class and the wealthy live in luxurious gated communities and drive Hummers and Land Rovers.

As opposition to Chávez’s reforms sharpened--first with protests by largely middle-class college students; then the defection of a longtime Chávez ally, former army chief of staff and defense minister Raúl Baduel--the mass of Chávez supporters began to mobilize.

Nevertheless, the opposition, tainted by the coup of 2002 and the subsequent lockout of oil workers by industry bosses, has been able to refresh its image.

Key to this was the student mobilization last summer over the government’s refusal to renew the broadcast license of the privately owned, opposition-controlled RCTV channel.

Wrongly portrayed in the Western media as a “closure” of a media outlet, the decision was made as the result of RCTV’s active role in supporting the coup. Nevertheless, the government’s refusal to renew the channel’s broadcast license gave Venezuela’s right the opportunity to claim the mantle of “democracy,” a theme it has continued in protests aimed at forcing a delay in the vote for constitutional reform.

Significantly, the student protests took shape as a national social movement, led mainly by middle class and wealthy students who predominate at Venezuela’s elite universities, such as the UCV in Caracas.

While portraying themselves as nonviolent in the face of allegedly armed Chavista students--two students were wounded on the UCV campus November 7--the opposition student protests have often turned violent. The U.S. media focused on the supposed gunplay of Chavista students, but it was the right-wing protesters who besieged pro-Chávez students in UCV’s law and social work schools, physically destroying both.

Still, the student protesters have carried the day politically on campus, with the opposition winning a reported 91 percent of votes in student government elections soon afterward.

The opposition got another boost when it was joined by Baduel, the former general and defense minister.

A key figure in preventing the 2002 military attempt to oust Chávez, Baduel has used the word “coup” to describe the impact of Chávez’s proposed constitutional changes.

While Baduel’s impact on the reform vote is probably limited, his turn may point to something more serious--concern among senior military brass over a constitutional reform that would reorganize and centralize the armed forces and give the president authority to promote all officers, not just top generals.

Already, Chávez has dropped a call to convert the reserves into “Bolivarian Popular Militias” to support the regular armed forces, presenting it in the constitutional reforms instead as a “National Bolivarian Militia.”

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

IN ANY case, the retooled opposition presents a new challenge for activists of the “Bolivarian revolution”--named for the 19th century anti-colonial leader.

In the past, Chávez could mobilize his base among the poor on clear-cut issues--protesting the right-wing coup attempt of April 2002, voting to keep him in office in the recall election of 2004, re-electing him as president a year ago.

The constitutional reforms, however, are more complicated and controversial within the Chávez camp itself.

At issue is the balance between the creation of communal councils to enhance what Chávez calls “popular power,” and measures that would strengthen the powers of the presidency and the central state in several respects.

These include the removal of presidential term limits and lengthening the term from six to seven years; the ability to appoint an unrestricted number of secondary vice presidents; the authority to determine boundaries of proposed “communal cities” of municipalities and states; and control over the use of foreign currency reserves with no constitutional limits.

The right to recall the president still exists, but the number of signatures required to trigger a vote would increase from 20 percent to 30 percent of eligible voters.

Other constitutional measures debated on the left would give the president and National Assembly the ability to impose states of emergency in which the right to information is waived--probably a response to the private media’s complicity in the 2002 coup. The National Assembly would also gain the right to remove Supreme Court judges and election officials through a simple majority vote.

These changes hardly amount to the “Chávez dictatorship” conjured up in the mainstream media, and the Venezuelan constitution would remain more democratic in many respects than the U.S. Constitution, a relic of the 18th century.

The question, however, is whether the constitution promotes a transition to “popular power” and “socialism,” as Chávez would have it.

Essentially, the reforms reflect the contradiction at the heart of Chávez’s project--an effort to initiate revolutionary change from above.

The expansion of communal councils and creation of workers councils are seen by grassroots Chavista activists as a legitimate effort to anchor the “revolutionary process” at the grassroots.

However, the additional powers for the presidency and the reorganization of the armed forces highlight the fact that Chávez apparently sees the presidency--and the centralized state--as the guardian of the revolution.

Tellingly, it is the military, the most rigidly hierarchical institution in society, which is to protect the newly decentralized democracy, while remaining aloof from such changes internally.

Chávez’s effort to combine what he calls an “explosion of popular power” with greater centralism may reflect his military past. But if the government is able to portray itself as creating “motors” of revolutionary change, it’s because grassroots organizations, social movements and organized labor have so far failed to create sizeable organizations of their own.

While there is no doubt of Chávez’s popularity, particularly among the poor, their role thus far has been to defend Chávez from the right during the coup and lockout, and turning out for elections. The constitutional reforms, along with the creation of the PSUV at Chávez’s initiative, are intended to close the gap between these periodic mass mobilizations and the lack of day-to-day organization.

To consolidate this base, the proposed constitutional reforms offer further social gains. For example, virtually unmentioned in U.S. media accounts is the fact that the reforms would provide, for the first time, social security benefits to the 50 percent of Venezuelan workers who toil in the informal sector as street vendors, taxi drivers and the like. The workweek would be limited to 36 hours.

There are other advances as well, including the consolidation of land reform, outlawing discrimination based on gender and sexual orientation, lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, guaranteed free university education, gender parity in politics and political parties, public financing of political campaigns, recognition of Venezuelans of African descent, and more.

Critics on the right claim these measures constitute a bribe to the mass of Venezuelans--handouts in exchange for political support, a version of the traditional clientleism used Latin American populists such as Argentina’s Juan Perón.

In fact, Perón and other 20th century populists went far beyond Chávez in terms of nationalizing industries--Venezuela’s oil company, PDVSA, has been government owned since the 1970s, and the recent state takeover of the telecommunications and electrical power companies are renationalizations.

But the Chávez project aims at a more thoroughgoing social transformation than populists of the past. The aim is to build what Chávez calls “socialism of the 21st century” by trying to bypass the capitalist state with new structures and enshrining new forms of “social,” “public” and “mixed” property to promote “endogenous” economic development--that is, growth not dependent on the oil economy.

These efforts are, in turn, supposed to mesh with “communes” created by communal councils--which, under the proposed constitutional changes, will receive at least 5 percent of the national budget to manage local affairs. The text of the reform proposal explains: “The state will foment and develop different forms of production and economic units of social property, from direct or communal-controlled, to indirect or state-controlled, as well as productive economic units for social production and/or distribution.”

Moreover, the proposed reform on “popular power” also calls for the creation of councils for workers, students, farmers, craftspeople, fishermen and -women, sports participants, youth, the elderly, women, disabled people and others.

This new “geometry of power,” as Chávez calls it, is apparently designed to engineer social change while avoiding direct confrontation with big business, whose property rights are in fact safeguarded in the constitutional reforms. As Chávez himself said last summer, “We have no plan to eliminate the oligarchy, Venezuela’s bourgeoisie.”

Funds for social reforms have so far come from state oil revenues, rather than any transfer of wealth through higher taxes, and the nationalization of companies has been achieved by paying market price for stock market shares.

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

THE QUESTION on the Venezuelan left is whether all this amounts to a transition to socialism, as Chávez and his supporters would have it.

For Orlando Chirino, a national coordinator of the National Union of Workers (UNT) labor federation, Chávez’s reforms herald the “Stalinization” of the state and state control of the labor movement “along the lines of the Cuban CTC labor federation,” he said in an interview.

Chirino, a key leader of the C-CURA class-struggle current of the factionalized UNT, is among the most prominent figures on the left to oppose the reforms. He made waves on the left when he granted an interview with a leading opposition newspaper and appeared on the platform with leaders of the CTV, the corrupt old trade union federation implicated in the 2002 coup.

Today Chirino, along with an oil workers union official, José Bodas, is a founder of a new group calling for an independent workers party.

Chirino’s and Bodas’ opposition to the reforms put them at odds with the majority of UNT national coordinators and organizers in C-CURA, such as Ramón Arias, general secretary of the public sector workers’ union federation, FENTRASEP. Arias is a supporter of the Marea class-struggle current of trade unionists in the PSUV, which calls for purging of employers, bureaucrats and corrupt elements in the new party.

Despite some criticisms of the centralizing aspects of the constitutional reform, including the new provisions for states of emergency, the Marea current has joined the majority of the Venezuelan left in calling for a “yes” vote to achieve social gains and defeat the opposition.

Arias and his C-CURA allies are already at loggerheads with prominent members of the PSUV, including Oswaldo Vera, a member of the National Assembly and leader of the Bolivarian Socialist Labor Front (FSBT), a faction of the UNT that also controls the ministry of labor.

The labor ministry refuses to negotiate a contract with FENTRASEP--which covers 1 million workers--because, it says, there is a dispute over union elections. As a result, many public sector employees are among the 73 percent of Venezuelan workers who earn the minimum wage--which, although the highest in Latin America, is still low in relation to the soaring prices caused by Venezuela’s rapid economic growth, to say nothing of enduring economic inequality.

Arias and other FENTRASEP leaders say that public sector workers are casualties of a larger factional struggle between the FSBT and C-CURA. This in turn is part of an internecine conflict that has prevented the wider UNT labor federation from holding a proper congress since it adopted a provisional structure at its founding event in 2003.

Now, C-CURA, the largest grouping in the UNT, is itself split over the PSUV and constitutional reform, which means organized labor’s voice is barely heard in the political debates of the day.

This sets the stage for a battle over the workers’ councils to be formed in the future, in which both factions of C-CURA expect to contend with an effort by the FSBT to exert control over the labor movement.

On the political terrain, the C-CURA activists of the Marea current inside the PSUV aim to make alliances with others on the left who have succeeded in being elected as spokespeople and delegates to the founding conference.

With the PSUV founding conference still in the future--it has been postponed repeatedly--it isn’t clear if, or how, such groupings will exist within the party, which already has a provisional disciplinary committee that reportedly expelled a prominent Chavista (the commissioners subsequently denied that this was the case).

Certainly the PSUV is a highly contradictory formation, and includes key members of the government apparatus and local elected officials who are unpopular among grassroots Chavistas. Marea’s slogan calls for a PSUV without bosses, bureaucrats and corrupt elements.

Whether the far left will be able to operate openly, be expelled or decide to leave to organize openly are open questions.

In any case, stormy weather is ahead, said Stalin Pérez Borges, a UNT national coordinator and supporter of the Marea current. Political polarization and class conflict, ameliorated in recent years by rapid economic growth, are unavoidable, he said.

“The constitutional reform marks Chávez’s consolidation of power, so the oligarchy can’t just wait for him to go,” he said. “Chávez wants to discipline and control the bourgeoisie. But they want to be in control themselves.”

Source:

Socialist Worker

CIA Operation "Pliers" Uncovered in Venezuela

Last night CNN en Español aired the above image, which captions at the bottom "Who Killed him?" by "accident". The image of President Chavez with the caption about killing him below, which some could say subliminally incites to assassination, was a "production error" mistakenly made in the CNN en Español newsroom. The news anchor had been narrarating a story about the situation between Colombia and Venezuela and then switched to a story about an unsolved homicide but - oops - someone forgot to change the screen image and President Chavez was left with the killing statement below. Today they apologized and admitted it was a rather "unfortunate" and "regrettable" mistake. Yes, it was.

On a scarier note, an internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister - almost fantastical, were it not true - plan to destabilize Venezuela during the coming days. The plan, titled "OPERATION PLIERS" was authored by CIA Officer Michael Middleton Steere and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington. Steere is stationed at the US Embassy in Caracas under the guise of a Regional Affairs Officer. The internal memorandum, dated November 20, 2007, references the "Advances of the Final Stage of Operation Pliers", and confirms that the operation is coordinated by the team of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) in Venezuela. The memo summarizes the different scenarios that the CIA has been working on in Venezuela for the upcoming referendum vote on December 2nd. The Electoral Scenario, as it's phrased, confirms that the voting tendencies will not change substantially before Sunday, December 2nd, and that the SI (YES) vote in favor of the constitutional reform has an advantage of about 10-13 points over the NO vote. The CIA estimates abstention around 60% and states in the memo that this voting tendency is irreversible before the elections.

Officer Steere emphasizes the importance and success of the public relations and propaganda campaign that the CIA has been funding with more than $8 million during the past month - funds that the CIA confirms are transfered through the USAID contracted company, Development Alternatives, Inc., which set up operations in June 2002 to run the USAID Office for Transition Initiatives that funds and advises opposition NGOs and political parties in Venezuela. The CIA memo specifically refers to these propaganda initiatives as "psychological operations" (PSYOPS), that include contracting polling companies to create fraudulent polls that show the NO vote with an advantage over the SI vote, which is false. The CIA also confirms in the memo that it is working with international press agencies to distort the data and information about the referendum, and that it coordinates in Venezuela with a team of journalists and media organized and directed by the President of Globovision, Alberto Federico Ravell.

CIA Officer Michael Steere recommends to General Michael Hayden two different strategies to work simultaneously: Impede the referendum and refuse to recognize the results once the SI vote wins. Though these strategies appear contradictory, Steere claims that they must be implemented together precisely to encourage activities that aim toward impeding the referendum and at the same time prepare the conditions for a rejection of the results.

How is this to be done?

In the memo, the CIA proposes the following tactics and actions:

• Take the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation
• Generate a climate of ungovernability
• Provoke a general uprising in a substantial part of the population
• Engage in a "plan to implode" the voting centers on election day by encouraging opposition voters to "VOTE and REMAIN" in their centers to agitate others
• Start to release data during the early hours of the afternoon on Sunday that favor the NO vote (in clear violation of election regulations)
• Coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies
• Coordinate with ex-militar officers and coupsters Pena Esclusa and Guyon Cellis - this will be done by the Military Attache for Defense and Army at the US Embassy in Caracas, Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO)
  

To encourage rejection of the results, the CIA proposes:

• Creating an acceptance in the public opinion that the NO vote will win for sure
• Using polling companies contracted by the CIA
• Criticize and discredit the National Elections Council
• Generate a sensation of fraud
• Use a team of experts from the universities that will talk about how the data from the Electoral Registry has been manipulated and will build distrust in the voting system
  

The CIA memo also talks about:

• Isolating Chavez in the international community
• Trying to achieve unity amongst the opposition
• Seek an aliance between those abstentionists and those who will vote "NO"
• Sustain firmly the propaganda against Chavez
• Execute military actions to support the opposition mobilizations and propagandistic occupations
• Finalize the operative preparations on the US military bases in Curacao and Colombia to provide support to actions in Venezuela
• Control a part of the country during the next 72-120 hours
• Encourage a military rebellion inside the National Guard forces and other components
  

Those involved in these actions as detailed in the CIA memo are:

• The CIA Office in Venezuela - Office of Regional Affairs, and Officer Michael Steere
• US Embassy in Venezuela, Ambassador Patrick Duddy
• Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO) at the US Embassy in Caracas and Military Attache Richard Nazario

Venezuelan Political Parties:

• Comando Nacional de la Resistencia
• Accion Democratica
• Primero Justicia
• Bandera Roja
  

Media:

• Alberto Federico Ravell & Globovision
• Interamerican Press Society (IAPA) or SIP in Spanish
• International Press Agencies
  

Venezuelans:

• Pena Esclusa
• Guyon Cellis
• Dean of the Simon Bolivar University, Rudolph Benjamin Podolski
• Dean of the Andres Bello Catholic University, Ugalde
• Students: Yon Goicochea, Juan Mejias, Ronel Gaglio, Gabriel Gallo, Ricardo Sanchez
  

Operation Tenaza has the objective of encouraging an armed insurrection in Venezuela against the government of President Chavez that will justify an intervention of US forces, stationed on the military bases nearby in Curacao and Colombia. The Operation mentions two countries in code: as Blue and Green. These refer to Curacao and Colombia, where the US has operative, active and equipped bases that have been reinforced over the past year and a half in anticipation of a conflict with Venezuela.

The document confirms that psychological operations are the CIA's best and most effective weapon to date against Venezuela, and it will continue its efforts to influence international public opinion regarding President Chavez and the situation in the country.

Operation Tenaza is a very alarming plan that aims to destabilize Venezuela and overthrow (again) its legitimate and democratic (and very popularly support) president. The plan will fail, primarily because it has been discovered, but it must be denounced around the world as an unacceptable violation of Venezuela's sovereignty.

The original document in English will be available in the public sphere soon for viewing and authenticating purposes. And it also contains more information than has been revealed here.

For the full text in Spanish, see: Operación Tenaza: Informe confidencial de la CIA devela plan de saboteo al referéndum del 2 de diciembre

Global Research Articles by Eva Golinger

How can you help Mexican political prisoners

International campaign to free Adán Mejía López and stop the persecution of Militante and the CLEP-CEDEP
Free the political prisoners!


The Calderon government, desperate in the face of its complete lack of legitimacy and its intense fear of the increasing class polarisation, has intensified the repression and criminalisation of social struggles, murdering and imprisoning many of the millions of worker and youth who have dared to raise their voices against the misery and oppression so predominant in Mexico.

For years the working class has been squeezed to no end, all the social tensions generated as a consesquence of this opened the way to insurrectional struggles such as that which occured last year in Oaxaca and, on a national level, against the electoral fraud.

The pressure that the Mexican working class has been submitted to is not enough for Calderon, the economy is faltering together with the profits of the ruling class. The pensions of the public sector workers have already been attacked this year and the PAN government has called for the elimination of the remaining conquests of the workers in the Federal Labour Law (LFT) and for the privatisation of the oil industry, for example. However, the intentions of the bourgeoisie collide with the enormous mood of social discontent, which seriously threatens to provoke new and deeper social explosions as the government begins to implement new attacks against the workers. Against this background, for Calderon, and due to the weakness of his government, the repression becomes an option upon which the illegitimate president relies on alot. However, Calderon would be mistaken if he thinks that through repression he will be able to hold back the spirit of the people, who have recently demonstrated that they are no longer prepared to allow themselves to be attacked. In the context of increased repression, where the desires of the poor and exploited to transform their lives cannot be held back, Calderon has launched all sorts of attacks against various organsitions and social struggles throughout Mexico. There has been an escalation of repression against our Zapatista brothers in Chiapas, against the APPO, the miners, Atenco, the Cerezo brothers, and hundreds of others. Along with this offensive on the part of the state must be included the attacks which have taken place over the last few months that the regime has launched against the Marxist Tendency Militante and the Polytechnical Committee for Student Struggle-Student Committee in Defence of Public Education (CLEP-CEDEP_ Firstly, on the basis of false accusation, Calderon-Ulises Ruiz detained and imprisoned our comrade Adán Mejía López on July 17 in Oaxaca. Adán Mejía López, a comrade of the Marxist Tendency Militante, a member of the Mexican Electrician's Union and of the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca (APPO) now finds himself in prison in Ixcotel. His injust imprisonment is nothing other than the result of the being a determined fighter for the aspirations of the poorest people of Oaxaca and Mexico. Following the detention of comrade Adán, on August 7 nine comrades were detained after being savagely attacked by the police at a peaceful protest organised by the Non-Accepted Students Movement (MENA) in front of the General Directorate of the National Polytechnical Institute (IPN). Of these comrades, 8 were imprisoned in the North Detention Centre and some at the Juvenile Detention centre. Fortunately, an intense struggle in defence if these nine comrades, strongly supported by imported sections of the labour and social movements, resulted in the quick release on bail of these comrades. However, all of them still face legal charges, and the authorities of the IPN have shown their willingess to do anything they can to have these comrades re-arrested. The attacks have not stopped, a fact which we were reminded of this past Saturday, November 10, when judicial authorities issued 10 new arrest warrants against another layer of our comrades who participate in MENA. The state's offensive against Militante and the CLEP-CEDEP is part of the general tactic of repression of Calderon and his lackeys in the PRI and PAN against all of the social organisations and struggles of Mexico. This explains the escalation of repression against our Zapatista brothers in Chiapas, against the APPO, the miners, Atenco, etc. There are political prisoners from Atenco, the Zapatistas, the APPO and several hundreds more in the various prisons throughout the country, including the Cerezo brothers. The workers of the cities and the countryside, in Mexico and around the world, we give a united response to the stop the escalation of repression on the part of Calderon and struggle for the immediate freedome for all political prisoners in the country. Thus, the Marxist Tendency Militante and the International Marxist Tendency are calling for an international campaign for the immediate release of Adán Mejía López and all the political prisoners in Mexico, to demand the dropping of all legal charges against our Militante and CLEP-CEDEP comrades held in the North Detention Centre and Juvenile Detention Centre and to demand that the arrest warrants against our other comrades are dropped. Free Adán Mejía López and the political prisoners of Atenco, APPO, the Cerezo brothers, and the Zapatists immediately! Drop all charges and cancel all arrest warrants against comrades of Militante and CLEP-CEDEP! End all harrassment and persecution of social organisations and struggles! Against repression, mobilise! Please call one of the below Mexican embassies and specifically demand that charges be dropped against students in the Polytechnical Committee for Student Struggle-Student Committee in Defense of Public Education (CLEP-CEDEP), and that their freedom of speech and to organize be respected. Portland: (503) 274-1442 Washington DC: (202) 728 1600 San Francisco: (415) 392-5554 Las angeles: (213)351-68-25 Chicago: (312) 738 2383 Suggested script I am calling to urge the Consulate to take urgent action to drop the arrest warrents issued on November 10th against ten members of the Polytechnical Committee for Student Struggle - Student Committee in Defense of Public Education. and that their freedom of speech and right to organize be respected. I am also calling to demand the immediate release of Adan Mejia Lopez and the political prisoners of Atenco, APPO, the Cerezo brothers, and the Zapatists immediately! Protesting is not a crime!

homepage: http://www.militante.org

Analysis: Venezuela nixes dollars for oil

by Carmen Gentile
Miami (UPI) Nov 28, 2007
Venezuela is calling for oil to be sold in other currencies besides the U.S. dollar because of the greenback's declining value.

"The dollar has devalued and it is distorting the oil market because there is a financial crisis knocking on the U.S. door," Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said in an interview with Venezuelan state television Tuesday.

"The oil price is $100 a barrel. But what dollar are we talking about? It's a dollar that makes you laugh," he said.

The remarks by Ramirez follow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's recent remarks about the "fairness" of a barrel of oil being priced at $100 on the world market. Speaking at the OPEC Conference in Saudi Arabia earlier this month, Chavez told members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries that the cartel should no longer trade in U.S. dollars, saying that "with the fall of the dollar, the deviant U.S. imperialism will fall as soon as possible."

Chavez's remarks are not new; the Venezuelan president often publicly criticizes U.S. policy, though the United States is by far Venezuela's best customer.

His latest comments, however, come as Venezuelans prepare to vote in a referendum on numerous constitutional reforms that, if approved, would give him greater executive authority to use the country's oil revenue to fund his social agenda. Among the 69 "reforms" proposed is an end to presidential term limits.

Oil prices reaching $100 a barrel does not necessary guarantee a greater revenue stream for Venezuela's state-run energy firm PDVSA, note some analysts, as the country faces a potential economic slowdown.

Gross domestic product growth that reached 8.4 percent in 2007 could slow to 2.3 percent by 2010, according to the New York-based Latin Source think tank.

At the same time, inflation is forecast to go up from 22.8 percent in 2007 to 83.2 percent in 2010, said the group, a prediction Chavez could be mindful of while calling for world oil prices to remain high.

"A hard landing (for Venezuela) looms on the horizon," said Latin Source in a report released earlier this month. "It could be triggered both by external shocks caused by falling oil prices and by internal shocks caused by radical implementation of Chavez's agenda. Its likelihood increases as vulnerabilities mount."

The Venezuelan president's call for high prices could also be considered a stopgap measure for compensating -- in the short run -- for what some consider chronic shortcomings in oil production levels in recent years.

According to remarks by a high-ranking PDVSA official, Venezuela suffered from equipment shortages responsible for waning production levels.

PDVSA's independence could take even longer considering Venezuela's oil output is believed to have slipped by more than 250,000 barrels per day from a year ago, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. Production has reportedly decreased from 2.6 million bpd to 2.37 million bpd.

Venezuelan Opposition Protesters Shoot Chavez Supporter

November 28th 2007, by Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com

Gladys Yépez, mother of José Anibal Oliveros Yépez shot by opposition supporters. (VTV)

Caracas, November 28, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) - Neighbors, friends and family members of young worker and supporter of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, José Anibal Oliveros Yépez, who was murdered by a radical opposition group in the regional city of Valencia on Monday, have express profound rage and indignation at what occurred explaining that his body was spat on and kicked by his killers, "as if he were and animal."

Oliveres, 19 years old, was on his way to work driving a truck of state owned "socialist" housing company Petrocasa when he encountered opposition groups blocking the road in protest against proposed constitutional reforms. When he tried to convince them to let him pass he was shot several times and died before he could be rescued.

Radio YVKE Mundial reported that the opposition protesters came from Cuidad Alianza, a middle class suburb in Valencia and blocked a highway to impede workers from Petrocasa from passing to the poorer neighborhood of Araguita, where they were working to construct housing for the poor. However, the report noted many of the neighbors from Cuidad Alianza also rejected the violent behavior of some of the opposition groups.

A resident from Cuidad Alianza who did not want to be named told Radio YVKE Mundial that the opposition groups had blocked the road to Araguita from three o'clock in the morning and were patrolling the neighborhood "with guns in hand."

Alexander Borges, friend and workmate of Oliveros explained to VTV that they tried to rescue Oliveros, but were prevented by the protestors who threatened to kill them.

"There were four of us, trying to carry our friend to the community, but they surrounded us throwing bottles. I took the opportunity to move him [Oliveros] because they were going to hit him with a bottle in the face and I moved him so it did not hit him in the face. He had one bullet in the leg, a man from the local community was going to carry him, but in this moment they shot him twice in the back and this is when he fell to the ground."

"We pleaded with them for the life of our friend that was lying bloody on the ground, to please allow us the opportunity to pick him up and they responded that now they were coming for us, that they were coming for me," Borges added.

Borges explained that two other people came to help rescue Oliveros, but that the opposition supporters threw rocks and bottles at them screaming, "Come and pick up your dead, now we are coming for you."

Dixon Viloria, also a friend of Oliveros and a witness said that after they killed him, "they mal-treated him, kicked him, stripped off his clothes, hit him and screamed ‘pick up your dead chicken!' as if he was an animal."

Beltran Chavez, from Araguita said that neighbors from Cuidad Alianza had shot at workers from Petrocasa earlier when they tried to pass through to construction sites in Araguita. He said the same group of protesters had previously set alight to a truck from Petrocasa and physically and verbally attacked a group of women from Araguita.

"How can a group of people be better armed than the state and municipal police," he asked. He added that thanks to the municipal and state police the four people that participated in the act were captured."

National Assembly Deputy Francisco Ameliach and the Mayor of Guacara, José Manuel Flores, who visited the neighborhood to pay their respects to the Oliveros' family, reported that opposition groups in Ciudad Alianza that claim to represent "civil society" have marked the houses of Chavez supporters, or those they believe to be Chavez supporters, with red paint and "have said they are going to kill them."

Vice president Jorge Rodriguez confirmed that the Oliveros' killer had been identified and arrested and has confessed to the crime, reportedly saying that all "Chavistas" should be killed, as well as three other people also linked to his death. Rodrgiuez said that simultaneously coordinated opposition protests of small groups had blocked other highways with burning objects in Valencia and Maracay. In total 80 people were arrested.

Rodriguez has also asked the Venezuelan Episcopal Conference to explain what they know about a meeting held by the opposition in the Diocesan Insitute in Maracay where the violent protests are alleged to have been planned.

Rodriguez said he has witness testimony of people who were invited to the meeting in the Diocesan Institute to "pray for peace" however; when they arrived they found the meeting was planning the protest in Ciudad Alianza that resulted in the death of Oliveros.

Rodriguez said the Catholic hierarchy should remember the commandments not to lie and not to kill and said the Church should explain to the Venezuelan people why their buildings are being used to plan these types of protests.

Friends and family of Oliveros also condemned Venezuelan and international media reporting of his death, particularly opposition private TV channel Globovision, which they say tried to portray Oliveros as insane, and some international media that have tried to obscure the events leading to Oliveros death, some even claiming that Oliveros was an opposition supporter attacked by a "pro-Chavez mob."

Gladys Yépez, mother of Oliveros demanded justice for her only son and President Hugo Chavez has responded saying the murderer of Oliveros should face the "full weight of the law."

CIA Venezuela Destabilization Memo Surfaces

Counterattack as Fateful Referendum Looms

By JAMES PETRAS

On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the referendum this Sunday, December 2, 2007.

The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was addressed to the Director of Central Intelligence, Michael Hayden. The memo was entitled 'Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer' and updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym 'HUMINT' (Human Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government. The Embassy-CIA's polls concede that 57 per cent of the voters approved of the constitutional amendments proposed by Chavez but also predicted a 60 per cent abstention.

The US operatives emphasized their capacity to recruit former Chavez supporters among the social democrats (PODEMOS) and the former Minister of Defense Baduel, claiming to have reduced the 'yes' vote by 6 per cent from its original margin. Nevertheless the Embassy operatives concede that they have reached their ceiling, recognizing they cannot defeat the amendments via the electoral route.

The memo then recommends that Operation Pincer (OP) [Operación Tenaza] be operationalized. OP involves a two-pronged strategy of impeding the referendum, rejecting the outcome at the same time as calling for a 'no' vote. The run up to the referendum includes running phony polls, attacking electoral officials and running propaganda through the private media accusing the government of fraud and calling for a 'no' vote. Contradictions, the report emphasizes, are of no matter.

The CIA-Embassy reports internal division and recriminations among the opponents of the amendments including several defections from their 'umbrella group'. The key and most dangerous threats to democracy raised by the Embassy memo point to their success in mobilizing the private university students (backed by top administrators) to attack key government buildings including the Presidential Palace, Supreme Court and the National Electoral Council. The Embassy is especially full of praise for the ex-Maoist 'Red Flag' group for its violent street fighting activity. Ironically, small Trotskyist sects and their trade unionists join the ex-Maoists in opposing the constitutional amendments. The Embassy, while discarding their 'Marxist rhetoric', perceives their opposition as fitting in with their overall strategy.

The ultimate objective of 'Operation Pincer' is to seize a territorial or institutional base with the 'massive support' of the defeated electoral minority within three or four days (presumably after the elections though this is not clear. JP) backed by an uprising by oppositionist military officers principally in the National Guard. The Embassy operative concede that the military plotters have run into serous problems as key intelligence operatives were detected, stores of arms were decommissioned and several plotters are under tight surveillance.

Apart from the deep involvement of the US, the primary organization of the Venezuelan business elite (FEDECAMARAS), as well as all the major private television, radio and newspaper outlets have been engaged in a campaign of fear and intimidation campaign. Food producers, wholesale and retail distributors have created artificial shortages of basic food items and have provoked large scale capital flight to sow chaos in the hopes of reaping a 'no' vote.

President Chavez Counter-Attacks

In a speech to pro-Chavez, pro-amendment nationalist business-people (Entrepreneurs for Venezuela ­ EMPREVEN) Chavez warned the President of FEDECAMARAS that if he continues to threaten the government with a coup, he would nationalize all their business affiliates. With the exception of the Trotskyists and other sects, the vast majority of organized workers, peasants, small farmers, poor neighborhood councils, informal self-employed and public school students have mobilized and demonstrated in favor of the constitutional amendments.

The reason for the popular majority is found in a few of the key amendments: One article expedites land expropriation facilitating re-distribution to the landless and small producers. Chavez has already settled over 150,000 landless workers on 2 million acres of land. Another amendment provides universal social security coverage for the entire informal sector (street sellers, domestic workers, self-employed) amounting to 40 per cent of the labor force. Organized and unorganized workers' workweek will be reduced from 40 to 36 hours a week (Monday to Friday noon) with no reduction in pay. Open admission and universal free higher education will open greater educational opportunities for lower class students. Amendments will allow the government to by-pass current bureaucratic blockage of the socialization of strategic industries, thus creating greater employment and lower utility costs. Most important, an amendment will increase the power and budget of neighborhood councils to legislate and invest in their communities.

The electorate supporting the constitutional amendments is voting in favor of their socio-economic and class interests; the issue of extended re-election of the President is not high on their priorities: And that is the issue that the Right has focused on in calling Chavez a 'dictator' and the referendum a 'coup'.

The Opposition

With strong financial backing from the US Embassy ($8 million dollars in propaganda alone according to the Embassy memo) and the business elite and 'free time' by the right-wing media, the Right has organized a majority of the upper middle class students from the private universities, backed by the Catholic Church hierarchy, large swaths of the affluent middle class neighborhoods, entire sectors of the commercial, real estate and financial middle classes and apparently sectors of the military, especially officials in the National Guard. While the Right has control over the major private media, public television and radio back the constitutional reforms. While the Right has its followers among some generals and the National Guard, Chavez has the backing of the paratroops and legions of middle-rank officers and most other generals.

The outcome of the Referendum of December 2 is a major historical event first and foremost for Venezuela but also for the rest of the Americas. A positive vote (Vota 'Sí') will provide the legal framework for the democratization of the political system, the socialization of strategic economic sectors, empower the poor and provide the basis for a self-managed factory system. A negative vote (or a successful US-backed civil-military uprising) would reverse the most promising living experience of popular self-rule, of advanced social welfare and democratically based socialism. A reversal, especially a military dictated outcome, would lead to a blood bath, such as we have not seen since the days of the Indonesian Generals' Coup of 1966, which killed over a million workers and peasants or the Argentine Coup of 1976 in which over 30,000 Argentines were murdered by the US- backed Generals.

A decisive vote for 'Sí' will not end US military and political destabilization campaigns but it will certainly undermine and demoralize their collaborators. On December 2, 2007 the Venezuelans have a rendezvous with history.

James Petras, a former Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, owns a 50 year membership in the class struggle, is an adviser to the landless and jobless in brazil and argentina and is co-author of Globalization Unmasked (Zed). His new book with Henry Veltmeyer, Social Movements and the State: Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina, will be published in October 2005. He can be reached at: jpetras@binghamton.edu

Venezuela knows what it's doing

Critics of proposed reforms are arguing against peaceful, democratic change.

By Angelo Rivero Santos
November 28, 2007

In recent weeks, U.S. policymakers and pundits have warned that a set of constitutional reforms being considered in Venezuela are but a step toward dictatorship.

A little calm, and context, is in order. Since President Hugo Chavez's first election in 1998 and his most recent reelection in 2006, Venezuela has undergone a dramatic revolution in peace and democracy. The Venezuelan government aggressively works to expand political participation, create an equitable and sustainable economy and address long-standing social deficits.

The numbers indicate that the changes are working. The economy has entered its fourth year of consecutive growth, poverty has fallen from 55.1% of the country in 2003 to 30.4% in 2006, and Venezuelans are the second-most-likely population in the region to call their government "very democratic." Venezuela is slowly establishing the basis for a new model of democracy and development -- "socialism of the 21st century," as it has been termed -- one founded on grass-roots democratic participation, a social economy and equality in access to vital services such as healthcare and education.

To deepen those changes, Chavez in August proposed 33 reforms to the 1999 constitution aimed at helping to speed the redistribution of national resources to Venezuela's neediest; to decentralize political power and grant communities more say in federal affairs; and to outline the legal foundations of the country's new system. After the reforms were proposed, the National Assembly debated the reforms in three rounds, approving a final slate of 69 reforms in late October.

But unlike traditional political debates, the discussions of the reforms occurred throughout Venezuela and were open to massive public participation. In a 47-day period -- from Aug. 16 to Oct. 7 -- about 9,020 public events were held and 80,000 phone calls made to a special hotline, mechanisms through which the Venezuelan people were free to offer opinions and critiques. More than 10 million copies of the reforms were distributed to the public, and one poll found that more than 77% of the Venezuelan people read them. The reforms are set to be voted on in a national referendum Sunday -- leaving their fate in the hands of the Venezuelan people.



One reform would extend the presidential term to seven years and do away with term limits. Of course, the president would still have to face regular elections and the recall referendum, an innovative democratic mechanism that allows the Venezuelan people to cut short the term of any elected official. Another set of reforms would codify new forms of public property while restating rights to private ownership. Another reform would limit certain political liberties during national emergencies while maintaining key due-process rights, in keeping with international standards.



Critics tend to ignore many of the most progressive reforms. One would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or health. Another would lower the voting age to 16 -- following a similar move in Austria this year. Still other reforms would formalize the right to adequate housing and the right to free public education, create a social security fund for the self-employed, protect Afro-Venezuelan heritage and guarantee the full rights of prisoners.

Proposing that a constitution be reformed is consistent with democratic norms. And as societies change, so too should their laws and constitutions. As Thomas Jefferson once remarked, "No society can make a perpetual constitution. ... The earth belongs always to the living generation."

As with any proposal for change, debate and dissent are to be expected. But what critics have missed is that these reforms are democratic and have been widely discussed by the people. More important, it is the people who will decide whether the reforms succeed.

Venezuela is changing, and this change continues in peace and democracy. The national referendum is nothing to fear, and nothing to warn against.

Angelo Rivero Santos is the deputy chief of mission of the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

Venezuela Threatens to Expel US Official

CARACAS, Venezuela - Venezuela threatened Wednesday to expel a U.S. Embassy official for allegedly conspiring to defeat a referendum championed by President Hugo Chavez, accusing the diplomat of plotting to sway public opinion.

The allegation comes ahead of a fiercely contested referendum on reforms that would allow Chavez indefinite re-election and help him establish a socialist state in Venezuela. Sunday's vote has generated large pro- and anti-Chavez rallies and Chavez kept the rhetoric high on Wednesday by repeating his charge that Washington is plotting to kill him.

In Caracas, Foreign Minister Nicolas Maduro showed state television a document that he claimed was written by the unnamed embassy official and was to have been sent to the CIA as part of a plan to help ensure that Venezuelans vote against the proposed constitutional overhaul.

"It's a script from the CIA to try to generate a block of opinion among Venezuelans that would give a sure victory to the 'No' vote," said Maduro. "We will investigate and if it's that way, we'll remove this person from here as a persona non grata."

He did not provide more details of the alleged plot.

A spokesman for the U.S. embassy, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak on the matter, said he was unaware of the document.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Rob McInturff said officials there were looking into the reports.

Chavez, an ally of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, has had a friction-filled relationship with Washington. The Venezuelan leader accuses the U.S. of supporting a 2002 coup that ousted him from office for two days, while U.S. officials call Chavez threat to the region's stability.

In February 2006, Venezuela expelled naval attache John Correa for allegedly passing secret information from Venezuelan military officers to the Pentagon.

On Tuesday, Chavez accused the CNN news network of "inciting" an assassination attempt against him. On Wednesday, Chavez said Washington is also seeking to kill him - a claim he has made in the past.

"Before the world, I accuse the imperialist government of the United States of promoting my assassination," Chavez told supporters in the southwestern city of Merida. "If anything should happen to me, the president of the United States will be responsible for my death."

U.S. officials have in the past denied they are plotting to assassinate Chavez.

In Sunday's referendum, Venezuelans will vote on proposed changes to 69 amendments of the nation's 1999 constitution. If approved, the revisions would allow Chavez indefinite re-election, create forms of communal property and further his plans to establish socialism in Venezuela.

On Wednesday, hundreds of stone-throwing students clashed with police and the Venezuelan National Guard in a protest against the constitutional overhaul. Security forces responded with water cannons and tear gas.

At least 600 students from the private Metropolitan University took part in disturbances that lasted more than four hours.

"We're doing this because we're sick of Chavez, sick of his government, sick of the way he governs," said Roberto, who covered his face, leaving only his eyes visible. He gave only his first name because he feared reprisals from the security forces.

On Monday, a man was shot to death after he tried to cross a protest, near the city of Valencia. Chavez blamed violent elements within the opposition for the killing.

CNN regrets Chavez caption gaffe

The US news channel CNN says it regrets a production mistake which Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said could encourage attempts to assassinate him.

On Tuesday, CNN's Spanish service showed a caption reading "Who killed him?" over a report about Mr Chavez and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

The caption - which was quickly removed - came from another story about the death of an American football star.

Mr Chavez has urged Venezuelan prosecutors to consider legal action.

He showed footage of the incident repeatedly during a two-hour appearance on the Venezuelan state television channel.

In a statement, CNN said its presenter had immediately made clear on air that there had been a mistake.

The channel said it would also broadcast further on-air clarifications of the incident.

It is not the first time Mr Chavez has attacked CNN, which he has accused of being involved in a campaign by Washington to destabilise Venezuela.

CNN denies that its reporting is biased and says it has no links to the US government.

Tense referendum

Mr Chavez is campaigning for a referendum on Sunday on a series of constitutional reforms, which include a measure that would allow him to be re-elected indefinitely.

Opinion polls suggest it could be the closest contest Mr Chavez has faced since he became president in 1999.

In his television appearance, Mr Chavez warned of "destabilisation plans" and said that "a gang of fascists" must not stop "the march of history".

He said the security forces were ready and urged his supporters to turn out to vote in large numbers.

"We are going to win cleanly", Mr Chavez said.

University students are leading the opposition to the constitutional reform plans.

They accuse Mr Chavez of seeking to take away basic freedoms and trying to stay in power permanently.

Chávez calls on the people and armed forces to be alert

Faced with a possibility of a plan to create destabilization after the upcoming Dec. 2 referendum, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela called on the people and the armed forces to be on the alert, Prensa Latina reported.

In a speech in the western state of Zulia to inaugurate a development project, Chávez said it was necessary to be attentive to any perverse plan of the opposition given the probable victory of the “Yes” vote for constitutional reform.

The changes to 69 of the Constitution’s 350 articles that voters will consider propose the granting of constitutional authority to community power and establish new political/administrative concepts to reinforce popular participation.

The president warned that there are attempts to manipulate surveys in order to create confusion among the Venezuelan people. He said that there are also plans, in the face of a “Yes” victory, to claim fraud and to take to the streets and generate violence and destabilization in the country, and that is why the people, armed forces and organized communities must be on the alert and very attentive.

Chávez accused bishops of participating in a plan to try to scare the population with statements like that of Cardinal Jorge Urosa, who said that with socialist-leaning reforms, religious freedoms would be eliminated.

Brazil, Canada seek WTO probes of US farm subsidies

Brazil and Canada called on Tuesday for the World Trade Organization (WTO) to investigate U.S. farm subsidies, which they said break WTO rules.

The United States rejected both calls, arguing that it was more important for the three big farm exporters to cooperate on securing a new deal in the long-running Doha trade talks, WTO officials said.

Washington is under pressure in the Doha talks to cut its trade-distorting subsidies -- the same issue under discussion on Tuesday -- while seeking greater access for its farm and industrial exports through tariff cuts by rich and poor nations.

Under WTO rules, Brazil and Canada can now repeat their request for dispute panels at the next meeting of the WTO's dispute settlement body on December 17 and they will be established.

Countries that are the subject of a WTO dispute can object once to the establishment of a dispute panel, but cannot veto it the second time.

If all three countries agree, the two disputes could be consolidated and handled by a single panel.

Canada and Brazil said that U.S. farm subsidies had exceeded permitted levels in every year from 1999 to 2005, excluding 2003.

"Canada estimates that during these years the United States exceeded its WTO commitment levels by billions of dollars each year," Canada said in a statement to the WTO.

On November 15 Canada withdrew an earlier request for an investigation into U.S. farm support that challenged export-credit guarantees as well as subsidies.

The United States argued that many of the measures challenged by Brazil and Canada were no longer in force and there was nothing to be gained by an investigation.

The WTO discussed the issue after a crisis was averted in its dispute settlement mechanism earlier on Tuesday, when Taiwan withdrew objections to the appointment of a Chinese lawyer as a WTO appeal judge.

Is the “New Left” Simply More of the Same, or a New Political Force in Latin America?

• South American leftward shift here to stay?
• Latin Business Chronicle's malpracticing prescription
• Chávez is very different from Morales and Correa, though they all may face similar challenges.
• What does the Uribe-Chávez flap portend?

The rise of what some call the "New Left" in Latin America has become an increasingly hot topic over the last decade. But what does it really signify for the hemisphere? While some claim that these left-leaning nations reflect just an aberrant phase in the democratization process, others insist that this development is leading to the very embodiment of enhanced freedom, where citizens have the opportunity for their voice to be heard, an education as well as a job paying a living wage. The New Left movement seems to be taking a solid hold in the region: close to 60 percent of its population live under an elected leader who leans or is committed to the left of the political spectrum. While Venezuela's Hugo Chávez may be attracting the most media attention, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Ecuador's Rafael Correa are following close behind the ideological tenacity that they bring to governance and as a result, the region is witnessing transformative changes which seem to be more real than ephemeral.

In an article last October, the Latin Business Chronicle boldly argues that "To reverse Latin America's slide toward socialism, the United States must increase its presence through additional support for democratic, market-based institutions." Critics of this thesis would say that the problem with this prescription is that it is more a bromide than a call to arms in a righteous cause. The advice sketched out by that business-oriented publication is that conventional wisdom has it that private is better than public, that Enron and Parmalat put to shame the Army Corps of Engineers and the Surgeon-General, and that nations currently in the process of development most certainly should follow an orthodox, endemic and political path similar to that of the U.S. and the rest of the West. This advice in itself is similarly flawed due its narrow definition and erroneous concept of the region's contemporary context. In addition, the current debate, which the previous sentiment is only part of, has been founded on an all-too-narrow footing of controversial assumptions. These have led to a series of vacuous generalizations that fail to provide any additional clarity to a country that may be legitimately involved in current polemics regarding developing ideological splits, no matter where it finds itself on the spectrum.

Politics as Usual
Any relevant analysis of the "New Left" must take as a given that the characteristics of each country are specific if not unique. The mistake of taking such a high-visibility administration like that of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, and using it as a benchmark for like-minded governments in the region, is made far too often; this appellation commits a disservice if it is used to obscure the political gradations of policy which distinguish one country from another and the depth of those differences. It is important to counter this overly simplistic tendency to amalgamate countries that challenge one aspect or another of the bona fides behind Washington's regional policy but nothing else. All the more so when the rest of the hemisphere is aggressively reacting to Washington's failed neo-liberal economic medications, which have dominated Latin America during the Clinton-Bush decades, and have done it little service.

The Force that is Chávez
To some, Chávez's style of leadership bespeaks of authoritarianism, but to others it etches an old-fashioned brand of populism that for long has been the conventional diet of politics. In part, this may be because the Venezuela strongman has built his base on policies that are personalist rather than institutional. This is most discernable in his proposed constitutional reforms that will be the subject of a referendum next Sunday and which would put an end to all presidential term limits, as well as extend the presidential term from six to seven years and grant extended powers in the advent of a state of emergency, to name a few of the scores of other changes. On October 23, riots broke out in Caracas against these proposed constitutional changes, led in large part by student groups coming from Caracas' major educational institution, Central University, and other members of the middle-class opposition. The marchers believe that Chávez's reforms, which have been approved by the legislature and will be voted upon in the upcoming December 2 referendum, are testing the outer limits of the country's democratic system and must be stymied. Many of these same factions earlier had protested the revisions to the education system which critics claim would risk political indoctrinization, as well as the earlier non-extension of the license of the rabidly anti-Chávez private television station RCTV and the alleged politization of the armed forces.

Nevertheless, what many critics fail to address is that Hugo Chávez's concept of "21st Century Socialism" is not meant to resemble the traditional form of a state-apparatchik-driven bureaucracy where favoritism is the burning ember that provides the energy to the political process. Rather, it is meant to be a potent mixture of socialist economic with constitutionalist parliamentary politics. In Gregory Wilpert's Changing Venezuela by Taking Power, Chávez defends his political vision by claiming that: "There is no solution within capitalism, one must transcend capitalism. Nor is it about statism or state capitalism, which would be the same perversion of the Soviet Union, which was the cause of its fall. We must reclaim socialism as a thesis, as a project and a path, but a new socialism. Humanism, putting humans and not the machine ahead of everything, the human and not the state."

Debate over the worthiness of Chávez's vision could be threatened with obsolescence in light of recent events that could threaten his grand design; perhaps a more relevant current question might be whether the Venezuelan leader will continue to generate broad enough support within his country as well as abroad to sustain and then amplify his plans for his country's future, even if he is successful in nursing their principle elements for now. The increased tension from protests that plagued the streets of Caracas since the last days of October has cast some doubt on whether Chávez possesses the knack to work public relations in his favor. His weak point always has been more due to an unstable style than a lack of substance; he easily is the most innovative public figure operating in Latin America today, in addition to being the most rambunctious.

The latest Chávez-style eruption occurred in his recent split with President Uribe over Chávez's apparent violation of an agreement between the two over the Venezuela leader's pledge that he would not directly contact the command structure of the Colombian army. This break-off could have an enormous ramification for US-Latin America relations if Washington decides to meddle in troubled waters. Clearly Uribe overreacted to Chávez's action, and may have been spoiling for a fight, perhaps as an aspect of his strategy to influence the passage of the proposed FTA by the US Congress—an issue that most likely will be manipulated to achieve a trade matter which has been in trouble up to now. Among the issues which COHA is researching right now regards the grief that the break-off of efforts to achieve a release of the hostages and internal pressures in Colombia for a resumption of Chávez's humanitarian efforts there.

Chávez occupies an immensely important leadership role for Latin America's left, but it is entirely unrealistic to expect any kindred nation to follow in his exact footsteps. His critics maintain that he is a missile whose guidance system sometimes fails with catastrophic consequences; while often he can be counted on to win, he doesn't always know what to do with his victory. While this might be a fairer charge to bring against Lula, who has governed as a centrist after running as a man of the Left, it certainly cannot be claimed as accurately describing the Venezuelan leader. Chávez led the historic outbreak in anger over the harsh structural adjustment policies which were imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on such recipients as Venezuela and Argentina. Strings attached to loans emanating from these institutions allowed Chávez, with growing public support behind him, to assume the role of protector of the common Latin American and to arm him with the mission to lift his sword against the towering international lending bullies. As a result, the Venezuelan leader was able to generate an intense personal following while at the same time, the middle class opposition, some of whom originally had supported him, rapidly changed to despising his personage.

Bolivia's Indigenous Champion
The president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, has been bandwagoning on Chávez's "Leftist" train, vocalizing contempt for U.S. policies towards Latin America, while speaking out against Washington's outrageous treatment of the Cuban Five and regularly siding with Caracas when it came to condemning U.S. economic policies and its "imperialism." On October 30, Prensa Latina highlighted a Morales trip to Italy and reiterated his words that Bolivia faces two types of enemies, "the internal ones represented by oligarchic families, and the external one, namely the U.S. imperialism." However, Morales' trademark position is his passionate defense of indigenous rights, something distinct in focus from Chávez's ideological predilections and not historically frequently found high up in the agendas of Latin American leaders.

Like Chávez in Venezuela, as well as Rafael Correa in Ecuador, Morales has been spearheading an effort to fashion a new constitution for his country. This document would guarantee indigenous representation in congress as well as recognize the right to communal property. However, since the Constitutional Assembly began working on the new constitution in August of 2006, it has ended up at a dangerous standstill. The process has been bogged down by the battle between the nation's commercial and political center of La Paz and the colonial city of Sucre, as to which of these urban centers would be the country's capital (see "Capital Wars" by COHA Research Associate Cassidy Rush). Amid the bitter racial overtone between the largely indigenous-populated western highlands and the more Europeanized flatlands surrounding Santa Cruz, this struggle was more than symbolic. Fortunately for Morales, he just managed to finally get the Assembly seated after months of delay.

As these roadblocks illustrate, the current state of affairs in Bolivia is too divided to allow for the same type of evolution that Venezuela and even Ecuador have been attempting. This is where the similarities between Chávez and Morales cease. Whereas Chávez has created a movement around his persona, Morales saw an existing social movement and made it his cause. Thus, the confrontation in Bolivia is less about Morales and more about the structure of the social movement he is trying to mount. His status of peasant, farmer, union leader and indigenous is what helped carry him to the presidency, and not necessarily any charisma or high soaring political rhetoric.

Another Constituent Assembly
While Hugo Chávez in Venezuela may have initiated this generation's leftward canter in Latin America, with Evo Morales closely following, Rafael Correa of Ecuador is the most recent Latin American president to unleash reforms, that also are worthy of being branded with the "new left" emblem. Through a series of highly publicized moves, Correa is distancing Ecuador from Washington, without altogether breaking ties. Upon being elected president, he chose Chávez's Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) over continuing Free Trade talks with the U.S., and also has firmly maintained that he will not renew an agreement that allows U.S. forces to continue to use the controversial Manta airbase for its anti-drug efforts, after the lease has run out in several years. But perhaps the most contentious of all of Correa's actions as president has been his determination for the Constituent Assembly, which was created as a result of his referendum victory to draft another new constitution—the 19th in Ecuador's 180 years of existence.

In April, the referendum on the creation of the Constituent Assembly passed and on September 30th, the country elected members to that body. Correa's PAIS Party won 80 of the 130 seats, giving it an outright majority. Many speculated that this favorable tally would translate into an easy road for Correa, since he would be largely spared the insuperable political roadblocks that Morales was facing in Bolivia. However, this is only where the battle began. Correa's plans for the dissolution of Congress have met unexpectedly harsh opposition from many of its members. As Correa continues to call for resignations of certain legislators, the Ecuadorian congress continues to scramble for outside support. In late October, indigenous groups marched on the capital demanding the recall of congress, citing that the body was a hotbed of corruption, and a pawn of foreign corporations.

The Constituent Assembly belatedly has begun the vexatious process of drafting a new constitution; following its completion, it will be the subject of another referendum. However, according to a poll by Cedatos/Gallup International, the general public's awareness of the plans for the new constitution is hardly profound. Only 34 percent of the respondents actually knew what the ultimate goal of the Assembly was supposed to be, as was broached in the April referendum: 66 percent thought that it would do such things as "reform laws," "end corruption," and "lower prices." These statistics do not provide the international community much confidence in the seriousness or the effectiveness of the process. So is this a case of apathy on the part of average Ecuadorians, or is it a matter of a hidden agenda on the part of the government? This is where many critics of the leftward shift begin to be worried, as they fear that the line between this new movement and a quick transformation into an authoritarian regime or dictatorship could be all too easy to cross. It is not that Chavez, Morales, or Correa have exhibited even the smallest dollop of preference for dictatorial rule over a thriving democracy, but that the dynamics of confrontation inadvertently produce such visceral consequences. Unfortunately, despite all of the oratory to the contrary, Correa, to his great frustration, has not been able to close the gap between the actual steps being taken by the government and its future intentions and the public's awareness of them.

Leave it to Evolution?
Blindly lumping Correa and Morales in with Chavez could wrack up heavy costs in terms of accuracy and sensitivity to nuances. It may also be a mistake to seek congruency with the country's various factions when great importance lies in the differences that deserve to be acknowledged and ventilated. While other Latin American leaders recognize that Hugo Chavez is extraordinarily open to generously sharing his nation's wealth by aiding his less well-endowed neighbors, through his petrol-dollar diplomacy, not all of them are entirely enthusiastically behind these efforts. Unlike Chavez, both other presidents have opted to remain in the Andean Community of Nations (CAN) when Venezuela left in 2006, in favor of signing onto Mercosur. At the time, the Venezuelan leader announced that CAN was dead as a result of Peru and Colombia's pending Free Trade Agreements with the U.S. Now the tide has somewhat shifted, however, as Correa and Morales continue to resist entering into FTA's with the U.S. and are fighting to keep CAN alive and perhaps link it with Mercosur. By aligning with an administration with the resources that are available to someone like Chavez, Morales and Correa are able to cash in on the implicit rewards that can follow from such a relationship not just of convenience, but also of solidarity, while still being able to maintain their independence and keep their own unique goals in sight, is no small matter.

The unusually dour fate of leftist movements in Latin America rarely has given optimists much grounds for hope over their longevity. Yet it can be argued that there may never have been a time where socialism's modest prospects are so bright as they are in contemporary Latin America. This could be an important juncture in the region's history, and whether you would rather term it "populist," "leftist," "New Deal," or socialist, it is undeniable that the "new left" movement in Latin America is presently a force majeure, at least for the near future. Previous U.S. policies have done little to alleviate the region's griefs, and quite often have accelerated them.

The populist precursors to the presidencies of Chávez, Morales, and Correa, like Maurice Bishop of Grenada, Salvador Allende of Chile, and Michale Manley of Jamaica, in addition to Getúlio Vargas of Brazil, Lázaro Cárdenas of Mexico, and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, all had their differences at the time over how to unite around the common goal of affirming their nation's independence while, ultimately, encouraging further genuine development. Whatever insights one may hold regarding where Latin America is now headed, and whatever the personal demurrers one may hold, it does not appear to be merely more of the same.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Director Larry Birns and Research Associate Montana James

Some Thoughts on the Calexico/Mexicali No Borders Camp

by just another person from san diego
Monday Nov 26th, 2007 1:22 AM

***///// We danced in the dusty dirt, to MIA singing along "All I wanna do is BANG BANG BANG" under the border patrol's floodlights, right at the tip of the barrels of their pepper ball guns, with all of our queer love across borders we kissed over and through their fences, we painted on the barriers, we raised antennas that reached across the lines on the maps, we marched right up to their lines with our bikes as barriers and watched them back off in fear... ////////****

I don't want to make this very long, but I feel like I want to publicly offer some self-critique about the No Borders Camp in Calexico/Mexicali, which I helped to organize for the first year of the organizing process, but haven't been so close to in the last 6 months. I think that this was a large, visible organizing project in the US and Mexico and it is important to be able to engage in self-critique in order to understand what our movements are doing and how we can improve them. I also did not attend the entire camp, but only 3 days of it, so my comments are based on the time I was there and the actions I participated in.

There were a lot of good things about the No Borders Camp, as well as a lot of things that could've been done better. On the good front, the organizers successfully setup a large 5 day camp on both sides of the US/Mexico border, despite a massive climate of fear and repression and despite the very real and constant threat of state violence that is such a major feature of the borderlands. This is no small feat, especially given the hysteria around immigration in the United States. The camp was organized, mostly openly, with the message of No Borders, in direct confrontation with the massive Homeland Security monster in the US and the climate of severe repression of anarchist organizing in Mexico. Many people thought it couldn't be done. Surely, many people didn't come because they thought we wouldn't be physically able to take and hold the space of the camp right up against the fence.

In addition, the camp consisted of hundreds of people. I heard estimates up to 400, but I would estimate that the first day was around 100 people and the following days were probably up to 200, possibly 250 people on the US side and over 50 people on the Mexicali side. Again, I wasn't present for all the days of the camp, I'm only sharing my personal experience about the 3 days I was present. Of these people present, there were people from many countries around the world, from the UK, Australia, Canada, from all over the US, from many regions of Mexico, from Spain and surely many more places. Again, this represents a successful attempt to bring together a widely dispersed, decentralized network of No Borders activists interested in direct action. Further, the camp successfully engaged in most of the scheduled activities: the detention center protest, the march along the wall, protests at the port of entry and protests on both sides of the fence in downtown Calexico and Mexicali.

Now onto my main critiques of the camp. Probably the biggest problem, in my view, was the lack of local organizing that went into the camp. I am totally guilty of this myself, as I did some of the traveling and promoting the camp in faraway places. I feel like the biggest problem with the camp was the choice to prioritize going far away to mobilize people far away to come to a far away place instead of mobilizing people locally and building a general uprising. The choice of mobilization over uprising seems to be the problem here. At the camp, there were only a handful of attendees from San Diego who were not directly involved in the organizing, around 10 or in the tens. Even worse, I never met anyone from Calexico at the camp or heard of them being there, but apparently there were a few people from the city. There was one speaker at a rally from a union in Calexico, but I never saw him at the actual camp. This was surely better on the Mexicali side, as many of the organizers of that side of the camp live in Mexicali and the location was chosen largely in response to their request for follow up for a previous action. Still, I think that the camp could've been much larger in size if more focus was put on asking people to drive 2 hours instead of to fly in from florida. In addition, many local organizers expressed their feelings of not wanting to work on the camp because it was in a far away city and they wanted to organize locally. In retrospect, I agree totally. How much better off would the struggle against borders in San Diego and Tijuana be if the organizers had not spent their time driving and flying to far away places like the US Social Forum or the Zapatista encuentros? How much money could've been saved and put into local campaigns? How much better would the momentum have been if instead of going far away and convincing people that big things are happening, had we actually stayed here and made big things happen?

People have said to me that this debate about local vs. international organizing is "an old debate" or "a conversation we've been having since seattle". If that is the case, maybe thats because we keep making the same mistakes. Still, I agree that we can move the debate forward by not trying to choose local versus non-local. What is local? Your block? Your city? An issue in your city that is also in a city two hours away? Yet how can we bridge local organizing with international networking so that they both strengthen each other? How can local organizers help to support things like accountability and context that people coming to a 5 day camp don't have when they leave? How can large international networking projects work together with local community oriented projects like Free Skools, Mutual Aid projects and other forms of long term infrastructure?

An old roommate of mine, a few years ago, helped to organize the Direct Action Network in Seattle. For the No Borders Camp, there was a fair amount of talk about the WTO in Seattle as an inspiration. This old friend of mine told me back then that most of the 50,000 people on the streets at the WTO were from Seattle, which makes sense. There just aren't very many people that have the privilege to leave their jobs and fly to a mobilization. So, I think that the camp could've been much more successful if more effort was put into local organizing. Surely people in San Diego knew it was happening, as lots of fundraisers were thrown, but there could've been a lot more Direct Action trainings, there could've been a lot more collaboration with other local organizations.

Another main problem, in my view, was not working with local People of Color groups in the US. I think that the organizers, including myself at the time, made a major mistake by not involving local groups like Colectivo Zapatista in the process way earlier, like when we were deciding to do a camp or not. If we're trying to get a lot of people to engage in direct action against migration controls, okay, but then to make the decision about the tactic of having a camp is a big step from there. So, we committed the classic mistake of deciding as a group of mostly white people what to do, starting the project and then asking the people of color later "do you want to join our thing or not?" Predictably, the answer was that they had a number of critiques and so ultimately we did not work with them at all. I think, in retrospect, that a much better process would have been to work with them from the beginning and to have the flexibility to change our plans based on their critiques. Instead, we were well along the planning process by the time we invited them and decided that we couldn't make the changes they wanted. Clearly there were many groups in Mexico involved with organizing the camp, but the San Diego organizers, I feel, made choices that led them to not work with the organizations made up of migrant people in San Diego.

I'm trying not to make this too long, but I've thought a lot about this and talked to a lot of people about it. After such a long time organizing it, its hard not to want to figure out what we did wrong so that we don't do it again.

There were other factors that led to the organizing of the camp being done by a relatively small group of people, instead of being a big broad community process. One factor that led to less of my involvement was "consensus through exhaustion". Being in two graduate programs, I didn't have as much time to put into the organizing as other people, and so I felt basically like I wasn't welcome. At some point, the decision was made that meetings would be 4 hours long, every other week and that no notes would be sent out from the meetings. since I didn't have the time or the inclination to sit in 4 hour meetings, I didn't have much of a say in the process. In addition, the meetings were spread out over lots of locations, so they often involved weekend trips to Arizona or Calexico, another thing I can't do while I'm in grad school full time. This of course was added to by the personal and political disagreements that build up over long organizing projects, but isn't it always easier to work with people far away than to work out the emotional and communication issues with the people you see everyday? Again, I'm at fault as much as other organizers in all of this...

This led to another problem, which was that when the time came to take the camp, only a small group of people really knew where we were going. Someone in the march said "I feel like a lemming." Someone posted on the forum that they wanted to come but came to calexico (a very small town) and couldn't find us! This is not decentralized organizing. This is not transparency. It may have been what allowed us to setup camp, but I'm not so sure, since the Border Parol was there before us. Somehow the decision was made to not have open spokescouncil meetings where affinity groups would present proposals to the larger gathering, so many of us didn't actually know the plan. I don't think this makes us more secure, but a lot less secure, as it means that on that day, the forces of order would've had to arrested a lot fewer people i order to stop us. The main reason we have decentralize organizing that is transparent an open, why we have camp logistics separate from direct action plans is so that a few people cannot be targeted, but also to get valuable input and feedback on the plan, to have more people feel empowered and feel a sense of ownership and because its harder to stop a group where every single person knows the plan. I think the choice of security over accessibility was another reason that more people did not come to the camp and it made me feel seriously disempowered and disconnected from the organizing process. I can only imagine how people from other cities felt! Apparently there was a meeting the night before the taking of the camp, but it wasn't publicly announced. There were also camp wide meetings at the camp where decisions about the camp were made.

Still, I stayed. We did our small march around the detention center, shook the fence hard, made some noise. I'm hopeful that the many, many detainees heard us or at least knew of our presence, as the response from ICE was obvious fear and standing watching our every move. If we offered the detainees some sense of hope or some sense of solidarity, it was totally worth it.

I stayed an extra day thanks to the Queer Youth Organizing Project. They were amazing in all their queer beauty and strength, with amazing costumes and signs making links between queers and the struggle against immigration. I didn't feel very interested in the macho dynamic of fighting with the border patrol for our chunk of land, but I did feel strongly about spreading the message of love across la frontera with the people of QYOP and the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army. I also stayed to give a workshop, but most of the workshops were canceled because of the endless camp meetings, which are always a part of No Borders Camps, apparently.

I offer this bit of thought to all the organizers, attendees and everyone watching this process in the hope that we can improve our tactics and strategies and be more effective. Hopefully, it will spur some more critical dialog about this action and future actions. Hopefully its not the same thing you've heard a hundred times from other mobilizations. Maybe it is, but it is my description of my experience. Hopefully we can all take some time for reflection and critique and careful weighing of priorities in our organizing projects before moving on to the next one. Hopefully there will be a lot of follow up work done to help free Juan Ruiz, the person who was imprisoned on the last day following the vicious border patrol attack. Considering the fact that he's possibly facing deportation, it seems like a major issue for people concerned with organizing the camp to focus on.

One more note on that attack. I wasn't there, but I think that it was predictable that after a week of watching us in all our joyous rebellion, the forces of order would wait until we were outnumbered and then attack. I don't know how to prevent it, but I think the legal team and media team are doing an amazing job of working on all the arrestees' cases. A day or so after the attack, a google news search for "calexico border patrol protest" turned up 250 articles in print, tv and radio all over the country and around the world about the No Borders Camp, describing the Border Patrol's violent response to drummers and a cross border kissing booth.

Hopefully this small attempt in the centuries old struggle against borders, colonialism and enclosure will help shift things towards liberation. Hopefully.

The Rightwing Counter Attack, The Final Battle in Bolivia

By ROGER BURBACH

Evo Morales, the first Indian president of Bolivia, is forcing a showdown with the oligarchy and the right wing political parties that have stymied efforts to draft a new constitution to transform the nation. He declares, "Dead or alive I will have a new constitution for the country by December 14," the mandated date for the specially elected Constituent Assembly to present the constitution.

Vice-President Alvaro Garcia Linares states, "Either we now consolidate the new statewith the new dominant forces behind us, or we will move backwards and the old forces will again predominate." A leading trade union leader, Edgar Patana, put it bluntly: "The final battle has begun, and the people are prepared for it."

For over a year the oligarchy centered in the eastern city of Santa Cruz has conspired to frustrate the efforts of the Constituent Assembly in which the governing party, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS), and its allies hold 60 percent of the seats. First the right wing parties in the Assembly, led by Podemos, insisted that a two-thirds vote was needed even for committees to approve the different sections of the new constitution.

When the opposition was overruled on this point, the oligarchy then won allies in the city of Sucre, where the Constituent Assembly is being held, by asserting that the executive and congressional branches of government should be moved from La Paz to Sucre, which used to be the center of government until the late nineteenth century. This was also a racial strategy as La Paz and its sister city El Alto are at the heart of the country's majority Indian population that support Morales and mobilized in 2003 to topple an oligarchic president in La Paz who murdered Indian demonstrators in the streets.

In Sucre in recent months right wing militants have menaced and assaulted delegates of MAS, including Silvia Lazarte, the Assembly's indigenous women president. The Assembly has been effectively prevented from functioning since August 15.

Then in a move to more equitably redistribute the country growing oil and gas revenues, Morales in mid-October declared that a retirement pension equal to the minimum wage would be extended to all Bolivians that would come directly out of a special hydrocarbon fund. Morales simultaneously cut the payments from the fund that go to municipal governments like Santa Cruz with no congressional oversight. This caused an uproar in the Media Luna (Half Moon) region, comprised of the department of Santa Cruz and allied departments, with many of the business interests of the country threatening to create shortages and sew economic chaos by withholding their produce from the market.

Three hundred peasants, who came to Sucre last week to protect the Assembly members in its efforts to reconvene, were violently expelled from their sleeping quarters at the Pedagogical Institute by right wing students and Lazarte was prevented from convening the Assembly. Then Morales moved the Assembly meeting site to an old castle on the outskirts of Sucre that also serves as a military school and barracks. The head of the armed forces, General Wilfredo Vargas, backed the meeting of the Assembly at the castle, saying "it has to meet to continue to modernize the state in all its features."

Then Vargas in a swipe at one of the regional political leaders allied with the Media Luna who claimed that Cuban and Venezuelan military units where in the country, declared: "No information exists of such units. And if it were the case, they are military units of the State and as part of the State they represent the Bolivian people."

The Bush administration is also jumping into the fray. Earlier this year Morales denounced that US backed agencies and non- governmental organizations that are providing direct support to right-wing political parties and allied institutions, ordering that all such funding would now be channeled directly through the government. Then at the recent Ibero-American Summit in Santiago Chile, Morales declared that "while we are trying to change Boliviasmall groups of the oligarchy are conspiring in alliance with the representative of the government of the United States," referring to the US ambassador to Bolivia, Philip Goldberg. To support his claims a photo was shown of Goldberg in Santa Cruz with a leading right wing business magnet and a well known Colombian narco-trafficker, who had been detained by the local police.

On November 15, the US State Department spokesperson, Sean McCormick, responded by demanding that Morales stop launching "false" and "unfounded" allegations of conspiracy by the ambassador. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the Bolivian ambassador in Washington to deliver the same tough message.

The delegates of the right wing parties led by Podemos boycotted the meetings at the castle, declaring that the Assembly is "illegal." On Friday 139 of the 255 Assembly members met and approved the broad outlines of a new constitution to carry out the reforms championed by Morales and the country's social movements. The next step is for the Assembly to adopt the specific clauses and content of the constitution.

But before that process could begin, the opposition in Sucre, led mainly by students and young people, violently took over all the major public buildings using dynamite and Molotov coctails, demanding the resignation of "the shitty Indian Morales." Parts of the city were in flames as the members of the Assembly abandoned the castle on Saturday, and by Sunday rioting mobs controlled Sucre, forcing the police to retreat to the mining town of Potosi, two hours away. Three people, including one policemen, are dead, with hundreds injured. The right wing and the business organizations in Santa Cruz and allied departments are threatening to declare autonomy and even talking of cession.

"We are at a national impasse" says Manuel Urisote, a political analyst and director of the Land Foundation, an independent research center in La Paz. "The right wing led by the Santa Cruz oligarchy is in open rebellion, but Morales, the Movement Towards Socialism and the popular movements will not back down. The military is supporting the president. As a national institution it intends to maintain the territorial integrity of Bolivia and it will not accept decrees of cession by Santa Cruz."

Roger Burbach is director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA) and a Visiting Scholar at the Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley. He is co-author with Jim Tarbell of "Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush and the Hubris of Empire," His latest book is: "The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice."

Venezuela: 80 people detained and one dead

President Jorge Rodriguez , eighty people were detained during political protests at Carabobo and Aragua states, central Venezuela, this morning. They were protesting against the proposed constitutional reform. Sadly, one person died during the events: José Aníbal Oliveros was shot dead as he tried to surpass the blockage made by protestors. 19-year-old Oliveros was on his way to work early in the morning. Venezuela will hold a Referendum on constitutional reform on 2 December 2007.

Spinning Chávez

Hugh O'Shaughnessy argues the West's media and politicians will continue to try to undermine Hugo Chávez - despite the successes of his Bolivarian revolution

On Sunday 2 December 16 million Venezuelans vote in a referendum: all the signs are that they will approve constitutional reforms proposed by President Hugo Chávez.

Popular as ever for having put a big dent in the shocking gap between rich and poor in an oil-rich country, he wants a chance to bury 19th century Leninist shibboleths, strengthen already rumbustious local democracy and stand for election again.

It is very likely that the electors will give Chávez what he wants: it is certain that spinners in Washington, London and elsewhere will do their best to pull the process to pieces.

The spinners blench at the idea that US nationalism could be challenged by nationalism of some South American. Nor can they abide the feeling that Chávez’s star is waxing, despite his injudicious outbursts.

At the same time the feeling that the US star is waning - consequent on a floundering Wall Street and a foundering dollar, George Bush’s military defeats in the Third World, Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and a global kidnapping scheme – cannot be contemplated.

Now those who have fawned on Saudi Arabian kings, indulged the Israelis’ atom bomb and their criminal mistreatment of Palestinians, and quietly backed every Latin American dictator from Somoza and Pinochet to the Argentine and Brazilian generals will attempt to portray the Venezuelan leader as anti-democratic.

They will also try to bury the European Commission’s high praise for last year’s presidential elections in Venezuela - "the high turnout, and peaceful atmosphere in which they were held, together with the acceptance of results by all those involved".

Chávez won that poll having in 2002 had to fight his way out of a brief coup by a dim but authoritarian businessman who was lustily cheered on by Bush and the then minister Dr Denis MacShane on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government.

The stage is set for the undermining of Chávez. On 19 November BBC2’s This World screened 'The Trillion Dollar Revolutionary', programme which would never have been permitted about, say, Begin or Olmert.

Its combination of culpable ignorance and sneering superciliousness produced what must be the worst “documentary” of the decade.

With slightly more sophistication, Chatham House four days earlier had staged a conference on fighting social inequality in Latin America aided by the Foreign Office and DIFID and funded by the Washington-based Inter-American Development Bank.

Toe-curlingly, it was inaugurated by Shaheed Malik, a junior minister at DIFID, who contented himself with sad little jokes about Lancashire and Yorkshire but, to the relief of all, soon rushed off.

Despite the fact that Chávez has distinguished himself in the fight for a fairer society the day included no speakers from Venezuela and attempted to avoid any reference to that country. It refused to accept the words last month of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America which commented: "Thanks to rapid GDP growth and the ongoing implementation of broad social programmes, in 2006 alone the poverty rate was lowered from 37.1% to 30.2% and the indigence [extreme poverty] rate from 15.9% to 9.9%." Venezuela was, the UN said, well on the way to reaching its first Millennium Development Goal.

Meanwhile at the top end The Economist, which has for long made money out of laughing at poor people, forms a plangent Greek chorus who forlornly hope that wicked Venezuela’s oil, the country’s prop, will run out or the price collapse. But with Venezuela’s growing reserves the magazine’s writers might as well dream Osama bin Laden will become the next editor of Vogue.

With Chávez gaining strength, a spinner’s life in Britain is not a happy one.

Morales Leads March in Bolivia

Bolivian President Evo Morales joined Monday the group of farmers who are marching for several days in support of social measures and the State's Political Constitution.

The statesman's unexpected appearance at daybreak today produced a whoop of joy and support from the almost 1,500 demonstrators, who have toured hundreds of kilometers from different departments of the country to the government headquarter.

Morales leads the demonstration, along with union and indigenous leaders, who reject the Senate's continuous obstacles to several beneficial projects to the country, like the universal ó Dignity ó pension for elders.

The measure establishes the monthly payment of 200 bolivianos ($25) to people older than 60 years old, but the Senate approved it with changes in financing sources.

Chavez to Freeze Relations With Colombia

President Hugo Chavez said Sunday he is putting relations with Colombia "in the freezer" after its president ended the Venezuelan leader's role mediating with leftist rebels in the neighboring country.

Chavez said economic relations will be hurt, blaming actions by Colombia's U.S.-allied President Alvaro Uribe that he said were "a spit in the face."

"I declare before the world that I'm putting relations with Colombia in the freezer because I've completely lost confidence with everyone in the Colombian government," Chavez said during a televised speech.

Addressing Cabinet ministers and military officials, Chavez said: "Everyone should be alert in relation to Colombia — economic relations — the businesses Colombians have here and the businesses we have there. Commercial relations, all of that is going to be harmed. It's lamentable."

Chavez was responding to Uribe's decision to cancel his mediation with Colombian rebels, preliminary talks aimed at a prisoner swap that would free rebel-held hostages, including three Americans. Uribe's spokesman said Chavez had defied the Colombian president by directly contacting his army chief to discuss the issue.

The Venezuelan leader said a statement issued by Uribe's government giving its reasons for ending his mediation was "filled with lies."

"I really, truly believe that the Colombian government doesn't want peace," Chavez said.

Chavez said he was particularly irked that Uribe had his officials issue statements instead of contacting the Venezuelan leader directly.

"Why don't do you show your face?" Chavez said. "President Uribe is lying ... in a shameless, horrible, ugly way. I think Colombia deserves another president, it deserves a better president."

Chavez in August joined Colombian lawmakers in a new push to free hostages held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, better known as FARC. Prisoners include three U.S. military contractors and Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Colombian seized in 2002 while campaigning for Colombia's presidency.

The two South American countries are major trading partners, and the spat with Colombia comes amid another dispute with Spain that could affect Spanish businesses with major investments in Venezuela. Chavez has demanded Spanish King Juan Carlos apologize for telling him to shut up publicly during a recent summit in Chile.

Chavez said the situation with Colombia is similar.

"It's like the case of Spain: Until the king of Spain apologizes, I'm freezing relations with Spain," he said.

Chavez and Uribe are polar opposites politically.

Since taking office in 2002, the conservative Uribe has fought to crush Colombia's peasant-based rebel army with $4 billion in U.S. military aid.

The socialist Chavez has meanwhile railed against U.S. involvement in the region and called for Uribe to negotiate peace with Colombian guerrillas.

Premeditated Merger: North American Union 'a couple years away'

Bilderberg author who 1st exposed plot in 1996 sees EU replication as imminent

Global Research, November 22, 2007

WASHINGTON – The next giant step toward world government will be integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico in European Union-style merger in the next few years, says the author of a best-selling book on the power of shadowy international organizations promoting the move. "I would say [it's just] a couple of years away," reports Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group." Estulin, a Canadian now living in Europe, says the original plans for a North American Union involved the U.S. and Canada as the prime participants. It was motivated primarily by the desire to harvest Canada's abundant natural resources. In his new book, Estulin reveals the first efforts in this plan date back to 1996 when the elite Bilderberg Group first discussed plans for the dismantlement of Canada as an independent nation and proposed its merger – minus Quebec – with the United States into a Greater North America. "Actually, the North American Union, or rather a Canada-U.S. merger, was initially discussed shortly after the Reagan-Bush candidacy won the White House," he says in an interview with WND. "Upon taking over the reins of the country, George Bush and Ronald Reagan called in the presidents of the key trans-national companies and asked them for the real picture. The money people told them that if the United States were a corporation it would have to be shut down immediately. It was bankrupt." The solution proposed then, according to Estulin, was merger between the U.S. and Canada. "Canada is virgin country with a multitude of natural resources, water, mines, oil, gas, etc.," he explains. "They decided that it was going to take 14 or 15 years to put the whole project together. In the interval, the economies, social programs and laws of the two countries would be quietly harmonized as much as possible." Back then, part of that harmonization plan involved the separation of Quebec as an independent state, he says. "Actually, when all is said and done, it all comes down to money," Estulin says. "Money makes its own rules. If your goal is to make the most money possible using Canada's natural resources, what would you ask for? Number one, give me control over the sun. Number two, give me control over the air. Number three, give me control over water. Now, we know we cannot control the sun, nor can we control the air. But we can control water. Water, after all, is the most important element that can be controlled." But the plot for a North American Union, as exposed in detail in Jerome Corsi's new bestselling book, "The Late Great USA," is but a prelude, Estulin says, to the ultimate merger – one-world government. "Everything is in place," he says. "Europe is now one country, one currency and one constitution. North America is about to become one. The African Union has had its working model going for over a decade. Asia is openly discussing the near-future Asian Union, being sold to us as an economic inevitability beneficial to all its citizens." Estulin sees the current focus in the U.S. on the presidential election of 2008 as something of a farce in light of this trend. "Does it really matter who wins?" he asks. "As I make very clear in 'The True Story of the Bilderberg Group,' every politician of note and promise belongs to the Bilderbergers, CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) or the Trilateral Commission. Unless you are one of them, you can hardly hope to win the presidency. If we vote for the lesser evil, forced upon us by the secret oligarchies and the powerful men behind the curtain, we end up playing the game imposed upon us by them. Democracy, I guess what I really want to say, is a fallacy, an unattainable dream, a useless label trotted out and dusted off by the rulers every four years for the benefit of the great unwashed – us. There are two sides in this equation – the powerful elite who control the world's wealth and the rest of humanity." Estulin "guarantees" today's Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani will not get the nomination of his party. With less certitude, he speculates the current mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, could still be positioned to head the GOP ticket. "Bloomberg, according to my sources within Bilderberg, will emerge as a credible candidate of consensus for the discredited American political establishment, your virtual "People's Choice" candidate," he says. What is the agenda behind these groups, which Estulin says are comprised of "self-interested elitists protecting their wealth and the investments of multinational banks and corporations in the growing world economy at the expense of developing nations and Third World countries"? "The policies they develop," he writes, "benefit them as well as move us towards a one-world government." Those questioning Estulin's conclusion as mere speculation need only recall organizational financer David Rockefeller's own words as recorded in his "Memoirs." "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will," he wrote. "If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." Estulin's book, first written in 2005 in Spain, has been translated into 24 languages, most recently this English edition. He has covered the Bilderberg Group as a journalist for more than 15 years. Why does he singularly devote so much attention to exposing their activities? "They cannot survive the light, and they know it," he says. "This is why the powerful people have long insulated themselves from that possibility. You see, the greatest form of control is when you think you are free while you are being manipulated and dictated to. People have been disarmed through the greatest hypnotist the world has ever known – the oblong box almost everyone has in the corner of their living rooms known as the television. By persuading ordinary people that what they can see with their eyes is what is there to see, the men behind the curtain have ensured their own survival, because people will laugh in your face when you explain to them that there is a bigger picture they are not seeing." What is his personal prescription for fighting back? He offers a five-point program: 1. Understanding that governments do not represent the people nor have their best interests at heart. 2. Understanding that corporate media's main job is to hide the transgressions of the most powerful people in the world not shine the light of truth on it. 3. Understanding that the corporate media forms part of the world's elite societies such as the Bilderbergers, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. 4. Understanding how money works and how through intelligent use of money we can destroy the Bilderbergers of this world. 5. Getting out of debt now.

Uribe is lying in hostage flap: Chavez

CARACAS

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Sunday accused Colombian President Alvaro Uribe of lying in a dispute over Chavez's mediation in hostage talks, adding that the spat may harm commercial ties between the neighboring countries.

Uribe last week cut Chavez out of his role as mediator in negotiations with Colombia's Marxist FARC rebels over releasing hostages taken during Colombia's civil war. He accused Chavez of overstepping his bounds and publicly disclosing elements of private talks.

"They issued a statement yesterday filled with lies, and that is serious, very serious," Chavez said during a televised broadcast. "President Uribe is lying, and he's lying in a shameless way."

Chavez appeared to be referring to Colombia's statement on Saturday saying Chavez had been pushed out of the talks for speaking directly with a Colombian general about hostages despite an agreement with Uribe not to do so.

He described Uribe decision as a "spit in the face," in marked contrast to his calm acceptance of the news last week.

For months, Chavez had sought to persuade Marxist FARC rebels to release about 50 key hostages, including a French-Colombian politician, Ingrid Betancourt, and three U.S. defense contractors held for years in secret jungle camps.

COMMERCIAL TIES

Chavez on Sunday warned his cabinet ministers they had to be "on alert" over commercial ties with Colombia, Venezuela's second-largest trading partner.

"Everyone should be on alert with respect to Colombia," Chavez said. "The companies that Colombians have here, the companies we have over there, commercial relations -- all of that will be damaged."

Chavez made a similar threat this month about Spanish businesses after a diplomatic spat caused by Spanish King Juan Carlos telling Chavez to "shut up" during a summit in Chile.

He also briefly cut commercial ties with Colombia in 2005 after bounty hunters snatched a Colombian guerrilla from Venezuelan soil without consulting the Chavez government, sparking the worst diplomatic flap between the countries in years.

The conservative pro-Washington Uribe and the leftist anti-U.S. Chavez have suffered occasional diplomatic impasses but have cooperated on energy projects and fostering commercial ties.

Chavez has frequently criticized Colombia's participation in the U.S.-backed Plan Colombia counter-narcotics program, which he has described as Washington's effort to maintain a military presence in Latin America.

"I'm sure he didn't want to continue in the (hostage negotiation) process, the gringos pressure him a lot," Chavez said.

(Reporting by Brian Ellsworth; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Ecuador's president vows to avoid U.S. after 'mistreatment' at Miami airport

QUITO, Ecuador

President Rafael Correa on Saturday complained he did not receive diplomatic treatment at a Miami airport security checkpoint earlier this month and will now avoid travelling through the U.S.

In his weekly radio address, Correa said he accepted an apology issued Tuesday by U.S. ambassador to Ecuador, Linda Jewell, who said U.S. officials learned of his travel plans only hours before and "didn't have time to make all the arrangements necessary to receive a head of state."

Correa received "discourteous treatment" at Miami International Airport, where he'd stopped to change planes Nov. 15 on the way to a summit of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries summit in Saudi Arabia, the Foreign Ministry said in a letter to the U.S. Embassy in Quito last week. The letter gave no further details of his encounter.

"We accepted (the ambassador's apology) but personally I'm not going to stop to change planes in the United States until they learn what civilization is," Correa said.

He said the U.S. has been gripped by "psychosis" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and security agents "treat the people very poorly" as a result.

"The minute they knew that I was a head of state, they should have had a protocol, but the Americans don't understand that," Correa said.

*

President Rafael Correa complained on Saturday he did not receive special diplomatic treatment at a Miami airport security checkpoint earlier this month and will now avoid traveling through the U.S.

In his weekly radio address, Correa said he accepted an apology issued Tuesday by U.S. Ambassador to Ecuador Linda Jewell, who said U.S. officials learned of his travel plans only hours before and "didn't have time to make all the arrangements necessary to receive a head of state."

"We accepted (the ambassador's apology) but personally I'm not going to stop to change planes in the United States until they learn what civilization is," Correa said.

Who Is Subcomandante Marcos?

From: http://newzeal.blogspot.com

If you want to know why Maori radicals and anarchists were running around the Ureweras with guns and napalm-ask this man.


A near legendary figure, the always masked Subcomandante Marcos leads the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatistas), from the impoverished southern Mexican state of Chiapas.

Marcos has yet to reveal his true identity, but Mexican authorities claim he is Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente, a son of Spanish immigrants, born in Mexico.

Guillén graduated from Mexico City's Metropolitan Autonomous University and then earned a masters' degree in philosophy at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, before working as a professor at the same institution.

Caught up in the student radicalism of the late '60s, Guillen joined the Maoist oriented guerilla group, the National Liberation Forces.

In the early '80s, Guillen and some of his followers moved to Chiapas in southern Mexico to work through the local Mayan peasantry.

From the US Military Review May/June 1997;

Cadres of what became the EZLN began to secretly organize in the early 1980s. The EZLN claims it was founded in 1982. Formed in part by members of old splintered groups and drawing on a predominantly indigenous following, EZLN's evolution was complex and is still debated. During its formative years, the group gave little indication of its existence, a posture that fit well with most Mexicans' perception that guerrillas were an issue of the past.

However, the guerrillas were not gone from every area of Mexico. Reports of secretive armed groups training in the mountains were as commonplace locally as they were heatedly denied by Mexican authorities...

On 1 January 1994, 15 years of official government and public complacency ended abruptly when the EZLN publicly announced its existence with the brief occupation of several towns in Chiapas, resulting in sharp clashes with the army that left nearly 150 dead.

Since the initial rebellion, Marcos's Zapatistas have formed a semi autonomous state in Chiapas and have worked to build bridges to radical and anarchist groups throughout Mexico and the world.


The Zapatistas have proved masters of communication and have spread their ideology to indigenous and anarchist groups worldwide via the internet and regular international conferences.

According to Wikipedia;

From 1992 through 2006, Marcos wrote more than 200 essays and stories and published 21 books in a total of at least 33 editions, amply documenting his political and philosophical views...

Although Marcos's political philosophy has sometimes been characterized as "Marxist," his broadly populist writings concentrate on unjust treatment of people by both business and the State, giving Zapatista ideology a strong anarchist tinge.

In 2005, Marcos launched the "La Otra Campaña" (The Other Campaign) to coincide with the 2006 mexican elections. The Zapatistas did not run or endorse candidates, but instead called for a new constitution prohibiting privatization of public resources and providing autonomy for an estimated 57 indigenous populations. More than 900 organizations joined The Other Campaign.


Subcomandante Marcos is an icon for the new anarchist/indigenous and anti capitalist left that has disrupted nearly every major international political and financial gathering since the Battle in Seattle in 1999.

It is no so surprise that he is admired by many of those arrested in the New Zealand "anti terror" raids of October 15th. posted by Trevor Loudon

An Interview with Alvaro Garcia, Vice President of Bolivia

Coming to Terms with Diversity in Bolivia

By LAURA CARLSEN

As head of Congress and the major political operator for President Evo Morales, Bolivia's Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera stands in the eye of a political hurricane. The changes proposed by the Movement toward Socialism (MAS) government have unleashed protest from conservative sectors of society, leading to suspension of the Constituent Assembly called to revamp the nation's political institutions.

Garcia Linera says the conflicts are to be expected, as Bolivian society takes on "the two conquests of equality"-political rights for indigenous peoples and economic equality through a redistribution of national wealth. He calls the Morales administration a "government of social movements" and describes the goals to build "institutions that allow us to recognize our pluralism" and "generate minimal levels of access to opportunities and resources."

LC: The government of Evo Morales came to power with the symbolic force of being the first indigenous president in the country, and has promised to address an historic backlog of demands for indigenous rights. But the government also faces the challenge of achieving some degree of unity to carry out deep transformations in society. In practice, how do you reconcile these two responsibilities?

AGL: The presence of the first indigenous president is without a doubt the most important symbolic break in the last centuries in Bolivia because it re-establishes a principle of equality that had been denied by colonial and neo-colonial practices and certain customs and mentalities in society.

But soon we saw that while political equality was advancing, the challenge remained to expand advances in political equality into other realms, in this case, the economic realm in the form of a new redistribution of wealth. The society required that both these tasks be taken on together-political equality and the recognition of the equality of indigenous peoples, their culture, and their language; but also a redistribution of wealth to improve peoples' access to resources.

And that's where the job of President Morales' government has gotten complicated.

LC: Why is that?

AGL: In other societies, political equality is not necessarily accompanied by an immediate effort to redistribute wealth. South Africa is a case in point: there was a huge battle for political equality and a slower process of redistribution or economic equality. In the case of Bolivia, the two tasks had to be taken on simultaneously.

The more privileged sectors felt obliged by modernity and general advances to accept political equality, but to accept redistribution of wealth is another matter. It generates more resistance from groups that are accustomed not only to holding positions of power but also to a form of allotment that traditionally set aside public resources with their families' names on them.

This is the most difficult part of what we've taken on-the two conquests of equality. But the fact that there was already a democratic and redistributive agenda proposed by society since the year 2000 meant we had to assume both tasks simultaneously, with the all the difficulties that you're seeing in these days and weeks-all predictable, of course.

LC: How do you convince or obligate sectors with historic privileges to cede privileges in order to establish this new state and society?

AGL: It requires on the part of the most privileged sectors-not "generosity"-because in politics and economics that term doesn't exist-but a strategic viewpoint. This isn't a movement that at any time seeks to annul privileges. This is a movement that seeks to generate minimal levels of access to opportunities and resources.

From a strategic point of view, the most privileged sectors would understand that the best way to preserve part of their privileges is to cede part of their privileges. But when they are not willing to cede a part of these privileges, what that does is generate pressure that's more and more adverse to them, with the risk that all their privileges could be affected.

The program of the underclasses of Bolivia doesn't propose the socialization of all wealth or property. This type of proposals still hasn't emerged in Bolivia. What you see is the demand for opportunities, a demand to take part in the distribution of resources. I haven't seen anyone who's saying "we have to take all the land away from the hacendados (large landowners)." They say, "We also have a right to have land." Same with natural resources, water, or oil. Nobody is proposing "we want to expropriate oil and gas and kick out all foreign companies" but rather "we want to be included in the profits from these resources."

And in fact, the measures we've taken-nationalization of hydrocarbons that didn't expropriate fixed assets but recuperated the property and decision-making capacity over gas and petroleum-demonstrate the society's and the government's strategy.

The key for privileged sectors resides not in looking to the future in one year, but to see the future in 10, 20, or 30, or 50 years. This strategic point of view is what could help this process of redistribution of wealth and lead to a coming together, but in a more balanced way and not with the scandalous distances in terms of property and money that we still see in Bolivia.

LC: There has been talk of a growing political and social polarization in the country. Do you agree with this assessment of the present moment?

AGL: Ethnic, class, and regional differences in Bolivia are not recent, they didn't appear this year or even in the last five or 10 years. They run throughout our entire history as a republic.

The novelty today is that for the first time the society is forced to look at itself in the mirror, and it has to see its limitations, its cracks, its weaknesses. Exclusion and confrontation have been recurrent throughout our history-there have been uprisings, massacres in the Bolivian society every 10, 15 years. The ethnic, cultural, and regional differences in our Bolivian society, today visible all at once, are not recent products. They are old wounds that have been present in our history and were never healed, fissures whose resolution was always avoided and that now have appeared simultaneously. Now it's up to this generation-I'm not saying "this government"-to this generation, to this society-to resolve issues that couldn't be resolved in 182 years of political life as an independent republic.

There's no reason to be afraid of these tensions because they're tensions that we've experienced before. The real problem would be if we didn't resolve them, if we just did what past governments have done and swept them under the rug.

Because this is the historic opportunity for society to be sincere with itself; it's the opportunity for a rebirth of its collective spirit based on who we really are, and not the illusion of who we want to be, as the elites have always imposed before in this country.

LC: Given the divisions, do you still think it's feasible to agree on a new constitution with major changes, or will it be necessary to accept more minor reforms?

AGL: The Constituent Assembly is conceived of to create an institutional order that corresponds to the reality of who we are. Up to now, every one of the 17-18 previous constitutions has tried to copy the latest institutional fashion-French, U.S., European. And it was clear that it didn't fit us, because these institutions correspond to other societies. We are indigenous and non-indigenous, we are modern and traditional, we are liberal and communitarist, we are a profoundly diverse society regionally and a hybrid in terms of social classes. So we have to have institutions that allow us to recognize that pluralism.

This is the great challenge of the Constituent Assembly. And that's why we are confident that it will meet its goals, in spite of the difficulties, with this idea of expressing the real society and projecting that in institutional and normative terms for the coming decades.

LC: You have spoken of diversity not only in terms of the need to recognize it in a new form of institutionality but also as the guiding principle of a new social pact. Reading the newspapers these days, diversity seems to be more a factor of division. How do you move toward this vision of strength through diversity?

AGL: Sometimes the press focuses the cameras only on the differences. Then you see a country that appears to be on the verge of a breakdown because all actors want to assert their own identities and differences at the same time.

We've always been divided. It's just that now we're seeing ourselves with all our divisions and tendencies. The illusion of a monolithic, cohesive unity has broken like a glass thrown to the ground. And it can never be put back together. We can't go back to living with illusions.

The key for all the groups is to affirm their difference, but at the same time produce a will to unity-to an agreed-on unity, not an imposed or merely superficial unity. Sure, at first it's scary, as everyone begins to wake up to the fact that they are different from the other, and to assume that difference and not to hide it. But that's the first step in building real unity.

The second step is, based on the affirmation of differences, to affirm what we have in common. Without a doubt, the indigenous and peasant movements have been the most lucid in taking these steps. To give you an example: it would be very easy for the indigenous and peasant movement to demand the right of each community, each culture, each nationality to the control and ownership of natural resources. Even the UN declaration recognizes that right-to land, forests, gas, and oil.

But what you see is that at the same time as they affirm their diversity, they are also asserting unity when they say "we have to nationalize hydrocarbons" in the sense of a collective "I" that is above the particular language, culture, or region. The proposal to nationalize gas and oil didn't come from intellectuals or from the middle classes. It came out of the popular movements, mostly indigenous and peasant movements. So the sector that most affirms its difference is the one that also affirms the principle of unity around a material collective "I." Not a fictitious one, not just symbols and rites, but in real actions: the assembly, nationalization of hydrocarbons, and redistribution of wealth.

LC: You mention the responsibility of social movements. Other progressive governments, brought to power by grassroots movements, have been criticized for subsequently sidelining those movements. How do you conceive the role of social movements in the Morales government?

AGL: We consider this to be a government of social movements. Even though that means there are tensions, because government and state are by definition a process of centralization of decisions and, by definition, a social movement is a process of socialization and collective diffusion of decision-making. What's interesting is to ride on that tension. That's the novelty of the process.

You'll ask: But how do you back up this claim to be a government of social movements? On four levels, from the most general to the most specific.

The most general: the program of changes and transformations in the government is the program proposed by grassroots mobilizations over the last 15 years. What the government of President Morales has done is to practically transcribe into decree or law what was collectively developed by society itself through social movements. Land, hydrocarbons, Constituent Assembly, the issue of autonomies, redistribution of wealth, process of industrialization, and so many things still pending-all the big decisions of this government have been historically proposed over the past 10 years by the social movements.

The second level is that for the government's major decisions-all of them, without exception-we've consulted with the leadership of the different social movements. There isn't one important measure that isn't marked by a process of feedback and consultation with these sectors, because every one of these actions can only be sustained through mobilization of society, not through a bureaucratic action.

Third, in the government's structure, you'll find the presence of a good part of the leadership of the social movements. Whether as mayors, prefects (the provincial leadership), parliamentary representatives, constituent assemblypersons, ministers, there's a practical, physical presence of grassroots leadership in government. To what degree they maintain their connection to their constituents is a different problem. To what degree they could become bureaucratized, is definitely a risk. But if you watch the parliament on television or the assembly, you see an enormous presence of these sectors. This is something that was unthinkable five or 10 years ago, because these were positions reserved for certain families, for elites cultivated in foreign universities, with famous last names, and a tradition of being in politics.

Fourth, although the social movement itself can't move into government administration, the selection of government officials must meet not only criteria of merit but also approval from social movements and organizations. Here it's equally valid to have a masters or doctorate from Harvard as to have links with the peasant federation. Yes, this can slow up certain areas of government efficiency but it's a sign of the times.

LC: The last question: You and the president come from a background of participation in movements. What are the big surprises or unexpected challenges of coming to government?

AGL: There's clearly a leap between the logic of mobilization and protest, to the logic of administration. However, the Movement toward Socialism (MAS) as a coalition of social organizations has experienced a learning curve and transition from strictly making demands and being a union movement, to increasingly becoming a revolutionary political entity. This started 10 years ago when the unions began to control local governments. The agrarian unions entered the mayorships and had to put to test their demands with transparency. Its not a lot of time, many parties have to spend 30 years preparing for governing. In our case, there were 10 years of training-too fast.

But for better or worse, you have there a first period of gestation of political leaders who had to combine the discourse of mobilization with the ability to govern. These leaders who were trained since the 90s in local government, several of them are now in parliament and even Vice Ministers.

Also, this social movement matures very quickly starting in about 2000, moving from confrontational strategies to proposing designs for the nation. It isn't usual, even in the history of Bolivia, to see this kind of political maturation. Increasingly in the mobilizations and protests the issues that you go to dialogue with the government are no longer "how can I get something for my sector?" but "how can I change Bolivia?" The Constituent Assembly emerged as a grassroots demand in 2000, recuperation of the hydrocarbon sector since 2003, a new law on land since 1999-there were already well-developed general guidelines for defining public goods.

Although there have been difficulties, which we've admitted publicly, it still is remarkable what we've achieved with these decisions: economic growth, modification of the economic structure of society, and implementation-albeit gradual-of some things at the social level.

I believe it's a healthy process and full of vitality, and has good possibilities of success.

Laura Carlsen (lcarlsen(a)ciponline.org) is director of the Americas Policy Program (www.americaspolicy.org) in Mexico where she has worked as a writer and political analyst for two decades.

The full interview is available on www.americaspolicy.org or by emailing americas(a)ciponline.org.

Keith Olberman's Jaundiced Rant: Trashing Chavez

By CLIFTON ROSS

I don't know why I was so shocked listening to Keith Olbermann's insulting, degrading and uninformed remarks about President Hugo Chavez yesterday. Perhaps because Olbermann is the only man on commercial television who has so far had the guts to make a frontal attack on Bush and his coterie of war criminals. I suppose I thought his articulate and courageous stand against the Republicans, his criticism of their comrades, the spineless Democrats and other collaborators with the Bush regime, indicated a superior knowledge, analysis and understanding of politics in general. I hoped that his bold commentary indicated a suspicion of a system glued together by massive lies. Sadly, it appears that I was wrong.

On his November 20th program Keith Olbermann referred to a "news" story in which Chavez, trying to make his way to the bathroom past a reporter, reportedly said, "I have to go. Do you want me to pee on you?"

First of all, it's a tragic commentary on the state of "news" and journalism that bodily functions become major news stories, be they sexual or excretory, especially when people like Chávez have so many more interesting features worthy of discussion, most notably, ideas. That Olbermann would stoop to the news cycle at its most base level is, itself, a disappointment. But his comment after the reference to "peeing on" someone was more so: "Maybe you should have asked that before you started doing that to your own country's laws and citizens."

To what is Mr. Olbermann referring when he states that Chávez is "peeing on" the laws and citizens of Venezuela? Is he referring to Chávez's dozen or so electoral victories, all declared clean and fair by international observers (including ex-President Carter)? Is it Chávez's stand for the dignity and independence of Latin America? Is it Chávez's internationalism which has not only taken him to Cuba and Iran but also caused him to discount heating oil for the poor in the U.S.? Could it be the clinics Chávez has set up around the country, Barrio Adentro, guaranteeing Venezuelans free health care? Or the Bolivarian Universities he's funding to enable three million people, without means, resources, hope or future, to study and win degrees and new possibilities? Was Chávez "pissing on the laws" when he allowed a referendum on his presidency to go through and which he won handily in 2004?

Mr. Olbermann needs to get his facts straight and he could start off by reading Mark Weisbrot and Luis Sandoval's study published in July of this year by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, entitled, "The Venezuelan Economy in the Chávez Years" (http://www.cepr.net/content/view/1248/8/ ) wherein they show that "Real (inflation-adjusted) GDP has grown by 76 percent since the bottom of the recession in 2003." Indeed, once the pressures of a U.S. inspired coup, U.S.-backed oil strike and Referendum (all funded by Olbermann's and our local nemesis, Bush) were soundly defeated by Chávez and his supporters, Weisbrot and Sandoval agree that "it appears that the Venezuelan economy was hit hard by political instability prior to 2003, but has grown steadily and quite rapidly since political stability began improving in that year."

The economy has grown, but that new wealth has not merely trickled, or gushed, upwards into the pockets of the rich, as it always seems to do in the U.S. In Venezuela the poverty rate has dropped 31% under Chávez, (extreme poverty from 53% to 9.1 percent) but the authors acknowledge that this current poverty rate "does not take into account the increased access to health care or education that poor people have experienced. The situation of the poor has therefore improved significantly beyond even the substantial poverty reduction that is visible in the official poverty rate, which measures only cash income." This is not to mention, as the authors also point out, the "increased health care benefits to the poor, since in the absence of these benefits, most poor people would simply have gone without health care, and therefore suffer from worse health, lower income, and lower life expectancy." And those health benefits are substantial: "In 1998 there were 1,628 primary care physicians for a population of 23.4 million. Today, there are 19,571 for a population of 27 million.

Given these facts, and your absence of them, Mr. Olbermann, could you explain exactly on whom Chávez has been pissing? If not, perhaps in the future you could drop the subject or deal with something a bit more substantial when talking about Chávez than urine.

In other words, put up or piss off.

Clifton Ross represented the U.S. in Venezuela's World Poetry Festival in 2005. From 2005-2006 he reported from Mérida, Venezuela. His movie, "Venezuela: Revolution from the Inside Out" is now available from www.freedomvoices.org and www.progressivefilms.org. He is the co-editor of Voice of Fire: Communiques and Interviews of the Zapatista National Liberation Army (1994, New Earth Publications) and his book, Fables for an Open Field (1994, Trombone Press, New Earth Publications), has just been released in Spanish by La Casa Tomada of Venezuela. His forthcoming book of poems in translation, Traducir el Silencio, will be published later this year by Venezuela´s Ministry of Culture editorial, Perro y Rana. Ross teaches English at Berkeley City College, Berkeley, California. He can be reached at clifross1@yahoo.com

The Revolution Will Now Be Televised

Jill Freidberg’s New Documentary, “A Little Bit of So Much Truth,” Documents the Taking of the TV and Radio Airwaves by the People of Oaxaca

By Al Giordano, Publisher, Narco News

November 19, 2007

“The modern-day revolutionary runs not to the factory, but to the TV station.”

-Abbie Hoffman, 1967

Before its 2006 strike would spark a statewide rebellion and popular assembly movement in Oaxaca, Mexico, Seattle filmmaker Jill Freidberg had chronicled the quarter-century rise of the democratic teachers union there, Sección 22. Freidberg’s 2005 documentary, “Granito de arena” (“Grain of Sand”), like much good reporting out of Latin America, was viewed and praised in union and activist circles around the world, and bought by some university libraries, but was largely ignored by commercial and public television stations.

That documentary provided a detailed and inspiring account of the union’s successful struggles to break the undemocratic national teachers union’s grip: a victory that sparked other unions throughout Mexico to do the same. The true story of how workers, when organized, can win better pay for themselves and also improve conditions for students and their families demonstrated, too, that the commercial and state-run media had not been honest in their own demonizing accounts of labor and other social movements.

But on June 14, 2006, when the state police of dictatorial governor Ulises Ruiz tried to violently squash the massive encampment by protesting teachers and their supporters in Oaxaca City’s historic downtown, only to be chased out and replaced by the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO, in its Spanish initials), a new and wider global interest in the roots of that movement brought a sharp rise in online sales of Freidberg’s 2005 documentary. The up-tick in funds to the subsistence-level filmmaker allowed Freidberg to return to Oaxaca repeatedly during 2006 and 2007 to shoot hundreds of hours of video documenting the historic events.

And on August 1, 2006, when thousands of Oaxacan women peacefully occupied the state television station, Channel 9, “Granito de arena” – along with three video newsreels that Freidberg helped Narco News produce in early 2006 about social movements in the state – was broadcast statewide at the very moment when nearly all the eyes and ears of Oaxaca were transfixed upon the suddenly liberated screen. Independent media had, for the first time in Mexico or any other part of North America, gone primetime to a mass media audience.

New from Jill Freidberg’s Corrugated Films, in collaboration with Mal de Ojo TV in Oaxaca, comes “Un poquito de tanta verdad” (“A Little Bit of So Much Truth”), narrated in Spanish with English subtitles, is the definitive documentary on the six months that shook the world during 2006 and the continuing story into 2007. The new documentary brings the viewer on a 93-minute rollercoaster ride alongside the dramatic six-month occupation of the state capital and other cities and towns. The focus of “Un poquito de tanta verdad” turns the lights on, what this reviewer agrees is, the most significant advance to come out of the popular assembly movement in Oaxaca: the citizenry’s reclaiming of the broadcast airwaves from those that have monopolized and abused them.

In addition to the taking of Channel 9, participants in the popular assembly movement took 14 radio stations during the course of the struggle. I know of no other international journalist, and very few local ones, that have earned the trust, respect and access of the Oaxaca democratic teachers and other social movements, which gave Freidberg a unique perspective on the sometimes confusing and always conflicting events of what some historians now call the Oaxaca Commune. This new documentary now allows the rest of the world to share in Freidberg’s outstanding insight, ever evolving and improving over time. “Granito de arena,” the making of which Freidberg has described as an intensive lesson in shedding a foreign journalist’s preconceptions and learning to listen to the story’s own diverse span of local participants in Oaxaca and its peoples, was a very good film. “Un poquito de tanta verdad” is a great one.

Last month I traveled to New York and saw the Big Apple premier of this film at St. Mark’s Church in Manhattan’s East Village. The most frequent comment I heard after the screening, there in the media capital of the world, was that of New Yorkers wondering aloud, “if they can do it there, could we also do it here?” The answer is a qualified yes: the retaking of the media in Oaxaca was the result of years of grassroots organizing among workers, neighborhoods, towns and particularly among 16 distinct indigenous peoples that blanket the city and the state. Taking a cue from Freidberg, rather than just tell it, let’s show it…

Radio Down

“Un poquito de tanta verdad” begins in the makeshift studios of Radio Plantón, a community radio station (what in the US is called pirate radio) in Oaxaca City that had already been broadcasting prior to the May 2006 strike by Sección 22. A volunteer broadcaster speaks into the microphone of the early May police riot and repression in the central Mexican town of Atenco, the political prisoners taken, and the coma of Alexis Benhumea, shot in the head by a US-made teargas canister. When he announces that, “next week there won’t be classes” we hear the gleeful cheers of schoolchildren.

The film is mainly narrated by the participants, with sparing use of voiceover narration, and subtitles in English (Chiapas dramaturge and writer Francisco Alvarez Quiñones assisted in the two-way translation). A female narrator summarizes 26 years of teachers union history, and the scarce resources available to students throughout impoverished Oaxaca, many of whom go to school hungry. (Many teachers there pay out of their own pockets to nourish the students.)

The abrasive din of commercial TV anchors then fills the screen, ranting about the “lawless” and “small” teachers occupation of Oaxaca City streets, “blocking the right of free transit.” But Radio Plantón, at the same time, is receiving a flood of live calls from parents, students, the electrical workers union, and other members of the public supporting the strike and its demands to raise the minimum wage for all Oaxaca workers and to supply books, school supplies and meals for the children. “The phone began to ring off the hook,” noted one community radio broadcaster.

We hear the frightened but continuing voices of Radio Plantón hosts in the predawn hours of June 14, as state police come storming into their studios, destroying the equipment as the station goes off the air. The station was the first target of the police raid. We watch the teargas bombs shot from helicopters above the city, and the wounded testify from hospital beds of how direct hits from the canisters ripped off human skin, now in bandages.

And then we see a miracle: neighbors throughout the city, despite the danger, come out of their houses en masse, angry, particularly housewives and elderly women, and join with the protesters to turn around and chase 3,000 heavily armed, shielded and helmeted police from the city center.

Radio Back Up

David Venegas, now a political prisoner, tells the story of how, simultaneously, students at the Benito Juárez State University (UABJO, in its Spanish initials) took over the school radio station once Radio Plantón had fallen. A new wave of phone calls pour into the studios of Radio Universidad and are broadcast live. 30,000 people take to the streets in what was then the largest march in state history (subsequent marches would exceed 100,000 calling for the removal of the corrupt and tyrannical governor). We see the creativity of the protestors: gigantic puppets on sticks, coffins representing democracy, a helicopter with copal incense symbolizing the teargas that had enveloped the city, and a large marionette of the disgraced governor Ruiz as a rat.

The cameras bring us into community meetings in which the APPO popular assembly comes to life, and the story of the debate, pushed by indigenous participants, that changed the movement’s name from the Popular Assembly of the People of Oaxaca to that of the Peoples, plural, of Oaxaca. Here, and in other moments of the film, Freidberg doesn’t gloss over the difficulties and differences between diverse sectors of the movement. Although the film inspires and makes a convincing argument of the illegitimacy of the Ruiz regime and the justness of the pro-democracy cause, the documentary is not propaganda. The self-critiques by many in the movement are also part of the story, and they usually mirror the fault lines that challenge the unity of social movements everywhere on earth: democratic governance versus top-down leadership, nonviolence versus use of force, pluralism versus sectarianism, and seizing state power versus replacing it with something else.

Almost three weeks after the violence of June 14 and the popular uprising that turned it away came the national presidential election of early July, with a result plagued by electoral fraud to the extreme of the theft of 1.5 million votes nationwide. The APPO, although it rejects political parties, including those on the left or center-left, urged a “punishment vote” against the Institutional Revolutionary Party (the PRI, in its Spanish initials) of Ruiz and the center-left Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) won nine of Oaxaca’s 11 congressional districts. Again, the documentary shows the yellow and blatant dishonesty of what author Carlos Fazio explains is the duopoly of television media control by Televisa and TV Azteca. The state’s Channel 9 features the embattled governor forced to cancel the annual Gueleguetza festival that is the crown-jewel of tourism in Oaxaca, which he says is “postponed” so that “radicals” will not be able to “disrupt” it.

Indigenous teachers explain to the viewer the cultural history behind the Gueleguetza and we follow the cameras with the Mardis Gras style parade by tens of thousands of protesters that held their own popular Gueleguetza instead: An event that usually costs hundreds of pesos to attend, screening out most of the indigenous people whose traditions and dances and costumes are on display, becomes a free celebration, “the real fiesta,” with children chanting “He’s already fallen! Ulises has already fallen!”

Back to national TV: The peaceful and joyful celebration is described by the commercial media as one of “violence and anarchy” by “small groups.” But the cameras in this documentary reveal the massive and happy crowd. In particular, we see, at the side of gigantic stadium-sized fiesta, a young father, José Jimenez Colmenares, playing with his smiling children.

The Taking of Channel 9

An announcer on Radio Universidad announces an upcoming march by women of the APPO and adherent organizations for August 1, in which the organizers ask their sisters to bring pots, pans and wooden spoons as noisemakers. We see the women’s march as it suddenly changes course and head toward the studios of state television station Channel 9. “The TV says our Gueleguetza failed,” on woman denounces, and they enter the station demanding “a half hour, an hour” on the air to make their case. When the authorities refuse to put them on the air they take the studios and begin broadcasting. Commenting on the untrue version offered by the national TV duopoly, a woman tells the camera, “TV Azteca and Televisa are where this is headed.”

We see this historic moment both through cameras on the scene and simultaneously through multiple cameras throughout the state of families and assemblies of neighbors watching those first moments of liberated TV through their own black-and-white consoles. And in a scene similar to what occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s during the fall of Soviet bloc countries, a crowd of real people – only in Oaxaca, they are all women, from grandmothers to mothers to young girls – assembled in front of the camera sharing their stories of life under state repression, now, with virtually every citizen throughout Oaxaca.

The women that participated on that day offer subsequent interviews for the documentary, telling proudly of their accomplishment. One describes what occurred as “a little bit of so much truth,” from where the film gets its title. Another explains, “we put on videos that they wouldn’t put on the air.” And the assembly hall became statewide, in every home and store, all at once, through television airwaves now controlled democratically by thousands. The women denounce that the commercial media claimed that only 200 had seized the station, when they numbered 10,000 instead.

We are there with the women as they meet to discuss how to run the TV station, and doing the tasks of security, sweeping and preparing food for the occupiers. A group of women in a kitchen chant, “With Ulises’ balls we’ll make and egg and cook it,” as others taunt the governor on the air to “come down to Channel 9” and try to remove them himself.

Meanwhile the men of the APPO form shifts to surround and protect the TV station transmitter atop nearby Fortín Hill. The reaction by the governor is violent: He sends goons to raid the critical daily newspaper Notícias, the most widely read in the state. Infiltrators pour sulfuric acid on the Radio Universidad transmitter while paramilitaries create a distraction shooting bullets at the studio from outside. Police in civilian clothes and with a van without licence plates kidnap wheelchair-bound social leader German Mendoza Nube. And during a mass march by the APPO, a gunman assassinates José Jimenez Colmenares, the man we saw playing with his kids at the Gueleguetza.

Sects, Lives and Videotape

Within days of the seizing of Channel 9, state authorities cut the relay transmitters to the rest of the state, but the popular TV station continued to broadcast in the populous central valleys and the state capital. On August 23, after three weeks on the air, under a full moon, this historic chapter in a people’s media gave way to another. Gunmen attacked the antenna, making Channel 9, after the destruction of Radio Plantón and Radio Universidad, the third media to be taken off the air by the regime.

The movement’s response was instantaneous. Different participating organizations in the APPO then fanned out and seized 12 commercial radio stations: on the AM and FM dials, that had previously offered pop music and distorted pro-government news. The national commercial TV chains complain to the entire Republic: “It looks like this is the radicals’ moment,” claiming that the taking of the radio stations had been carried out by an “urban guerrilla.” The popular radio stations take on an important logistical role to brush back and counter against the wave of state repression, alerting the public to the locations of paramilitary convoys or where shots have been heard as neighbors headed to each conflict zone to protect each other with strength in numbers.

The more than 1,000 barricades erected at intersections throughout the state capital “are not just for defense, but a local focal point for organizing,” tells David Venegas, one of the documentary’s most coherent narrators. Today a political prisoner, Venegas’ anarchist political tendencies have caused him to be vilified by some adherents to more sectarian Marxist-Leninist organizations in the multi-colored APPO. Another man explains that the key to the APPO’s success in taking entire towns and cities back from a repressive regime is that it has broken the “individualism” of society toward a more communitarian form of organizing.

Abbie Hoffman would have loved to see, almost four decades later, his 1967 prophesy come true: the media, and who controls it, became as important, if not more, than that of the barricades in the streets. La Jornada columnist Luis Hernández Navarro tells viewers that, “it is impossible to imagine” what has occurred in Oaxaca “without the radio.” Mobile radio – in the form of walkeetalkees through which the people staffing each barricade communicated – was likewise vital. Eventually, the movement returned 10 of the 14 commercial radio stations to their owners, but internecine conflicts broke out between differing political factions for control of what was now a limited number of radio stations in popular hands. An indigenous leader from Gueletao, birthplace of Mexican constitutional lawmaker and president Benito Juárez, offers viewers a critique of the sectarian nature of some of the popular broadcasters: “Urgent calls to action animated the people but did not educate.” At the same time, hundreds of normal citizens learned, during these media occupations, how to operate broadcasting equipment and gained experience communicating through the media.

The Smackdown That Will Not Last

There is no way that a mere text of words can effectively relate the vast sweep of this documentary. Reading a review simply cannot compare with seeing and hearing “Un poquito de tanta verdad” directly. Without revealing how Freidberg resolves this chapter in what is the latest in a series of documentaries and newsreels she has produced on Oaxaca and its political movements, the film brings the viewer to the assassination of New York independent journalist Brad Will on October 27, 2006 and the corresponding calls by national TV anchors and commentators for the deployment of federal forces into Oaxaca to squash the movement. On the Days of the Dead, November 1 and 2, we see the locals honoring their fallen neighbors and the murdered visitor (“Brad! Brad! What have they done?” cries one woman wailing at his posthumous photo), at traditional makeshift and candlelit altars: The film documents the invasion by the federal police an the victorious battle by the citizenry to protect Radio Universidad – back on the air and in popular hands – from those federal forces on November 2.

Freidberg and collaborators also filmed the long march by thousands of Oaxaqueños to Mexico City, their encampments, protests and hunger strikes in the nation’s capital, and the betrayal of the teachers union and the APPO by Sección 22 president Enrique Rueda Pacheco. We see the union rank-and-file reject their leader’s deal-making, one of whom tells the camera: “When some of our leaders say, ‘We’re not part of APPO,’ it is easier for us to say, ‘You’re not our leaders.’”

The documentary also brings us to the terrible events of November 25, 2006 when the boot came down and hundreds of social leaders and citizens were beaten and imprisoned by the federal government. The national TV screamed, “there is no repression” as the governor’s own pirate radio station broadcasted home addresses of APPO participants urging assassination and violence against them, as well as against members of the press including, by name, Nancy Davies, who has chronicled the movement from the start with her commentaries on Narco News and the book, The People Decide. On that night, the filmmaker Freidberg was trapped between two invading squadrons of federal police that had been savagely targeting and beating anyone with a camera and only escaped thanks to the brave generosity of a family on that street that took her into their home. The risks that she and her collaborators took to bring this footage to the world were considerable, and constant over many months. It was Freidberg’s historic knowledge and relationships with Oaxaca and its peoples – with her uncanny street-wisdom – that saved her from the terrible fate of Brad Will and so many others.

Before viewing “Un poquito de tanta verdad,” I confess, I had been very disheartened over the past year by the apparent smackdown of a movement that truly gave the world a new way to fight, particularly regarding the central problem facing change agents everywhere: taking back the airwaves from the dishonest corporate and state-owned media. But leaving its premier at St. Mark’s Church in New York, a smile came back to this face. Freidberg, returning to Oaxaca in 2007, brings a scoop that, kind reader, you really must see for yourself to believe it. Without offering a spoiler, I predict you will smile, too. And so will any person of conscience to whom you give the DVD in this upcoming holiday season.

The struggle is hard, those that control the airwaves are powerful, and the media have become the new state power. The people of Oaxaca figured that out, and came up with solutions to that overwhelming problem. “Un poquito de tanta verdad” is every bit as powerful and effective as the renowned documentary about the coup d’etat and the movement that defeated it in Venezuela in 2002, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” Only in this case, in Oaxaca, it was. And it will continue to be televised every time the DVD of Freidberg’s tour de force is shared and seen on monitors throughout the world.

---

“Un poquito de tanta verdad” (A Little Bit of So Much Truth), produced by Corrugated Films in collaboration with Mal de Ojo TV, can be ordered in DVD via the website www.corrugate.org or via email to info@corrugate.org or via telephone to the United States: (206)851-6785.

NAFTA and Biotech: Twin Horsemen of the Ag Apocalypse

The Last Days of Mexican Corn

By JOHN ROSS

Mexico City.

The single, spindly seven foot-tall cornstalk spiring up from the planter box outside a prominent downtown hotel here was filling out with new "elotes" (sweet corn) to the admiration of passer-bys, some of whom even paused to pat the swelling ears with affection. Down the centuries most of the population of this megalopolis migrated here from the countryside at one time or another over the course of the past 500 years and inside every "Chilango" (Mexico City resident) lurks an inner campesino.

But the solitary stalk, sewn by an urban coalition of farmers and ecologists under the banner of "No Hay Pais Sin Maiz" ("There Is No Country Without Corn") in planter boxes outside the downtown hotels, museums, government palaces and other historical monuments can just as easily be seen as a signifier for the fragile state of survival of Mexican corn.

As the year ripens into deep autumn, the corn harvest is pouring in all over Mexico. Out in Santa Cruz Tanaco in the Purepecha Indian Sierra of Michoacan state, the men mow their way down the rows much as their fathers and their fathers before did, snapping off the ears and tossing them into the "tshundi" basket on their backs.

In the evenings, the families will gather around the fire and shuck the "granos" from the cobs into buckets and carry them down to the store to trade for other necessities of life. It is the way in Tanaco in this season of plenitude just as it is in the tens of thousands of tiny farming communities all over Mexico where 29 per cent of the population still lives. But it is a way of life that is fading precipitously. Some say that these indeed may be the last days of Mexican corn.

In fact, this January 1 may prove to be a doomsday date for Mexican maiz when at the stroke of midnight, all tariffs on corn (and beans) will be abolished after more than a decade of incremental NAFTA-driven decreases. Although U.S. corn growers are already dumping 10 million tons of the heavily subsidized grain in Mexico each year, zero tariffs are expected to trigger a tsunami of corn imports, much of it genetically modified, that will drive millions of Mexican farmers off their land - in NAFTA's first 13 years, 6,000,000 have already abandoned their plots - and could well spell the end of the line for 59 distinct "razas" or races of native corn.

Corn was first domesticated eight millennia ago in the Mexican states of Puebla and Oaxaca and Mexico remains the fourth largest corn producer on the planet but its 22,000,000 ton annual yield pales in comparison to U.S. growers who are expected to harvest near 300,000,000 tons this year, accounting for 70 per cent of the world's maize supply. A third of U.S. corn acreage is now under genetically modified seed.

Big Biotec has had its guns trained on Mexican corn for a long time but under the national biosecurity law, Monsanto and its ilk have been barred from selling their GMO seed here. Now the transnationals are putting a full court press on the CIBOGEN, the inter-secretarial committee on bio-security, to vacate the prohibition on GMO sales - the measure was originally enacted in the late '90s in an effort to protect native seed from contamination and homogenization by genetically modified materials.

This September, the CIBOGEN was on track to designate experimental GMO farms in the north of Mexico (Sonora's Yaqui Valley and the Valley of Culiacan) where there are no native corns that could be corrupted by the engineered seeds but the designation was abruptly postponed around issues of potential contamination to the great frustration of a powerhouse pro-GMO coalition motored by the Biotec giants and including the Mexican National Farming Council (big growers), the National Association of Self-Service Stores (Wal-mart - now the biggest tortilla retailer in the country), and the National Farmers Central (CNC) which groups together rank and file farmers attached to the once-ruling (71 years) PRI party.

A dubious milestone in the history of corn was reached in July when scientists at the National Genetics & Biodiversity Laboratories announced that they had successfully mapped the genome of Mexican maiz. That was the good news. The bad news is that the genome will be available to anyone who can pay the Institute's asking price.

Who owns the genome is crucial to the survival of Mexican corn. There is little doubt that the Monsanto Corporation of St. Louis Missouri would love to get its hands on this breakthrough information so that for-profit scientists could design seeds modeled upon the DNA of native corns for commercial sales.

Mexican corn is a rich source of genetic history. Millions of adaptations to specific conditions have created a seed stock with extremely variegated properties. For millennia, native seed savers have set aside corn seed that is resistant to drought whose DNA structure Monsanto will now be able to simulate in its laboratories and market under its brand.

Monsanto took a giant step in locking up the genetic wealth of Mexico this past April 18 when it signed an agreement with the National Association of Corn Producers (CNPMM), a section of the CNC that groups together big corn farmers, to establish regional seed banks in the center and south of the country. CNC members were designated "guardians of the seed" and charged with assembling collections of native corn to be housed in Monsanto-financed repositories.
(Big bucks from Cargill and Maseca-ADM have also funded the seed banks.) "Allowing Monsanto to get so close to the secrets of Mexican corn is like asking Herod to baby-sit," writes Adelita San Vicente, an activist with the "No Hay Pais" coalition in a recent agrarian supplement of the left daily La Jornada.

55 per cent of the crops needed to feed the human race are now grown by just ten corporations. The biggest players in this monopoly game are Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta (once Novartis), and Monsanto. None of these conglomerates is a seed company. They all began their corporate life selling chemicals for war and farming.

Monsanto, which dominates 71 per cent of the GMO seed market, has operated in Mexico since the post-World War II so-called "green revolution" that featured hybrid seeds ("semillas mejoradas") that only worked when associated with pesticides and fertilizers manufactured by the transnational chemical companies. Selling hybrid seeds and chemical poisons in Mexico continues to be profitable for Monsanto whose total 2006 sales here topped 3,000,000,000 pesos ($300 million USD.) It doesn't hurt that Monsanto Mexico sells hybrid seed for $2 Americano for a packet of a thousand when its states-side price is $1.34.

22,000,000 Mexicans, 13,000,000 of them children, suffer some degree of malnutrition according to doctors at the National Nutrition Institute and Monsanto insists that it can feed them all if only the CIBOGEN will allow it to foist its GMO seed on unwitting corn farmers. But the way Monsanto sells its GMO seed is severely questioned.

Farmers are forced to sign contracts, agreeing to buy GMO seed at a company-fixed price. Monsanto's super-duper "Terminator" seed, named after California's action hero governor, goes sterile after one growing cycle and the campesinos are obligated to buy more. By getting hooked on Monsanto, Mexican farmers, once seed savers and repositories themselves of the knowledge of their inner workings, become consumers of seed, an arrangement that augurs poorly for the survival of Mexico's many native corns.

Moreover, as farmers from other climes who have resisted Monsanto and refused to buy into the GMO blitz, have learned only too traumatically, pollen blowing off contaminated fields will spread to non-GMO crops. Even more egregiously, Monsanto will then send "inspectors" (often off-duty cops) to your farm and detect their patented strains in your fields and charge you with stealing the corporation's property.

When Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser came to Mexico several years back to explain how Monsanto had taken his farm from him for precisely these reasons, local legislators laughed that it was a science fiction scenario. "It is going to happen to you," the old farmer warned with all the prescience of an Aztec seer.

Mexican corn is, of course, not the only native crop that is being disappeared by global capitalism. Native seeds are under siege from pole to pole. In Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come together to form the birthplace of agriculture, one of the very first acts of George Bush's neo-colonial satrap L. Paul Brenner was to issue the notorious Order 81 criminalizing the possession of native seeds. The U.S. military spread out throughout the land distributing little packets of GMO seeds, the euphemistically dubbed Operation "Amber Waves." To make sure that Iraq would no longer have a native agriculture, the national seed bank, located at Abu Ghraib, was looted and set afire.

The threat to native seed has become so acute that the United Nations Food & Agricultural Organization is funding the construction of a doomsday vault on remote Svalbard Island in northern Norway 800 miles from the North Pole. It was thought that seeds cryogenically frozen and stored in deep underground bunkers would be insured of survival. But as the polar bears of that gelid bioregion now know only too well, nothing is safe from the globalizers' hunger to destroy the planet and what it grows.

John Ross is preparing to return to Mexico for the holidays equipped with a new - if uneasy - eye. Mil gracias to everyone who kicked in to help buy it. Contact: johnross@igc.org

Venezuelans March to Back Chavez Reforms

Artists dressed as devils, symbolizing the U.S. government, perform at a rally in support of constitutional reforms proposed by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez in Caracas, Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007. Rodrigo Abd

CARACAS, Venezuela - Tens of thousands of President Hugo Chavez's supporters filled the streets Wednesday to back his proposed constitutional changes, while anti-government student leaders announced a bold plan to march on the presidential palace.

The demonstrations have grown as a Dec. 2 referendum nears on reforms that, among other changes, would let Chavez run for re-election indefinitely, create new types of property to managed by cooperatives and lengthen presidential terms from six to seven years.

The sea of red-clad demonstrators, including students and other government supporters, marched to the Miraflores presidential palace to show their support for the constitutional overhaul, beating drums, waving flags and blowing whistles.

"Here is the demonstration that the students are with the revolution!" Chavez told the crowd. "A solid Venezuelan revolutionary student movement has been born!"

At a separate rally in Caracas, university students who have led a street-level challenge to the president announced plans for their own march to the palace on Monday, for the first time since 2002.

"We're going to Miraflores too!" student leader Ricardo Sanchez shouted to the crowd, which repeated chants of "To Miraflores, to Miraflores!"

The government has maintained a security zone around the palace and has not permitted opposition protests in the area since 2002, when gunfire broke out during a march headed for Miraflores and 19 people were killed. The violence came shortly before Chavez's brief ouster in a coup.

He was restored two days later by military loyalists while crowds of his backers protested in the streets.

Chavez warned the crowd to watch for trouble.

"We have the pro-imperialist oligarchy desperate," Chavez said. "On alert, everybody in the street. The oligarchy is trying to destabilize the country, they're trying to generate violence. They aren't going to be able to."

Chavez supporter Osman Sanchez, a 32-year-old studying at a free state-run university, called the plan for a march on the palace "a provocation."

Some pro-Chavez marchers said they particularly like one proposed reform that would give students and university workers the power to choose administrators by direct vote. Chavez called it a change to "take out the embedded elites who took over many of our universities."

On various university campuses, student leaders have emerged as vocal government opponents, leading marches that at times have ended in violence.

Chavez calls them a minority, labeling them "fascists" and "children of the rich."

Addressing students, the anti-Chavez leader Ricardo Sanchez said Monday's march to the heart of Chavez territory is to show that "political discrimination is finished."

Another student leader, Stalin Gonzalez, read a statement from students saying: "We want fair, transparent electoral conditions and impartiality by the electoral agency."

"It's a reform that divides the country and threatens democratic rights," Gonzalez said.

Venezuela and Iran Strengthen "Anti-Imperialist" Alliance

November 20th 2007, by Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad receives Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez upon his arrival to Tehran on Monday. (Reuters)

Caracas, November 20, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agreed on Monday to form a strategic alliance between their countries to defend common interests and ideals. During a brief meeting in Tehran, the two leaders signed four more bilateral agreements in the areas of energy, finance, and industry, and promised that they would continue to work together to "defeat the empire."

"We are willing to confront U.S. imperialism in any territory and to defeat it," said Chavez upon leaving Tehran yesterday. "We are defeating them and we will defeat them. We don't want war, but we intend to be free."

The Venezuelan leader made a quick visit to Iran, his fourth in two years, where he held a six-hour private meeting with his Iranian counterpart and signed four new bilateral agreements. Both leaders emphasized their unity during a press conference afterwards.

"We have signed some very important and constructive agreements that will increase cooperation and bilateral relations between both countries, and will allow us to strengthen our ties," said Ahmadinejad. "We are intent on expanding our bilateral and international relations, defending the rights of exploited poor nations, and always supporting each other."

The four new accords signed between the two countries are in addition to 182 previous agreements that have been signed over the last two years. President Chavez assured that the new agreements constitute a real network of strategic cooperation and unity.

"We have built a real network, a big strategic alliance that includes investment of $4.6 billion," he said. "But soon we won't be talking in dollars. The dollar is sinking and with it the U.S. empire is sinking, thanks to God and to the struggle of the people."

The first agreement signed was a statement between the Venezuelan Ministry of Basic Industry and Mining (Mibam) and the Iranian Ministry of Industry and Mining, with the purpose of creating a joint company in Venezuela to build medium and large-sized molds in the aluminum, iron, and plastic sectors, and for the smelting of metals.

The second agreement has to do with the education of oil personnel, and will allow for the training in Iran of 200 Venezuelans as oil technicians.

The last two agreements signed in the meeting are in the financial sector. One agreement will allow for the creation of a Venezuelan-Iranian Bank, and the other agreement deals with the creation of a Bi-national Investment Fund of one billion dollars for the development of projects in both countries.

President Chavez expressed his satisfaction with the meeting and thanked the ministers and technical teams from both Iran and Venezuela for the beneficial results of the agreements. Chavez thanked the Iranians for their help in the recent installation of milk processing plants and corn processing plants in Venezuela, as well as the vehicle assembly plant "Venirauto" and the joint tractor factory "Veniran Tractor." All of these productive units are now operating in Venezuela, with Iranian technology.

"We have advanced in industrial agreements, in energy agreements, and we have agreed to initiate more projects in the coming months," assured Chavez.

The Venezuelan President also commented on the tense relation between Tehran and Washington, and rejected the posture of the United States regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

"Venezuela will always be with Iran. We demand respect for Iran's sovereignty. Iran has the right to build nuclear energy for peaceful ends," he said.

Chavez has stated on a number of occasions the intention of creating a multipolar world, and fighting against a unipolar world dominated by the United States. The Venezuelan leader explained the changes occurring both inside Venezuela and on an international level in the context of building a multipolar world.

"Despite the wishes of imperialism, our relations are developing in every aspect, and Iran and Venezuela will remain united and on the side of the exploited nations. Here we are, two brother countries united like a single fist."

Cuba Drills for War of All People

Cuba starts as of Monday the "Moncada 2007" drill, in the territory of the western and central armies, in important units directly subordinated to the Revolutionary Armed Forces Ministry.

The aim of these practices until Friday is to improve working cohesion of the direction and command bodies, and verify units' actions in different categories, to face enemy military aggression.

"Moncada 2007" won't be carried out for this moment in eastern Cuba, due to the serious damage from strong rains and flooding associated to Tropical Storm Noel, so the country decided to dedicate all forces to recover that zone.

As of the concept of the War of All People, the maneuver includes a considerable number of armed and non-armed structures, supplying regular troops, the Territorial Troops Militias and people in defense zones, and measuring advances in the preparedness and development of skills of the staff linked to the defense.

"Moncada 2007" is also be used as a preface to the Bastion 2008 drill, slated for the second semester of the next year.

Coup D'Etat Rumblings in Venezuela, by Stephen Lendman

[Thanks to Blast Ikoner for this link]

by Stephen Lendman; November 19, 2007

The Bush administration tried and failed three prior times to oust Hugo Chavez since its first aborted two-day coup attempt in April, 2002. Through FOIA requests, lawyer, activist and author Eva Golinger uncovered top secret CIA documents of US involvement that included an intricate financing scheme involving the quasi-governmental agency, National Endowment of Democracy (NED), and US Agency for International Development (USAID). The documents also showed the White House, State Department and National Security Agency had full knowledge of the scheme, had to have approved it, and there's little doubt of CIA involvement as it's always part of this kind of dirty business. What's worrying now is what went on then may be happening again in what looks like a prelude to a fourth made-in-Washington attempt to oust the Venezuelan leader that must be monitored closely as events develop.

Since he took office in February, 1999, and especially after George Bush's election, Chavez has been a US target, and this time he believes credible sources point to a plot to assassinate him. That information comes from Alimamy Bakarr Sankoh, president of the Hugo Chavez International-Foundation for Peace, Friendship & Solidarity (HCI-FPFS) in a November 11 press release. Sankoh supports Chavez as "a man of peace and flamboyant champion of human dignity (who persists in his efforts in spite of) growing US blackmail, sabotage and political blasphemy."

HCI-FPFS sources revealed the plot's code name - "Operation Cleanse Venezuela" that now may be unfolding ahead of the December 2 referendum on constitutional reforms. According to Sankoh, the scheme sounds familiar - CIA and other foreign secret service operatives (including anti-Castro terrorists) aiming to destabilize the Chavez government by using "at least three concrete subversive plans" to destroy the country's social democracy and kill Chavez.

It involves infiltrating subversive elements into the country, inciting opposition within the military, ordering region-based US forces to shoot down any aircraft used by Chavez, employing trained snipers with shoot to kill orders, and having the dominant US and Venezuelan media act as supportive attack dogs. Chavez is targeted because he represents the greatest of all threats to US hegemony in the region - a good example that's spreading. Venezuela also has Latin America's largest proved oil reserves at a time supplies are tight and prices are at all-time highs.

Sankoh calls Washington-directed threats "real" and to "be treated seriously" to avoid extending Bush's Middle East adventurism to Latin America. He calls for support from the region and world community to denounce the scheme and help stop another Bush administration regime change attempt.

More information on a possible coup plot also came from a November 13 Party for Socialism and Liberation article headlined "New US plots against the Venezuelan Revolution." It states Tribuna Popular (the Communist Party of Venezuela) and Prensa Latina (the Latin American News Agency) reported: "Between Oct. 7 and Oct 9, high-ranking US officials met in Prague, Czech Republic, with parts of the Venezuelan opposition (where they were) urged to convene social uprisings, sabotage the economy and infrastructure, destroy the food transportation chain and plan a military coup." It said Paul Wolfowitz and Madeleine Albright attended along with Humberto Celli, "a well-known coup-plotter from the Venezuelan party Accion Democratica."

The article further reported Tibisay Lucena, The National Electoral Council chairman, said the Venezuelan corporate media was "stoking a mood of violence amongst right-wing students" through a campaign of agitprop, and Hermann Escarra from the "pro-coup" Comando Nacional de la Resistencia openly incited "rebellion" last August and then called for constitutional changes to be stopped "through all means possible."

The Venezuelan news agency, Diaria VEA, also weighed in saying "anonymous students planned on committing acts of destabilization" as the December 2 vote approaches. Venezuelan Radio Trans Mundial provided proof with a recorded video of a youth dumping gasoline into an armored vehicle, ramming metal barricades into police on top of other vehicles, and knocking them from their roofs and hoods onto the ground.

The Threat of Street Protest Violence

For weeks, protests with sporadic violence have been on Venezuela's streets as anti-Chavistas use middle and upper class students as imperial tools to destabilize the government and disrupt the constitutional process. The aim is to discredit and oust the Chavez government and return the country to its ugly past with Washington and local oligarchs in charge and the neoliberal model reinstated.

Venezuela's Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro, weighed in on this on November 8. He accused Washington of meddling by staging violent Caracas street protests against proposed constitutional reforms to extend the country's participatory social democracy. Referring to a November 7 shootout at Caracas' Central University, he said: "We don't have any doubt that the government of the United States has their hands in the scheme that led to the ambush yesterday" that Chavez calls a "fascist offensive." Several students were wounded on the streets from a clash between pro and anti-Chave zelements.

"We know the whole scheme," Maduro added, and he should as it happened before in 2002, again during the disruptive 2002-03 oil management lockout, and most often as well when elections are held to disrupt the democratic process. These are standard CIA operating tactics used many times before for 50 years in the Agency's efforts to topple independent leaders and kill them. Chavez understands what's happening, and he's well briefed and alerted by his ally, Fidel Castro, who survived over 600 US attempts to kill him since 1959. He's now 81 and very much alive but going through a difficult recovery from major surgery 15 months ago.

Chavez has widespread popular support throughout the region and from allies like Ecuador's Raphael Correa and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega who expressed his "solidarity with the revolutionary people of Venezuela and our friend Hugo Chavez, who is being subjected to aggression from a counterrevolution fed by the traitors from inside the country and by the empire (referring to the US)." He compared the situation to his own country where similar efforts are being "financed by the United States Embassy" in Managua to support elements opposed to his Sandinista government even though it's very accommodative to Washington.

Even Brazil's Lula chimed in by calling Chavez's proposed reforms consistent with Venezuela's democratic norms, and he added: "Please, invent anything to criticize Chavez, except for lack of democracy."

Constitutional Reform As A Pretext for Protests

Washington's goal from all this is clear, but why now? Last July, Chavez announced he'd be sending Venezuela's National Assembly (AN) a proposed list of constitutional reforms to debate, consider and vote on. Under Venezuelan law, the President, National Assembly or 15% of registered voters (by petition) may propose constitutional changes. Under articles 342, 343, 344 and 345, they must then be debated three times in the legislature, amended if needed, and then submitted to a vote that requires a two-thirds majority to pass. Finally within 30 days, the public gets the last word, up or down, in a national referendum. It represents the true spirit of democracy that's unimaginable in the US where elitists control everything, elections are a sham, and the people have no say.

That was true for Venezuela earlier, but no longer. In its history, there have been 26 Constitutions since its first in 1821, but none like the 1999 Bolivarian one under Chavez that's worlds apart from the others. It created a model participatory social democracy that gave all citizens the right to vote it up or down by national referendum and then empowered them (or the government) later on to petition for change.

On August 15, Chavez did that by submitting 33 suggested amendment reforms to the Constitution's 350 articles and explained it this way: The 1999 Constitution needed updating because it's "ambiguous (and) a product of that moment. The world (today) is very different from (then). (Reforms are) essential for continuing the process of revolutionary transition" to deepen and broaden Venezuelan democracy. That's his central aim - to create a "new geometry of power" for the people along with more government accountability to them.

Proposed reforms will have little impact on the nation's fundamental political structure. They will, however, change laws with regard to politics, the economy, property, the military, the national territory as well as the culture and society and will deepen the country's social democracy.

The National Assembly (AN) completed its work on November 2 adding 25 additional articles to Chavez's proposal plus another 11 changes for a total of 69 articles that amend one-fifth of the nation's Constitution. The most important ones include:

-- extending existing constitutional law that guarantees human rights and recognizes the country's social and cultural diversity;

-- building a "social economy" to replace the failed neoliberal Washington Consensus model;

-- officially prohibiting monopolies and unjust consolidation of economic resources;

-- extending presidential terms from six to seven years;

-- allowing unlimited presidential reelections so that option is "the sovereign decision of the constituent people of Venezuela" and is a similar to the political process in countries like England, France, Germany and Australia;

-- strengthening grassroots communal councils, increasing their funding, and promoting more of them;

-- lowering the eligible voting age from 18 to 16;

-- guaranteeing free university education to the highest level;

-- prohibiting foreign funding of elections and political activity;

-- reducing the work week to 36 hours to promote more employment;

-- ending the autonomy of Venezuela's Central Bank to reclaim the country's financial sovereignty the way it should be everywhere; today nearly all central banks are controlled by private for-profit banking cartels; Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul wants to end that status in the US and correctly explains the Federal Reserve Bank is neither federal nor does it have reserves; it's owned and run by Wall Street and the major banks;

-- adding new forms of collective property under five categories: public for the state, social for citizens, collective for people or social groups, mixed for public and private, and private for individuals or private entities;

-- territorial redefinition to distribute resources more equitably to communities instead of being used largely by economic and political elites;

-- prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination and enacting gender parity rights for political candidates;

-- redefining the military as an "anti-imperialist popular entity;"

-- in cases where property is appropriated for the public good, fair and timely compensation to be paid for it;

-- protecting the loss of one's home in cases of bankruptcy; and

-- enacting social security protection for the self-employed.

The National Assembly also approved 15 important transitional dispositions. They relate to how constitutional changes will be implemented if approved until laws are passed to regulate them. One provision is for the legislature to pass 15 so-called "organic laws" that include the following ones:

-- a law on "popular power" to govern grassroots communal councils (that may number 50,000 by year end) that Chavez called "one of the central ideas....to open, at the constitutional level, the roads to accelerate the transfer of power to the people (in an) Explosion of Communal (or popular) Power;" five percent of state revenues will be set aside to fund it;

-- another promoting a socialist economy for the 21st century that Chavez champions even though he remains friendly to business; and

-- one relating to the country's territorial organization; plus others on education, a shorter workweek and more democratic changes.

Under Venezuelan law, and in the true spirit of democracy, these proposed changes will be for citizens to vote up or down on December 2. The process will be in two parts reversing an earlier decision to do it as one package, yea or nay. One part will be Chavez's 33 reforms plus 13 National Assembly additions, and the other for the remaining 23 articles.

Coup D'Etat Rumblings Must Be Taken Seriously

Now battle lines are drawn, opposition forces are mobilized and events are playing out violently on Venezuela's streets. The worst so far was on November 7 when CNN falsely reported "80,000" anti-Chave zstudents demonstrated "peacefully" in Caracas to denounce "Hugo Chavez's attempts to expand his power." The actual best estimates put it between 2000 and 10,000, and long-time Latin American expert James Petras calls the protesters "privileged middle and upper middle class university students," once again being used as an imperial tool.

In their anti-government zeal, CNN and other dominant media ignore the many pro-Chavez events writer Fred Fuentes calls a "red hurricane" sweeping the country. An impressive one was held on November 4 when the President addressed hundreds of thousands of supporters who participated in an 8.5 kilometer Caracas march while similar pro-reform rallies took place at the same time around the country. They're the start of a "yes" campaign for a large December 2 turnout that's vital as polls show strong pro-reform support by a near two to one margin.

In an effort to defuse it, orchestrated opposition turned violent and officials reported eight people were injured in the November 7 incident. No one was killed, but one was wounded by gunfire when at least "four (masked) gunmen (who looked like provocateur plants, not students) fir(ed) handguns at the anti-Chavez crowd." In an earlier October demonstration, opposition students clashed with police who kept them from reaching the National Assembly building and a direct confrontation with pro-Chave zsupporters that might have turned ugly.

It did on November 7 when violence erupted between pro and anti-government students, but it wasn't as reported. Venezuelan and US corporate media claimed pro-Chavez supporters initiated the attack. In fact, they WERE attacked by elements opposing the President. They seized this time to act ahead of the referendum to disrupt it and destabilize the government as prelude to a possible planned coup.

One pro-Chavez student explained what happened. She and others were erecting posters supporting a "yes" referendum vote when they were attacked with tear gas and crowds yelling they were going to be lynched. Avila TV had the evidence. Its unedited footage showed an opposition student mob surrounding the School of Social Work area where pro-Chavez students hid for safety. They threw Molotov cocktails, rocks, chairs and other objects, smashed windows, and tried to burn down the building as university authorities (responsible for security) stood aside doing nothing to curtail the violence. Another report was that corporate-owned Univision operatives posing as reporters had guns and accompanied the elements attacking the school in an overt act of complicity by the media.

The pattern now unfolding on Caracas streets is similar to what happened ahead of the April, 2002 aborted coup attempt, and Petras calls it "the most serious threat (to the President) since" that time. The corporate media then claimed pro-government supporters instigated street violence and fired on "unarmed" opposition protesters. In fact, that was later proved a lie as anti-Chavez "snipers" did the firing as part of the plot that became the coup. A similar scheme may now be unfolding in Caracas and on other campuses around the country as well.

In his public comments, Foreign Minister Maduro accused the major media and CNN of misrepresenting events and poisoning the political atmosphere. It's happening in Venezuela and the US as the dominant media attacks Hugo Chavez through a campaign of vilification and black propaganda.

US Corporate Media on the Attack

On November 12, The Venezuela Information Office (VIO) reported that growing numbers of "US print newspapers lodged attacks against Venezuela" using "outdated cold-war generalizations" and without explaining any of the proposed democratic changes. Among others, they came from the Houston Chronicle that claimed:

-- constitutional reforms will "eliminate the vestiges of democracy" in Venezuela when, in fact, they'll strengthen it, and the people will vote them up or down;

-- Chavez controls the electoral system when, in fact, Venezuela is a model free, fair and open democracy that shames its US equivalent. The Chronicle falsely said reforms will strip people of their right to due process. In fact, that's guaranteed under article 337 that won't be changed.

VIO also reported on a Los Angeles Times editorial comparing Chavez to Bin Laden. It compounded that whopper by claiming reforms will cause a global recession due to higher oil prices that, of course, have nothing to do with changes in law. In another piece, the LA Times inverted the truth by falsely claiming a public majority opposes reforms. Then there's the Miami Herald predicting an end to freedom of expression if changes pass and the Washington Post commenting on how high oil prices let Chavez buy influence.

The Post then ran an inflamatory November 15 editorial headlined "Mr. Chavez's Coup" if which it lied by saying November 7 student protesters "were fired on by gunmen (whom) university officials later 'identified'....as members of government-sponsored 'paramilitary groups' when, in fact, there are no such groups. The editorial went on to say Chavez wants to "complete his transformation into an autocrat (to be able to) seize property....dispose of Venezuela's foreign exchange reserves....impose central government rule on local jurisdictions and declare indefinite states of emergency" as well as suspend due process and freedom of information. Again, misinformation, deliberate distortion and outright lies from a leading quasi-official US house organ.

Rupert Murdock's Wall Street Journal weighed in as well with its lead anti-Chavez attack dog and all-round character assassin extraordinaire, Mary Anastasia O'Grady. This writer has tangled with her several times before and earlier commented how one day she'll have a serious back problem because of her rigid position of genuflection to the most extreme hard-right elements she supports. Her latest November 12 column was vintage O'Grady and headlined "More Trouble for Chavez (as) Students and former allies unite against his latest power grab."

Like most of her others, this one drips with vitriol and outrageous distortions like calling Chavez a "dictator" when, in fact, he's a model democrat, but that's the problem for writers like O'Grady. Absent the facts, they use agitprop instead. O'Grady writes: "Mr. Chavez has been working to remove any counterbalances to his power for almost nine years (and) has met strong resistance from property owners, businesses, labor leaders, the Catholic Church and the media." Now add opposition well-off students. Omitted is that the opposition is a minority, it represents elitist interests, and Chavez has overwhelming public support for his social democracy and proposed reform changes including from most students O'Grady calls "pro-Chavez goons."

Once again, she's on a rampage, but that's her job. She claims the absurd and people believe her - like saying the media will be censored, civil liberties can be suspended, and government will be empowered to seize private property. He's a "demagogue," says O'Grady, waging "class warfare," but opposition to reform "has led to increased speculation (his) days are numbered." Wishing won't make it so, and O'Grady uses that line all the time.

The New York Times is also on the attack in its latest anti-Chavez crusade. It's been a leading Chavez critic for years, and Simon Romero is its man in Caracas. On November 3, he reported "Lawmakers in Venezuela Approve Expanded Power for Chavez (in a) constitutional overhaul (to) enhance (Chavez's) authority, (allow) him to be reelected indefinitely, and (give) him the power to handpick rulers, to be called vice-presidents, (and) for various new regions to be created in the country....The new amendments would facilitate expropriations of private property (and allow state) security forces to round up citizens (stripped of their) legal protections" if Chave zdeclares a state of emergency - to make him look like Pakistan's Musharraf when he's mirror opposite.

Romero also quoted Jose Manuel Gonzales, president of Venezuela's Fedecamaras (chamber of commerce), saying "Venezuelan democracy was buried today" and anti-Chavez Roman Catholic church leaders (always allied with elitists) calling the changes "morally unacceptable." Then on November 8, Romero followed with an article titled "Gunmen Attack Opponents of Chavez's Bid to Extend Power" and implied they were pro-Chavez supporters. Again false. Still more came on November 10 headlined "Students Emerge as a Leading Force Against Chavez" in an effort to imply most students oppose him when, in fact, these elements are a minority.

His latest so far is on November 17 titled "Chavez's Vision Shares Wealth and Centers Power" that in fairness shows the President addressing a huge crowd of supporters in Maturin on November 16. But Romero spoiled it by calling his vision "centralized, oil-fueled socialism (with) Chavez (having) significantly enhanced powers." Then he quotes Chave zbiographer Alberto Barrera Tyszka who embarrassed himself and Romero saying the President is seizing and redirecting "power through legitimate means (and this) is not a dictatorship but something more complex," the 'tyranny' of popularity." In other words, he's saying democracy is "tyranny." The rest of the article is just as bad with alternating subtle and hammer blow attacks against a popular President's aim to deepen his socially democratic agenda and help his people.

Romero's measured tone outclasses O'Grady's crudeness that's pretty standard fare on the Journal's notorious opinion page. He's much more dangerous, however, with a byline in the influential "newspaper of record" because of the important audience it commands.

One other notable anti-Chavez piece is in the November 26 issue of the magazine calling itself "the capitalist tool" - Forbes. It shows in its one-sided commentary and intolerance of opposing views. The article in question, headlined "Latin Sinkholes," is by right wing economist and long-time flack for empire, Steve Hanke. In it, he aims right at Chave zwith outrageous comments like calling him a "negative reformer (who) turned back the clock (and) hails Cuba, the largest open-air prison in the Americas, as his model. His revolution's enemy is the marketplace." He then cites a World Bank report saying "Venezuela is tied with Zimbabwe as this year's champion in smothering economic freedom," and compounds that lie with another whopper.

Point of fact - Venezuela and Argentina have the highest growth rates in the region and are near the top of world rankings in recent years. Following the devastating oil management 2002-03 lockout, Venezuela's economy took off and grew at double digit rates in 2004, 05 and 06 and will grow a likely 8% this year. Hanke, however, says "Venezuela's economic performance under Chavez has been anemic (growing) at an average rate of only 2% per year. In the same article, he aims in similar fashion at Ecuador's Raphael Correa calling him "ruthlessly efficient (for wanting to) pull off a Bolivarian Revolution in Ecuador." Hanke and most others in the dominant media are of one mind and never let facts contradict their opinions. Outliers won't be tolerated even when it's proved their way works best.

There's lots more criticism like this throughout the dominant media along with commentators calling Chave z"a dictator, another Hitler (and) a threat to democracy." Ignoring the rules of imperial management has a price. This type media assault is part of it as a prelude for what often follows - attempted regime change.

Further Venezuela Information Office (VIO) Clarification of Facts on the Ground

On November 15, VIO issued an alert update to dispel media inaccuracies "about Venezuela's constitutional reforms and the student protests" accompanying them. They're listed below:

-- Caracas has a student population of around 200,000; at most 10,000 participated in the largest protest to date, and VIO estimates it was 6000;

-- the major media ignore how the government cooperates with students and made various accommodations to them to be fair to the opposition;

-- Venezuelan police have protected student protesters, and article 68 of the Constitution requires they do it; it affirms the right of all Venezuelans to assemble peacefully;

-- in addition, student protest leaders linked to opposition parties were granted high-level meetings with government officials to present their concerns;

-- on November 1, their student representatives met with directors of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and presented a petition to delay the referendum;

-- on November 7, they again met with National Tribunal of Justice officials and presented the same petition;

-- on November 12, Minister of Interior and Justice Minister, Pedro Carreno, met 20 university presidents to assure them the government respects university autonomy and their students' right to assemble peacefully;

-- VIO reported what really happened at another November 1 protest after students met with CNE officials; some of them then tried to chain themselves to the building while others charged through police lines and injured six officers; in addition, one student had 20 liters of gasoline but never got to use it criminally; after the incident, the CNE president, Tibisay Lucena, issued a public statement expressing his disappointment about this kind of response to the government's good faith efforts; and

-- VIO said students and university presidents from across the nation filed a document with the Supreme Court on November 14 supporting constitutional reform. Chief justice Luisa Estela Morales praised their coming and said the court's doors are open to anyone wanting to give an opinion. The dominant media reported nothing on this. It also ignored the government's 9000 public events throughout the country in past weeks to explain and discuss proposed reforms and that a hotline was installed for comments on them, pro or con.

-- finally, when protests of any kind happen in the US, police usually attack them with tear gas, beatings and mass arrests to crush their democratic spirit and prevent it from being expressed as our Constitution's First and most important amendment guarantees. In Venezuela, the spirit of democracy lives. It never existed in the US, and we want to export our way to everyone and by force if necessary.

Here's a November 15 breaking news example of our way in action. At 8:00AM, 12 FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar Company's office in Evansville, IN and for the next six hours removed two tons of legal Ron Paul Dollars along with all the gold, silver and platinum at the location. They also took all location files and computers and froze Liberty Dollar's bank accounts in an outrageous police state action against a legitimate business. This move also seems intended to impugn the integrity of a presidential candidate gaining popularity because he defies the bellicose mainstream and wants more people empowerment.

Chavez champions another way and answered his critics at a November 14 Miraflores Presidential Palace press conference where he denounced them for lying about his reform package. He explained his aim is to strengthen Venezuela's independence and transfer power to the people, not increase his own. "For many years in Venezuela," he said, "they weakened the powers of the state as part of the neoliberal imperial plan....to weaken the economies of countries to insure domination. While we remained weak, imperialism was strengthened," and he elaborated.

He then continued to stress his most important reform "is the transfer of power to the people" through an explosion of grassroots communal, worker, student and campesino councils, formations of them into regional and national federations, and the formation of "communes (to) constitute the basic nucleus of the socialist state." Earlier Chavez stated that democratizing the economy "is the only way to defeat poverty, to defeat misery and achieve the largest sum of happiness for the people." He's not just saying this. He believes and acts on it, and that's why elitists target him for removal even though he wants equity for everyone, even his critics, and business continues to thrive under his government. But not like in the "good old" days when it was all one-way.

Venezuelan Business is Booming - So Why Complain?

Business in Venezuela is indeed booming, and in 2006 the Financial Times said bankers were "having a party" it was so good. So what's the problem? It's not good enough for corporate interests wanting it all for themselves and nothing for the people the way it used to be pre-Chavez. Unfair? Sure, but in a corporate-dominated world, that's how it is and no outliers are tolerated. Thus Hugo Chavez's dilemma.

Last June, Business Week (BW) magazine captured the mood in an article called "A Love-Hate Relationship with Chavez - Companies are chafing under the fiery socialist. But in some respects, business has never been better." Writer Geri Smith asked: "Just how hard is it to do business in Venezuela" and then exaggerated by saying "hardly a day passes without another change in the rules restricting companies." Hardly so, but what is true is new rules require a more equitable relationship between government and business. They provide more benefits to the people and greater attention to small Venezuelan business and other commercial undertakings like an explosion of cooperatives (100,000 or more) that under neoliberal rules have no chance against the giants.

Nonetheless, the economy under Chavez is booming, and business loves it even while it complains. It's because oil revenues are high, Chavez spends heavily on social benefits, and the poor have seen their incomes more than double since 2004 when all their benefits are included. The result, as BW explains: "Sales of everything from basics" to luxury items "have taken off....and local and foreign companies alike are raking in more money than ever in Venezuela." In addition, bilateral trade has never been higher, but American business complains it's caught in the middle of a Washington - Caracas political struggle.

The article continues to show how all kinds of foreign business is benefitting from cola to cars to computer chips. Yet, it restates the dilemma saying "As Chave zcontinues his socialist crusade, there are signs of rising discontent," and it's showing up now on the country's streets with the latest confrontation still to be resolved, one way or another.

Events Are Ugly and Coming to A Head

Through the dominant media, Washington and Venezuelan anti-Chavez elements are using constitutional reform as a pretext for what they may have in mind - "to arouse the military to intervene" and oust Chavez, as Petras notes in his article titled "Venezuela: Between Ballots and Bullets." He explains the opposition "rich and privileged (coalition) fear constitutional reforms because they will have to grant a greater share of their (considerable) profits to the working class, lose their monopoly over market transactions to publicly owned firms, and see political power evolve toward local community councils and the executive branch."

Petras is worried and says "class polarization....has reached its most extreme expression" as December 2 approaches: "the remains of the multi-class coalition embracing a minority of the middle class and the great majority of (workers) is disintegrating (and) political defections have increased (including 14) deputies in the National Assembly." Add to them former Chavez Defense Minister, Raul Baduel, who Petras believes may be "an aspirant to head up a US-backed right-wing seizure of power."

The situation is ugly and dangerous, and lots of US money and influence fuels it. Petras puts it this way: "Venezuelan democracy, the Presidency of Hugo Chave zand the great majority of the popular classes face a mortal threat." An alliance between Washington, local oligarchs and elitist supporters of the "right" are committed to ousting Chavez and may feel now is their best chance. Venezuela's social democracy is on the line in the crucial December 2 vote, and the entire region depends on it solidifying and surviving.

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

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

Demand in Spain for Venezuela Coup Info

A Spanish deputy demanded on Monday that the government provide information whether previous President Jose Maria Aznar backed the April 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela and if King Juan Carlos knew of the coup in advance.

Francisco Garrido, of Partido de los Verdes, member of the socialist congressional group, recalled that in November 2004 Foreign Affairs Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said the then governing PP (Popular Party) supported the attempted coup against Chavez.

The legislator asked the government if it would make available documentary information on the participation and awareness of the then PP executive (Aznar) with respect to the coup, according to a report from EFE agency.

Likewise, he requests explanations about the diplomatic documentation on the contacts of then Ambassador to Caracas Manuel Viturro with the coup participants and the US Embassy.

He also asks "if the king knew of the support to the coup by the ambassador in Caracas and the then Spanish government".

Fidel Castro: The Conversation with Chavez

Cuban President Fidel Castro revealed details of the conversation with his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez during the 2002 coup d'etat and the Ibero-American Summit held in Chile.

"I remember exactly what I told him that night when I asked him not sacrifice himself: that Allende could not rely on a single soldier to fight back and that he, on the other hand, could rely on thousands," stated President Fidel Castro in his Monday's reflection.

Prensa Latina issues below reflections by the Cuban president:

REFLECTIONS BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF:

THE CONVERSATION WITH CHAVEZ

Last November 15, I referred to a third reflection on the Latin American Summit which, as I then wrote, "I have yet to publish". It strikes me as timely, however, to do so before the referendum of December 2.

In this reflection, written on the 13th, I pointed out the following:

Yesterday, the Cuban people had the opportunity to hear Chavez speak on the Round Table program. I phoned him when he said that Fidel was a man who was out of this world, that, on April 11, 2002, he spoke with him, when all official lines of communication were tapped, over a phone located in his kitchen.

I was at a meeting with the President of the Basque Country the day of the coup. Events succeeded each other restlessly. That fateful afternoon, several of the people there, who were willing to die next to Chavez, had used the same phone to say goodbye. I remember exactly what I told him that night when I asked him not sacrifice himself: that Allende could not rely on a single soldier to fight back and that he, on the other hand, could rely on thousands.

In our telephone conversation during the Peoples' Summit function, I tried to add that to sacrifice oneself so as not to fall prisoner ?a choice I once faced and something I nearly decided, again, before reaching the mountains? was a way of dying with dignity. I had said the same thing he had: that Allende had died fighting.

Calixto Garcia Iñiguez, one of the most glorious generals of our wars of independence, survived a gunshot to his chin, aimed at his head. His mother, who had refused to believe her son had been taken prisoner, on finding out the whole truth, exclaimed with pride: that's my boy!

That was what I wanted to convey to him over the cell phone without amplifier, held, this time, by Lage, Secretary of the Executive Committee of Cuba's Council of Ministers. Chavez could barely hear what I was saying, the same as when the King of Spain abruptly ordered him to keep quiet.

It was at that moment that Evo arrived at the function. He is a genuine Aymara native, who also spoke there, as Daniel did, and in whose face Chavez wisely discerned Maya features.

I agree with what he said, that I am a strange blend of races. I have Taino, Canary Island, Celtic and who knows what other bloods in me.

I was anxious to hear the three of them speak again. Before they spoke, I said: "I salute the thousands of Chileans who died fighting the dictatorship imperialism imposed on them!" And I concluded my remarks proclaiming, next to Chavez, Bolivar's, Che Guevara's and Cuba's slogan of: "Homeland, socialism or death! We shall overcome!"

Yesterday, Monday the 12th, over a notorious private Venezuelan television station at the empire's service, I heard a declaration and speech which had been prepared, from beginning to end, by the US embassy. How empty and ridiculous it all sounded in comparison to Chavez' vibrant speech at the Summit debate!

Long live the courageous people who cast off the oppressor's yoke!

Long live Hugo Rafael Chavez!

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 18, 2007

3:16 p.m.

Bolivia’s “Agrarian Revolution” Hanging In

• Constituent Assembly’s partisanship holds back constitutional reform process
• President Morales’ land reform proposal is being challenged, as his strategy to get through other issues, seems to be flagging
• Bolivia’s experience could set the stage for land reform initiatives elsewhere in the region

Land redistribution since 1952 has been a major, if intermittent, factor in Bolivian national life. In recent years it has attracted renewed interest, returning as a major economic initiative under President Evo Morales' "Agrarian Revolution," mainly in the eastern part of the country which is known as the "Media Luna." This region was largely ignored in the previous agrarian reform effort over 50 years ago and is where the major opposition to Morales resides today. The President's Movement towards Socialism (MAS) party has fielded a comprehensive agrarian reform that will fulfill economic and social provisions scheduled to be engrossed in the country's proposed constitution. Agrarian reform remains one of the half dozen unresolved issues, which are supposed to be addressed by the constituent assembly meeting in Sucre, is aimed at redistributing land to the landless. This is to be achieved principally by reaching out to indigenous communities and other landless to ensure that the demands of campesinos and migrants moving from the poor western part of the country to the more affluent east are being met.

Contemporary agrarian reform involves a critical re-arrangement of agrarian practices, some of which look back to ancestral times, which were mainly orientated to the western highlands and are not an obvious priority right now in MAS' grand strategy. Current lowland indigenous land rights are also an issue in the struggle but the parcels are much less quantifiable even though they tend to be huge in size. In this process, the government expropriates and then redistributes the targeted land, if need be, in parcels conforming to various priority categories, beginning with dividing up public land into individual or jointly-held communal properties located, for the most part, in the eastern part of the country. Examples of this proposal are best found in Santa Cruz. This category also covers large, but non-productive estates taken over from relatively small numbers of wealthy landholders, which in theory is the plan but so far not in practice. The affected landholders have been far more concerned with land speculation than with matters dealing with productivity of their properties which, if expropriated, are then sub-divided and given over to landless cultivators. At times, forcibly removing landed owners opposed to such reforms provokes pitched battles, even resulting in violence on both sides.

Bolivia's History of Agrarian reform

Latin America has experienced a long history of sharply unequal living standards and skewed land distribution figures, with Bolivia turning in one of the worst performances in terms of statistics, in all of South America. Bolivia is dramatically different from other countries in respect to the significant campesino and indigenous classes, its unique history, and its traditional, intense connections to the land. Local agricultural fields also account for a significant share of the country's entire market.

The period leading up to Bolivia's epochal 1952 revolution was marked by growing social unrest and economic decline. As early as 1946, domestic turmoil had begun to mount when trade union leaders issued a call for permanent revolution and violent armed struggle on the part of the working class. With the labor sector becoming steadily more radicalized, the government resorted to even more repressive actions, including the dismissal of 7,000 miners in a period of three months.

In the early 1950s, the Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario (MNR) emerged as the dominant opposition force even though its head, Victor Paz Estenssoro, had earlier been forced into exile in Argentina. The MNR espoused a working-class ideology and also stressed, importantly, its support for indigenous rights. In the presidential election of May 1951, Estenssoro, still in exile, nevertheless entered the race. With Hernan Siles Zuazo as his vice presidential candidate, Paz Estenssoro ran on a platform of nationalization, primarily focusing on critical sectors of the economy and on an extensive agrarian reform program. However, struggles between the outgoing and incoming parties brought the military into the picture, preventing the victorious MNR from taking office. Thus by 1952, the country's economy was in rapid decline while social unrest continued to grow.

At that time, Bolivia's economy was suffering at the hands of fluctuating international markets and a weak agricultural sector that was also seriously under-capitalized and non-competitive; food imports were increasing, reaching an alarming 19 percent of total imports by 1950 and placing a heavy burden on the treasury.

Bolivia contains somewhat over 180 million hectares of arable land, most of which during this period was grossly unequally distributed and with about 4 percent of landowners possessing 82 percent of the land. As a result, social unrest ensued; at this point, the MNR launched an uprising in La Paz and then proceeded to seize arsenals and distribute weapons to sympathetic civilians. Armed miners marched into the city and blocked pro-government troops, which were on their way to reinforce the government authorities. After several days of fighting the army surrendered and the MNR's Paz Estenssoro assumed the presidency on April 16, 1952.

MNR Plunges into Agrarian reform

The revolution was promptly followed by a barrage of agrarian reform measures which served as a model for several subsequent programs staged elsewhere in the region. The new government emancipated indigenous people from a relationship of bondage associated with the oppressive life on the latifundios, where they had lived entirely marginal existences. The Bolivian reform being promoted at that time affected 79 million acres of land, which were distributed to 40,000 medium- and small-sized family farmers. At the same time, more than a half a million indigenous and peasant families divided up only about ten million acres, almost exclusively in the less favorable western highlands of the country.

By 1970, only 45 percent of eligible Bolivian peasant families had received titles to their land, due in part to the successive dictatorships which came to power during this period. Huge land parcels were handed out to speculators and swindlers who often posed, for legal purposes, as agricultural entrepreneurs. In the east, autocratic officials also spurned indigenous claims to land, encumbering their efforts with heavy, often unfathomable, bureaucratic red tape. Thus, broad disparities in land ownership still remained. Even today, almost 60 percent of Bolivian farmers live in the rural highlands, where the land is the least fertile, accounting for only 40 percent of rural income. Rural societies reflect the complex land tenure history that communities had endured in the past, including the aforementioned attempt at agrarian reform, which allowed for uneven political and economic development. Nevertheless, the reforms had brought about impressive changes within western highland indigenous communities, populated mainly by the Aymara and Quechua peoples, whose previous access to goods and services had always been limited and were still heavily circumscribed.

The rise of campesino protest movements over the decades had offered a platform from which they could endeavor to improve their conditions and fashion policies in accordance to what they believed was their right to land. One crucial event occurred in 1990, when a march of eastern lowland indigenous groups, who previously had been passed over from benefiting from agrarian reform, descended on La Paz from the departments of Santa Cruz and Beni. The increasing deforestation of their eastern region for logging, cattle ranching, soybean farming, and land speculation threatened to degrade the territories that these indigenous lowland peoples traditionally had depended upon for their livelihood. They demanded the recognition of their ancestral territories and, in doing so, earned wide public support. This period was considered to be the beginning of modern land protests in Bolivia and the first call for a new constitutional assembly that would result in the drafting of a more equitable document.

The need to resolve land conflicts was high on the presidential agenda during conservative Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozado's first term (1993 to 1997), thereby, prompting a modest amount of land titling and agrarian reform initiatives. His government eventually enacted the 1996 National `Agrarian Reform Service Law INRA, which along with encouraging the formation of collectives in indigenous communities, sought to address corruption in the Agrarian Reform Council, as well as attempting to finally define productive use of land and determine the legality of various categories of land titles.

However, the project was left largely unfinished, despite the millions of euros poured into it by the EU, a primary funder. The uneven nature of the effort could be witnessed by the fact that although small landholdings were being awarded in the highlands and the western valleys, enormous ranches were being created in the tropical zones of the east. The failure of the program over a decade, where less than 1/10 of the land requiring it was actually re-titled, forced a recent commitment out of Morales to emphatically address the issue.

The Morales Presidency

President Evo Morales revived agrarian reform initiatives when he took office in 2006. That same year, the Bolivian Senate passed a measure authorizing the government to present land titles to 60 indigenous communities, accounting for a total of almost 3 million hectares. In addition, Morales hoped to distribute 20 million hectares of land among the nation's mostly poor indigenous populaces over the next five years. The bill, which was also first passed by the MAS-controlled lower house of the legislature, was then blocked by a number of conservative groups. However, three opposition suplente senators (persons that, in Bolivia, legally sit in when the titular, the primary legislator, is unavailable because of illness or travel restrictions) changed their allegiance at the last moment to vote in favor of the pro-Morales measure, following a tumultuous rally in La Paz. This gave the president the backing of 15 of the 27 senate seats, representing a majority in Morales' favor. In spite of what appeared to be a winning strategy, the narrowness of the vote has become grounds for the government to worry if attendant laws will be applied in Sucre as well as La Paz, since the struggle goes on as to which will be the capital.

Last year, MAS controlled the presidency but not a working majority in the Senate, which it has since completely lost, hence one of the reasons why MAS wants, under the new constitution, to do away with the Senate all together. MAS Senator, Santos Ramirez, called for an extraordinary midnight Senate session, without bothering to advise the opposition Social and Democratic Power (PODEMOS), and other opposition titular Senators. However, he did convoke two suplentes, one being from PODEMOS. However, in this case, opposition titulares were not advised of the session, so technically, the outcome can be seen as being fraudulent, or at least suspicious.

The reform program could eventually affect about 13 percent of Bolivia's land expanse involving about 28 percent of its people, out of that one-third of the land already being owned by the state and the other two-thirds reclaimed from individuals or companies. Those who could benefit in particular would come from Bolivia's eastern lowlands, who previously had tended to not hold legal title to their land. (88 percent of agrarian reforms enacted between 1953 and 1992 are estimated as having benefited corporate interests). Soon after the legislation came into effect, 2,300 land titles and 50 new tractors were distributed to local campesinos. Morales stated that agrarian reform "aims to end historic inequality in land redistribution. The concentration of land and the latifundio are part of the exclusion and discrimination that indigenous and peasant farmers are experiencing in the Bolivian countryside."

Will They Still Remain Empty Promises?

Morales' reform program is to be applauded and has been so by many specialists in the subject. Roger Burbach, the highly regarded director of the Center for the Study of the Americas (CENSA), hailed it as a "historic victory." Pledges of redistribution, as well as plans to re-write the constitution, have provoked a huge outcry from the largely upper and middle class opposition who live mainly in the eastern, more Europeanized area of the country. The opposition to agrarian reform includes the elected governors of the immediate area, who fear that President Morales would use the constituent assembly to impose the beliefs and practices of the Andean-Indian communities by stressing a "communist model." Because of this, the east would stand to lose the most. Easterners are also worried that agrarian reform will flood the lowland communities with impoverished indigenous immigrants from the western part of the country, tipping the social and political balance as well as adversely altering present demographics. The wealthiest groups in Santa Cruz and other eastern regions have threatened to use force to defend their property, and have announced the formation of armed defense committees to guard their land against the landless peasant movement, known as the MST (Movimiento Sin Tierra), founded in 2000.

Putting agrarian reform to work

The "Agrarian Revolution," according to Morales, would enable the government to gradually do away with the eastern latifundios and recover the lands that are not being efficiently worked, as he put it: "all of these lands that are being hoarded for speculative purposes or that are in the hands of large landowners, have to go to the peasant or indigenous farmers who are suffering from a scarcity of land for production, and who are subsisting only on crops they can grow in the family or community." For example, under the dictatorship of General Hugo Banzer (1971-1978), thousands of hectares of land were handed out to friends and cronies of the dictator, most of whom never cultivated it but merely held their acreage as collateral to obtain loans for other purposes. Therefore, Morales, who in fulfilling his campaign promise to allocate more land to the indigenous communities and campesinos, has prompted sometimes bloody, social clashes. Characteristically, these have been between the upper and middle class landowners and landless campesinos.

A more recent, welcomed and peaceful announcement made by Morales, took place in July this year, when the president granted the Chiquitano indigenous group permanent land titles in Monte Verde, its ancestral territory of almost 2.5 million acres, located in the south-eastern portion of the department of Santa Cruz. The U.K relief agency, Oxfam, welcomed this historic move and congratulated the native group for its persistent efforts over the last 12 years, which resulted in this peaceful revolution. "This allows the Chiquitano people to recover land which traditionally has belonged to them," said Jorge Velazquez of Oxfam International in Bolivia. "It is the beginning of a new stage of their history." This land titling victory, after decades of campaigning by bitterly frustrated indigenous groups and grassroots movements, recognizes the Chiquitano people's ownership of its land, which will enable them to strengthen their development initiatives as they seek to find the best way to manage their forests and renewable resources for future generations. This type of progressive action will also further encourage other regions of Bolivia to follow suit with a constructive form of activism after witnessing tangible displays of what such cooperative efforts can bring about.

Agrarian Distribution

Nevertheless, Morales' "Agrarian Revolution," has not moved as quickly as some would have preferred. The Bolivian president does not want to disruptively upset the status quo; neither does he wish to short-circuit some proven efficient and traditional land-use practices, based on the maintenance of large productive commercial plantations that efficiently produce cash crops. Because of this recognition, at the present time, such land holdings are exempted from being expropriated by the government, even though these wealthy landowners axiomatically play a prominent role within the middle class political opposition, buttressing it in their anti-agrarian reform stand. A reform measure was only narrowly passed by the Bolivian legislature in 2006, with the dominating elite in the eastern part of the country still vigorously protesting its application.

Up to this point, most landowners have somehow averted the government's newly mandated regulations, according to Douglas Hertzler of the Andean Information Network. They managed to do this by keeping one or two calves on the land that technically qualified them for their allotted plots, or by claiming that family members also work the land and are thus entitled to their own individual parcels, while they alternatively claim that their land is being dedicated as an ecological preserve. Hertzler, while admitting that government progress on agrarian reform on the whole has been slower than was originally hoped for, is now confident that there seems to be an even greater prospect for positive results than before. At the same time, the large landowners are gradually losing their political dominance. They are also losing clout with their negative anti-indigenous attitudes that are anathema to many, including some of their traditional conservative allies, as emphasized by Miguel Urisote of the Land Foundation.

Some observers are hoping that the remaining 15 million hectares of the 20 million proposed for agrarian reform will be transferred over within the next five years. The consistency of Morales' promise of not submitting productive land to the nationalizing process still has some way to go before the middle class political opposition is reassured that it is binding. This point is emphasized in the Washington Post, "The protestors are not in the dark about his [Morales] well thought out plans – land which is productive and legally owned will thus remain so." One has seen what the indigenous groups can achieve when, with determination, they have set out to dramatically change their conditions after centuries of discrimination. Now, with Morales as the country's first indigenous president, expectations remain high but, nevertheless, are beginning to decline.

Conclusion

One school of thought argues that the aim of agrarian reform should be to absorb as many of the region's landless workers and indigenous groups in the east as possible so that the land can be put out to productive use for agricultural cultivation. Growth with equity should also focus on supporting and developing the poorer rural region, with the long-term goal being the procurement of international financial and technical support. US officials have tended to describe the public protestors of the agrarian reform as 'farmers' when in reality they are the lowland agribusiness elite and their flock which all along has tenaciously fought to prevent the assistance needed to fuel the ambitious and agrarian reform initiatives of the government. If this reform is to be successful, these initiatives must first go some distance to improve the economic and social well-being of Bolivia's poor before they are fully trusted.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Laura Starr

Venezuela Broadly Disseminates Reform

The spreading of the draft constitutional reform in Venezuela is currently backed by several mechanisms, in order to increase awareness among the population ahead of the referendum of December 2.

In the streets, defenders of the initiative to change the Magna Carta as proposed by President Hugo Chavez hand out materials containing modifications to 69 articles and 15 transitory regulations.

Similarly, the electoral power decided to distribute today a gazette with the reform inserted in national and regional dailies countrywide.

Special TV programs designed by the National Election Council (CNE) are also broadcast, in a sign of stepped up efforts hardly 14 days before the consultation to endorse the project.

Venezuelan Social Policy Reduces Poverty

Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas

Venezuelan authorities considered on Saturday that poverty reduction is a result of the country's social policy, which places this South American nation in the second place in the region, according to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas pointed out that the CEPAL report, published on Thursday, confirms that poverty was reduced by 18.4 percent and extreme poverty dropped 12.3 percent from 2002 to 2006.

In statements to the Zulia-based newspaper La Verdad, Cabezas noted the need to continue to work in that direction, as 22 percent of Venezuelan homes are still poor.

He pointed out that Venezuela ranks second in the continent, after Argentina, despite the country's paralyzation from December 2002 to February 2003 as a result of opposition actions that made the gross domestic product (GDP) drop nearly 30 points.

Cabezas confirmed that the goal of keeping inflation under 12 percent will not be achieved this year, but efforts are being made to keep that rate as close as possible to that target.

The Venezuelan official attributed the increase in inflation above predictions to a gap between demand and supply in September and October, when inflation increased to 13.6 percent.

The increase in demand for milk, sugar and cooking oil has been met by importing additional amounts of those products, the minister added.

Inflation, which reached 17 percent in 2006, is the main concern in Venezuelan economy, which grew 8.7 percent during the third trimester of the year, and reported a balance of payments of 3.94 billion dollars during that period.

Venezuela's GDP grew from July to September for the sixteenth consecutive trimester.

Elimination of Anti-Cuba HR Mandate a Victory

Cuba termed a victory and devastating coup to the US anti-Cuban plans the ratification by the UN General Assembly to eliminate the mandate against the island as for human rights.

"The decision is a devastating coup to the Bush administration"s imperial plans against Cuba," stated a declaration by the island"s Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Some 168 countries supported Friday the Caribbean island at the UN Committee in charge social and humanitarian affairs to eliminate the resolution that support the appointment of a special rapporteur for Cuba.

The document entitled "Human Rights: Historic Victory after 20 Years of Battle," stressed that the multi-national forum has echoed the recommendation by the Human Rights Council in Geneva to eliminate the figure of the rapporteur for the island.

Year after year and for two decades, the US government have approved that mandate "through blackmails, threats and coercion," stated the declaration.

"This decision," noted the document, "strengthens Cuba"s victory in its tough confrontation to the manipulation of the human rights, reaffirming once more the international isolation of the White House" anti-Cuban policy.

Oil could hit 200 dollars if US attacks Iran, Venezuela: Chavez

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez warned Saturday that oil prices could hit 200 dollars if the United States attacked Iran or Venezuela, in an opening speech at a summit of OPEC leaders.

"If the United States was mad enough to attack Iran or aggress Venezuela again, the price of a barrel of oil could reach 150 dollars or even 200 dollars," he said.

Para todos todo, para nosotros nada

"Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves."
-Zapatista slogan.

The group was founded on November 17, 1983 by non-indigenous members of the FLN guerrilla group from Mexico's urban north and by indigenous inhabitants of the remote Las Caadas/Selva Lacandona regions in eastern Chiapas. Over the years, the group slowly grew, building on social relations among the indigenous base and making use of an organizational infrastructure created by peasant organizations and the Catholic church. The Zapatistas appeared on the national and international scene on January 1, 1994, the same day that the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, the United States and Canada became operational, as a way of stating the presence of indigenous peoples in a globalized world.

Indigenous fighters wearing the black ski masks (pasamontaas) or red bandanas (paliacates) that have since become the group's trademark, some of them armed only with fake wooden rifles, took hold of five municipalities in Chiapas. There was token resistance in four of those and hundreds of casualties in and around the city of Ocosingo. The Zapatistas officially declared war against the Mexican government, and announced their plans to march towards Mexico City, the capital of Mexico, either defeating the Mexican army or allowing it to surrender and imposing a war tax on the cities that they conquered in their way. After just a few days of localized fighting in the jungle, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, then in his last year in office, offered a cease-fire agreement and opened dialog with the rebels, whose official spokesperson was Subcomandante Marcos. After twelve days, the fighting stopped.

The dialogue between the Zapatistas and the government extended over a period of three years and ended with the San Andrs Accords, which entailed modifying the national constitution in order to grant special rights, including autonomy, to indigenous people.

Oaxaca Succeeds in Governor Protest

Leaders of the Teacher's Union and Oaxaca People's Assembly (APPO) called successful on Friday a protest in that Mexican state that prevented Governor Ulises Ruiz from presenting his report to the legislature.

Thousands of people started in three points of Oaxaca's capital, to arrive at the legislative palace, where the governor's report had to be presented in a document written by his Government Secretary Teofilo Manuel Garcia Corpus.

APPO head Ermeterio Marino and SNTE Section 22 leader Ezequiel Rosales asserted that the march denounced the assassination of 27 teachers and activists, of which they accused Ruiz' government.

In the demonstration, both organizations demanded from the Institutional Revolutionary Party governor's resignation, and protested detention of around 500 of its activists, after the protests in 2006.

They also denounced the situation of some families, the children of which have remained orphans, due to execution of their parents, as well as torture suffered by the detainees, practiced by police agents.

Deputy Zenen Bravo Castellanos, an APPO supporter, said the mobilization represents the voice of thousands of citizens of that state in the Mexican southwestern area, who have felt affronts in Governor Ruiz' repressive actions.

The Oaxaca legislator said repression there has caused in a year dozens of deaths and hundreds of detainees, besides missing people.

Reflections of President Fidel Castro: The Ideological Waterloo

I have been working on the many reflections that I have promised. One of them deals with the main ideas of a book by Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, making use of his own words. His book clearly reveals how imperialism seeks to continue buying up the world’s natural and human resources with perfumed paper bills.

Another idea I had consisted in compelling certain individuals to confess the truth about NATO’s war plans. I directly challenged Mr. Aznar and brought pressures to bear on U.S. leaders to have them openly admit their responsibility in the empire’s wars. Some of the documented evidence I presented had not been published before.

Then the Ibero-American Summit was held and all hell broke loose there. Zapatero’s additional speech, spineless and inappropriate, his defense of Aznar, the King of Spain’s abrupt order, and the extremely dignified response by the President of Venezuela who, because of technical problems, could not even hear exactly what the King had said, were an unambiguous display of the genocidal actions and methods of the empire, its accomplices and the anesthetized victims of the Third World. Chávez' intelligence and dialectical skills came to the fore in this tense atmosphere.

Aznar's Celestine soul is best captured by one of his pronouncements. When Chávez asked him about the fate in store for poor countries such as Haiti in the neoliberal world, he literally replied: "They’re screwed."

I know the Bolivarian leader well: he never forgets the words he hears directly from his interlocutors.

I wrote a third reflection on the Ibero-American Summit which I have yet to publish. I am publishing this one, instead, on the eve of President Chávez’ trip to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, tomorrow, where he will participate in the OPEC Summit.

Fidel Castro Ruz

November 15, 2007

6:32 p.m.

Venezuela 'attacked Guyana boats'

Venezuela has denied destroying two gold-mining dredges on Guyanese territory following a strong protest from Guyana's government.

Guyana says 36 Venezuelan soldiers used helicopters and Compostion-4 (C-4), a type of plastic explosive, to blow up the two dredges on Thursday.

It has summoned Venezuela's ambassador to explain the incident.

Venezuela denies using force and said the army was removing illegal miners inside its own territory.

Territorial dispute

The dredges were in a disputed border region that has seen a number of recent incidents.

Guyanese troops and police travelled to the border on Friday to investigate whether the incident took place on the Wenamu River between the two countries, or the Cuyuni River in Guyana, according to the Associated Press news agency.

Guyanese Foreign Minister Rudy Insally told the news agency AFP that his country was "very disturbed by this report because it affects our territorial sovereignty."

But Venezuela's ambassador to Guyana, Dario Morandy, told AFP that his country could provide co-ordinates to show the incident had occurred within Venezuelan borders.

The ambassador also accused illegal miners of polluting rivers with mercury and said Venezuela was protecting its natural resources.

Bush’s District Attorney rejects a recorded confession by the terrorist

IN September 2005, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deliberately rejected the use of a recorded confession by Luis Posada Carriles, obtained in Caracas in 1977 by U.S. journalist Blake Fleetwood, in the presence of Orlando Bosch.

That information was revealed this Thursday in Washington before the Sub-Committee for International Organizations, Human Rights and Supervision of the U.S. Congress, during a hearing convened by Congressman Bill Delahunt with respect to the international terrorist and CIA agent.

Fleetwood, who still holds a recording from the time of the testimony, which was published in the magazine New Times, had already agreed to give evidence as had been asked of him by lawyer Jo Ellen Ardinger, who was responsible for the case at that time.

"In 1977 I interviewed two of the most deadly terrorists of the 20th century," begins Fleetwood, relating how he had access, tape recorder in hand, to Posada and Bosch, in the Venezuelan jail where they were being held for the sabotage of a Cuban airliner, that had occurred to previous year and for the deaths of all of its passengers.

The two terrorists, surprised by his sudden appearance and frustrated at their situation, began to openly brag about their crimes.

"I WAS A CIA DRAW OF $300 A WEEK"

According to Fleetwood, Posada told him textually: "I was on a CIA draw of $300 plus all expenses. "The CIA helped me set up my detective agency from which we planned actions."

The journalist tells how the two prisoners "spoke about the murder of two Cuban diplomats in Argentina, the bombing of the Mexican embassy in Buenos Aires, the bombings of the Air Panama office in Bogotá, the Cubana Airlines Office in Panama and, finally, the Cubana Aviation sabotage which killed 73 civilians."

Posada and Bosch also confirmed how "everything" had been planned in a meeting in Bonao in the Dominican Republic, where it was believed that CORU would then mount attacks throughout the continent.

Fleetwood explained that on returning to his hotel, the Anauco Hilton, he immediately communicated with Eugene Propper, the U.S. Assistant Attorney in Washington, who was investigating the Orlando Letelier murder in Washington, D.C.

Propper called him back nine minutes later: "The CIA told the secret police everything. They are out to get you. You are in great danger."

The reporter discovered later on that Venezuelan President Carlos Andres Pérez had personally ordered his capture by the DISIP (secret police).

"In September of 2005 I offered this information, notes and tapes, to the Department of Homeland Security. I was contacted by Jo Ellen Ardinger, an attorney with DHS. She seemed excited by my information and phoned and emailed me," recalled Fleetwood.

Ardinger told him that this information was "exactly" what they needed to prevent Posada from entering the United States, by clearly demonstrating that he was a terrorist.

"She asked me if I was willing to testify. I said that I was."

A few months later, the immigration trial in El Paso began before Judge Kathleen Cardone.

"I waited for the Department of Homeland Security to get back to me to ask for my notes and tapes. They never did."

"THE CHIEF SAID: HEY! WAIT A MINUTE…"

For her part, the well-known journalist Ann Louise Bardach, who interviewed the terrorist for The New York Times in 1998, revealed how FBI agents who investigated information in Guatemala concerning the attacks in Havana confirmed confidentially that their work was abruptly interrupted after interviewing Antonio Alvarez, a Cuban-American businessman from Greenville, South Carolina, head of WRB Enterprises, a Tampa firm with subsidiaries in Central America.

Alvarez had seen two of his collaborators, buddies of Luis Posada Carriles handling explosives and had alerted the authorities.

"We thought it would be a slam dunk: we’d charge and arrest Posada." "But then," the agent said, "we had a meeting one day and the chief said, ‘Hey, wait a minute. Lots of folks around here think Posada is a freedom fighter.’ We were in shock. And they closed down the whole Posada investigation. When we asked for a wiretap on [famed militant] Orlando Bosch, who we knew was working on bombing runs, we were turned down."

POSADA NEVER NEEDED AN INTERPRETER

Later, Bardach also shocked the hearing by revealing how Posada Carriles had never really needed an interpreter in order to communicate, by recalling that the pretext for the poor interpretation justified his release.

Posada learned English as a young man, she underlined.

"He later served as a translator for U.S. servicemen during Iran-Contra. I had interviewed him mostly in English, as did Blake Fleetwood for New Times in 1976, and at no time did Posada indicate to either of us that he did not understand something."

"In fact, his attorney, Matthew Archambleault, who handled his arraignment, spoke to him in English."

The reporter recalled how in August 2003, the FBI in Miami put an end to the whole investigation into Posada, while he was imprisoned for terrorism in Panama.

"The closure of his case allowed a green-lighted destruction of the evidence that conscientious FBI agents had so meticulously gathered against him for many years- including some of the original cables from Union City to Posada, she stated, pointing out that FBI spokeswoman Judy Orihuela, confirmed the destruction but explained it as a "routine cleaning" of the evidence room. Once a case is closed, she said, it is greenlighted for destruction in order to free up space in The Bulky."

Orihula confirmed that an operation like that would have to have been signed by the Special Agent who was head of the Miami office, namely Héctor Pesquera, and that they needed the green light from the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Marcos Jimenez.

FBI sources later revealed to Bardach that "five boxes" of documents had been destroyed.

The journalist stated that that situation had occurred while congress members Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz-Balart were calling for the terrorist’s release, sending letters to Panamanian President Mireya Moscoso on two occasions.

Among the witnesses who appeared were academic Peter Kornbluh, principal analyst at the National Security Archive at the George Washington University, who presented to the panel a large collection of declassified documents concerning Posada’s links with criminal acts.

The investigator invited Congressman Delahunt to consult the 700-plus secret documents from the FBI and the CIA that were presented to the judge in the immigration case of Orlando Bosch and which, if had not been destroyed at that time, also demonstrate Posada’s terrorist character.

With Bosch’s reprieve on July 17, 1990 – by the father of the current U.S. president who cast his own legal system to one side – and Posada’s current situation, "the United States finds itself in the frankly inexplicable position of having not one but both men who our own intelligence agencies identified as responsible for bringing down a civilian airliner living free and unfettered lives in Florida," Kornbluh commented.

"In the midst of a war on terrorism, this has significant repercussions for the United States."

Roseann Nenninger, the sister of a young Guyanese man who died in the sabotage of the Cubana airliner in 1976, gave an emotional testimony, choking back the tears, about the tragedy that her entire family suffered because of the terrorist and CIA agent.

At the end of the hearing, Representative Delahunt confirmed that he considered the investigation to be a priority and announced that he wished to hear the testimonies of Freddy Lugo and Hernan Ricardo, Posada and Bosch’s accomplices in the Barbados crime.

The Venezuelan government has been calling for the extradition of Posada Carriles for more than two years now, while the U.S. government has increased the obstacles in order to save the torturer, murderer and terrorist who has been linked to the Miami mafia and the Bush clan for decades. •

The Assassination of Hugo Chavez

by Greg Palast

Reporting from Lago Agrio, Ecuador
Wednesday November 14

Before The Lord spoke unto Pat Robertson and told him to endorse Rudy Giuliani, family man, for President, the Reverend got a message that higher powers wanted him to arrange a hit on another President:

“Hugo Chavez thinks we’re trying to assassinate him. I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it.”

Robertson has a tough time separating Church and Hate. But when the vicious vicar declared it was time to take out the President of Venezuela, he was simply channeling the wishes of the Supreme Authority, Dick Cheney.

I’m asking you to see the story they don’t want you to see in the USA: from the original investigations filmed for BBC Television, “The Assassination of Hugo”- a special DVD documentary by myself and Rick Rowley. NOT for general release - ONLY available as a gift to donors to the not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund.

Why must they kill Chavez?

With the help of guerrila cameraman Rick Rowley (”Fourth World War”), I flew to Caracas to get the answer - from Chavez himself. I also talked to the guy who took Chavez hostage in 2002. (I had to wear a wire for that one.)

The answer is right underneath Chavez’ feet. Oil. How much? According to the inside documents that fell into my hands from the Department of Energy - LOTS of oil, five times the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

The DVD includes Chavez himself, in our extended exclusive interviews. We go over the Bush plans - for his oil, and for his “elimination.” Sing along with the crooning champion of the poor - or, as George Bush titles him, “a demagogue awash with oil money.”

Watch the film - from Caracas malls to the oil tankers by helicopter - the story I guarantee you won’t get on the Petroleum Broadcasting System.

PLUS two incredibly important reports: “Ecuador: Oiled and Despoiled” - my journey into the mud for Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, PLUS “Florida Con Salsa” - the theft of the Presidential Election in Mexico 2006.

Donate at least $50 and I’ll sign’m and send’m to you - or to whomever you designate for the holidays.

Pluralism Bursts into the Western Hemisphere

• While Russia, Europe and China are wooing Latin America and the Caribbean, the Monroe Doctrine now becomes the “Putin, Zapatero and Chinese – Corollary”
• Iran’s increased presence in the region may lead to bad press, but for now only shows increased investments
• The “Great Game” of political and economic influence is set to be played in the southern hemisphere

No one is arguing that Latin America and the Caribbean have become a priority matter for international diplomacy, save for the U.S., which has witnessed a massive retreat of Washington's vigilance for what it once insisted were its longtime national interests and influence in the hemisphere. Concentrating on its "War on Terror" has resulted in a detour of the U.S. military and diplomatic corps to a series of sorties, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and now, likely enough, to Iran. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine is no longer relevant as nations like Russia, the People's Republic of China as well as the European Union (and its individual members) increase their influence in the Western Hemisphere. This penetration is due to the fact that numerous hemispheric countries are themselves looking to diversify their pool of allies and trading partners by contracting ties to other nations besides the U.S., with Venezuela being at the core of this movement.

From Brussels to Moscow and Beijing, not to mention other emerging middle powers like India, it seems as though everyone wants a piece of Latin America these days. With Washington's grip on the region loosening, there is an increase in opportunity for potentially valuable non-traditional relationships – Iran's aggressive courting of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua is one example– demonstrating that the Western Hemisphere has become a multipolar continent, with Washington no longer being the exclusive choice, and with diplomatic initiatives originating from around the globe.

Enter the Dragon
China has diverse interests in the Western Hemisphere, and although most of them are primarily economic, there are pressing political factors at play as well. Of key importance to Beijing is its quest for new product markets, in combination with creating multiple portals through which it can import the mineral resources and produce what it needs to maintain a booming economy. The most recent example is the $10 billion contract signed between Beijing and Caracas to search for crude oil reserves in Venezuela's oil-rich Orinoco belt. This arrangement occurred shortly after Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez expelled a number of Western oil companies from the country, including Exxon and Conoco, for failing to take a minority stake in their Orinoco oil holdings.

Another reason for China's interest in the Western Hemisphere has to do with the status of neighboring Taiwan. Beijing and Taipei's hostile attitude toward each other and quest for diplomatic recognition has been transferred to the Americas, as both governments attempt to gain new allies in order to bolster support for their positions on the issue of Beijing's claim to the island of Taiwan. Inevitably, Beijing is winning its diplomatic and public relations showdown with Taipei, due to its geopolitical weight. While Taiwan has gained the formal recognition of a number of countries in this hemisphere, it subsequently lost some of this support. This is being achieved as a result of an "open checkbook" policy for economic aid, access to the Chinese market, and the availability of loans for the disadvantaged economies of the Americas. The critical factor here is that China has been able to decisively beat out its adversary, with Taipei having diplomatic ties with only a handful of countries in the Western Hemisphere, most of which have only marginal importance other than their ability to cast a vote in international forums.

An example of this "financially mercenary" is the Caribbean island of Dominica, which cut ties with Taiwan in 2004. According to a report by the BBC, after the decision of Dominican Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit to cut off Taipei, Beijing was prepared to hand over more than $100 million in aid over the next five years to the now blessed Caribbean island.

The Russian Bear
Russia has just begun to regain a privileged position of influence in the Western Hemisphere, a status once enjoyed during the days of the Cold War when, as a result of its close ties with Havana, it was able to maintain close relations with Nicaragua, Grenada, and Allende's Chile. Moscow also had the sympathy of military governments like Peru during the Juan Velasco Alvarado rule (1968-1975). Today, Russia is attempting to come up with a new strategy to recover a resource-drilling position of influence in the hemisphere, and has focused on the military export industry as its line of attack. During the Cold War several Latin American governments purchased Soviet weaponry, and today are familiar with utilizing this type of equipment and prefer its use (not to mention Russian weapons are currently very inexpensive) over having to purchase them from other manufacturers (i.e. France, Israel). For example, Peru is in the process of upgrading its Soviet-era Mi-8 helicopters, having placed its order with Moscow.

Moscow has also capitalized on non-U.S. friendly countries like Venezuela to increase its client base. Last year Venezuela purchased $3 billion of military equipment from the Vladimir Putin regime. This summer, during a trip to Moscow, Chávez ordered five submarines, with the option of buying four more in the near future. In addition, Russia's Izhevsk Manufacturing Plant has reported that it will build two factories in Venezuela to manufacture Kalashnikov rifle-type AK-103 as well as ammunition for it. The objective is to have both plants completed by 2010.

However, it is doubtful that military sales alone will be enough for Russia to once again cement anything like the position of influence in the Western hemisphere that it episodically had in the post-World War II period. Trade is still somewhat lagging between the two sides of the Pacific, and there have been instances of rapprochement between Kremlin officials and a number of hemispheric leaders. Cuba has yet to receive anything approaching a major volume of Russian investment and economic aid, as it once did, although there is always the possibility that this situation may change in the near future. There have been some important visits by high level Kremlin officials, like President Vladimir Putin's trip to Cuba in 2000, as well as several meetings between Putin and Chávez in Moscow, however, these ties have to be amplified in order to make Russia into a bigger player in Latin America. Meanwhile, the region increasingly looks to Moscow for both friendship and, more importantly, trade and investment.

European Unity for All
Understanding Europe's presence in Latin America and the Caribbean may require two separate streams of analysis. On the one hand, the Europe Union has a common policy towards the Americas, and, at the same time, individual European countries have their own foreign policies and interests in the region. When it comes to the EU, Brussels has focused on greater economic and political interaction with the region's major blocs, namely MERCOSUR, the Andean Community of Nations (CAN), and the Rio Group. In fact, the EU has already been discussing a free-trade agreement with CAN for a number of months. In recent weeks, Venezuela has been placed in the spotlight as President Chávez is looking to possibly return to CAN after leaving the bloc in 2006. Chávez is not in favor of an FTA between CAN and the EU, so it is yet to be seen how these feints will transpire. In the meantime, CAN has scheduled its second round of negotiations with the EU in Brussels this coming December. Additionally, the EU has pursued free trade talks with countries like Mexico and Chile.

Individual European governments are pursuing their own foreign policy initiatives vis-à-vis the Western Hemisphere in line with their own national interests. France has increased its cooperation in recent years with Brazil. Likewise, Britain continues to make use of its historical influence on the English-speaking Caribbean, for example, maintaining a military base in Belize (the British Army Training Support Unit Belize – BATSUB). The goal of the base is to provide jungle training to British troops, with the additional objective of protecting the sovereignty of the country, which has had a historical territorial dispute with neighboring Guatemala. In addition, British naval ships regularly patrol the Caribbean and aid with drug-enforcement operations. In 2005, the frigate HMS Cumberland stopped a vessel off Nicaragua's Caribbean coast, which was carrying two tons of cocaine.

In addition, Spain and Portugal, in an attempt to project their presence in Latin America, encouraged the creation of the Ibero-American Secretaria (SEGIB) in 2006. The organization is based in Madrid and scored something of a coup after the distinguished Uruguayan official Enrique Iglesias was selected as its first secretary-general in 2005. Iglesias brought a significant amount of prestige to the organization as he is a former president of the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, Uruguay's foreign minister from 1985-1988 and also served as the head of the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. Nevertheless, it is yet to be seen if SEGIB can make much progress in bringing both sides of the Atlantic effectively together.

In early November, the XVII Ibero-American Summit took place in Santiago, Chile. The meeting was not without controversy as at one point King Juan Carlos of Spain told President Chavez "por qué no te callas?" (why don't you shut up?). Ironically, SEGIB's secretary Iglesias declared in a press conference that the summit had been a success. The next meeting will take place in October 2008 in San Salvador, El Salvador.

Holland's presence in the region is mainly a result of its connection to its former colonies of Suriname and the islands of Aruba (Curacao and Saba off the coast of South America in the Caribbean), as well as St. Maarten, which it shares with France. Finally there are some European nations that particularly are at odds with one or more Latin American countries, especially with Fidel Castro's Cuba. The Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia are famous for their rejection of any effort to be made to moderate the current hostility that these former Soviet satellites currently have towards Cuba, which has rendered them a gaggle of Castro bashers serving on European bodies.

The Growing Persian Shadow
Iran is another country that has a mixed diplomatic-trade and security relationship with a number of regional countries, with Venezuela immediately coming to mind. Recently, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused an uproar in New York when he visited the UN and gave a fiery speech after being booed during a presentation he made at Columbia University. After his stopover in Caracas, Ahmadinejad traveled to Bolivia, prompting rumors of a possible Caracas-Tehran-Sucre/La Paz alliance. In order to explain his meeting with the Iranian leader, Bolivian President Evo Morales declared "we are from the culture of dialogue and life, without marginalization and discrimination. We are about unity [and] solidarity."

Visits by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials to the Western Hemisphere are examples of Tehran's growing presence in the continent. In early November, Iranian Minister of Commerce Masood Mirkazemi traveled to Havana and signed an agreement to form a joint shipping company between the two governments.

During his trip to Bolivia, the first made by an Iranian president, Ahmadinejad pledged to invest $1 billion over the next five years to improve the Bolivian economy. According to September 27 Associated Press file, "Bolivia-Iran trade can hardly go anywhere but up. Bolivia exported nothing to Iran between 2000 and 2006, and Iranian exports to Bolivia totaled just $10 million last year, according to government statistics, down from $24 million a year earlier." Closer relations between La Paz and Tehran have more than raised eyebrows among Bolivia's opposition parties. There are rumors that there may be a deal between both countries for the mining of Bolivia's uranium, which opposition senators would try to block, if true. "No one has assured us that Bolivian uranium will be used for benign purposes, so we cannot take risks," said Senator Arturo Murillo of Unidad Nacional.

In Ahmadinejad's September trip to Caracas, he met with Chávez and the two leaders signed three cooperation accords regarding the petrochemical, agricultural and automobile sectors. In addition, as reported by Latin America News Digest, Venezuela's state-run oil giant Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) and Iranian state-run energy firm Petropars have agreed to set up a 50/50 joint venture named Venirogc. The article explains that the goal is to challenge the supremacy of oil and gas giants Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Eni by creating international oil and gas enterprises along the entire value chain, from production to retail merchandizing through gasoline stations.

Additional Players
Brazil's increasing links to South Africa and India have aided both emerging middle-rank powers to gain a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. India also has a growing research-based presence in Guyana, which it gained by deploying historical ethnic ties, and has also used a diplomatic offensive to permit it to step up investments in mineral-rich Peru.

Pluralism in the Americas
Washington's semi-divorce from Latin America and the Caribbean has been the catalyst that has allowed other nations and international organizations to move rapidly into the regions. What can be seen now is the possibility of the creation of a new system in the Western Hemisphere, with the U.S. becoming no longer the omnipotent and omnipresent player. Washington may have to adjust to being one of many actors in the hemisphere along with Beijing, Moscow, Brussels and, oddly enough, Tehran.

In effect, a dramatically pluralistic hemisphere is in the making, which cannot help but profoundly affect the inter-American system, with the Organization of American States—which has always been regarded as Washington's protégé—losing ground to one or more of a variety of other possible regional blocks, like CARICOM, the Rio Group, the Andean Community of Nations, as well as Chávez' Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA).

Caribbean Security
While important from a geo-strategic point of view, the Caribbean does not usually attract the international media coverage it deserves. In spite of this fact, security forces from major powers like the U.S. and Britain continue to maintain security a presence in the area, especially as the Caribbean has become a major point for the shipment of illegal drugs coming from South America on their way to Europe.

London's BATSUB provides specialist training for over 4,000 British troops per year and offers back-up support to the Belize Defense Force (BDF). The British base also regularly receives visits by British vessels, like the Cumberland, that take part in anti-narcotics operations in the Caribbean Sea, often in conjunction with the U.S.

Washington aggressively has pressed the relatively unknown but very important "Shiprider Agreement" with a number of Caribbean countries. The objective of this pact is to combat illegal drug trafficking, arms smuggling and transnational crime by increasing cooperation between U.S. security forces (particularly the Coast Guard) and Caribbean governments. From the onset, the "Shiprider Agreement" has been surrounded by controversy; for example, in 1996 there was confrontation between the U.S., Barbados and Jamaica. Barbados and Jamaica declined to sign the proposal, preferring instead a framework of cooperation based on democratic principles and respect for each nation's sovereignty. On January 26, 2006 an article was published in Caribbean Net News, which included comments by the U.S. ambassador to Suriname, Marsha Barnes. In the article the American diplomat said that so far, there are no tangible results from the proposed cooperation since Suriname doesn't have a Coast Guard. The diplomat noted that agreements with other Caribbean nations were exercised differently. Some Caribbean nations' vessels patrolling off-shore Puerto Rico have U.S. law enforcement officers on board, while in other instances Caribbean law enforcement personnel are on board U.S. Coast Guard vessels.

Additionally, the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard, sponsors a series of military exercises held with Caribbean nations, known as TRADEWINDS. The May 2007 TRADEWINDS exercises were held in Belize with the participation of the British Royal Marines. It is noteworthy to mention that the Caribbean has strived to achieve independence when it comes to security issues. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the need for a collective response to security threats led to the creation of the Regional Security System. This concept first appeared in concrete terms through a Memorandum of Understanding which was signed in October 1982 between Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St. Lucia and Barbados, in order to provide for "mutual assistance on request." The RSS' first deployment was a part of the U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983. Grenada itself joined the RSS in 1985.

Who Supports Who?
In spite of the growing presence of extra-hemispheric nations in the Western Hemisphere, it might be an exaggeration to assume that exclusive alliances have been cemented between any Latin American or Caribbean nations with particular European or Asian powers. Brazil has developed close relations with India and South Africa (through the tri-national organization known as IBSA), which is perhaps the closest there is to an inter-hemispheric alliance at the moment. In addition, Britain has a strong relation with its former colonies, but at the same time, the Caribbean states have had success in forming their own identity through regional organizations like CARICOM.

Mexico's growing closeness with the EU, China and India on trade issues will continue to be dwarfed by its relationship with the U.S., its major trading partner by far. The same can be said about Central America and the Dominican Republic, after the ratification by all members of CAFTA-DR. President Chávez has turned to Russia as a weapons supplier, but he had no problems granting China, Russia's competitor in the quest for overseas resources, a multi-billion dollar deal for oil exploration.

An issue that needs to be addressed is that of shifts and movements in inter-state relations on the continent and the search for external alliances. Brazil, with is global ambitions, has teamed up with other regional powers in other parts of the world that share similar interests. Venezuela turned to Russia for military equipment because when requested, the U.S. would not sell the Chávez administration spare parts to repair the country's squadron of aging F-16 fighter planes. Adjoining countries like Peru, Uruguay and Paraguay, have yet to feel any need to seek stable extra-hemispheric alliances.

Another condition that deserves to be considered is the fear that allowing too many foreign companies or foreign influence in a country will be detrimental to local economies or create neo-colonial scenarios. For example, some Caribbean analysts still bitterly recall CARICOM's distrust which was directed against France's then-Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, with some officials of the Caribbean organization alleging that he was one of the main plotters of the Haitian 2004 coup that overthrew President Jean Bertrand Aristide.

It is unrealistic to believe that a Russian or Asian military base may be located in the Western Hemisphere anytime soon. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that non-American military bases in Latin America and the Caribbean do exist. One example is the aforementioned British military training facility in Belize. France has also deployed members of its Foreign Legion to French Guyana, an overseas department, for training exercises and to protect the European Space Agency spacecrafts which are launched from there. Furthermore, the status of U.S. facilities in the region is no longer secure or, for that matter, sacred. Ecuador's President Rafael Correa adamantly insists that once the lease to the U.S. facility in Manta expires in 2009, Quito will refuse to renew it. Meanwhile Mexican authorities have stressed that no U.S. military forces will be allowed in the country as part of the newly signed Merida initiative.

El Gran Juego
Like the struggle for influence in Central Asia in the 19th century between the Russian and British empires, which was referred to at the time as the Great Game, Latin America and the Caribbean have entered into their own version of this quest, with non-hemispheric players like Russia, China and the European Union all attempting to win influence in the region. This translates into investment, access to resources and local markets; however it is not a winner-takes-all type of game. One thing is clear: for the rest of the world, efforts at associating with Latin America and the Caribbean signifies the region's emergence as an important political and economic force with potential for further growth, which is even far beyond what Washington is now able to conceptualize.

This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sánchez

Chile declares disaster zone in the wake of earthquake affecting 15,000 people

SANTIAGO, November 15

The Chilean government today declared the northern part of the country a disaster zone after a 7.7 degree earthquake on the Richter scale occurred on Thursday, leaving 15,000 people affected.

Government Minister and Secretary General Ricardo Lagos Weber reported that the measure will allow authorities to send help more rapidly to the area, 630 kilometers north of the capital city of Santiago.

Lagos reported that at least 15,000 individuals were affected in the Antofagasta region, with 80% of homes in Tocopilla damaged, 70% of them in the former salt mining camp of María Elena.

The declaration of a ‘disaster zone’ by decree allows the country’s executive authorities to facilitate the distribution of resources needed for reconstruction of the communities damaged by the quake and to streamline administrative procedures.

The government official added that 14 tons of aid will be sent to the area this Thursday, including 500 prefabricated homes and military field hospital for Tocopilla where the central city clinic was s