Postcards from the Revolution

Desperate to Save His Legacy, Obama Chooses Cuba

2015-01-21T16:23:00.000-04:30

The announcement came as a welcome surprise to millions around the world who have long awaited a major change in US policy towards Cuba. In simultaneous broadcasts, presidents Raul Castro and Barack Obama bridged the painful, unjustified and well-outdated gap that has tormented both nations for over half a century. In a matter of sentences, relief came to the many Cubans, at home and abroad, Latin Americans region-wide, and people across the US and world who cheered at the declared thaw in US-Cuba relations. After more than 50 years, the heads of state of both countries spoke on the telephone and agreed to reestablish diplomatic ties. The US would open its Embassy in Havana, and Cuba would do the same in Washington. It was a major breakthrough, to say the least.

It was Castro who was quick to remind his fellow citizens that, while applauding the decision of the first standing US president to actually improve ties with Cuba, the vicious blockade imposed against his nation by Washington still remains. Obama was also cautious to mention that though there were concrete actions he could take towards normalizing relations with Cuba, it was the US Congress that had the authority to end the blockade, and not him. He did urge Congress to take those steps, while lashing out a few patronizing admonitions at Castro regarding democracy and human rights.

Without a doubt, one of the most important victories of the deal was the release of the three remaining Cuban citizens, Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino and Antonio Guerrero, unjustly held in US prisons for 16 years on charges of espionage and other crimes. Even the United Nations Commission on Human Rights had condemned their trial as arbitrary and unfair, their due process and fundamental rights severely violated. These men were finally able to return home to a hero’s welcome, after an agreement was brokered between the two governments that also saw the return of a USAID subcontractor convicted on charges of subversion in Cuba, Alan Gross, and a Cuban citizen and former intelligence officer, Rolando Sarraff Trujillo, jailed for working as a double agent for the US Central Intelligence Agency.

There is no question that this event marks a profound change in US-Cuba relations and US relations with Latin America. And it is a major victory for the Cuban Revolution, Fidel and Raul Castro and the Cuban people. Over the past fifteen years, Washington has lost its influence in Latin America and the region has shifted significantly towards the left with socialist presidents in a majority of countries and new regional organizations that exclude the United States and Canada. With the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), Latin America has become more integrated, sovereign, independent and powerful than ever before. The region has forged relations with China, Russia, Iran and other sovereign states with strong markets and technological know-how. Development has excelled and with few exceptions, Latin American economies are on the rise. All this has been achieved without the United States.

In response, Washington amped up its interference in the region, supporting coups and attempted coups against democratically-elected presidents in Venezuela, Haiti, Bolivia, Honduras, Ecuador and Paraguay, increasing its military presence in the hemisphere and intensifying subversive efforts to undermine Latin American governments through multimillion-dollar funding of opposition movements. Those actions isolated Washington even more in the region and were rejected unanimously by all Latin American governments, even those on the right. A growing sentiment of “Patria Grande” (The Great Homeland) has taken root in the region and only appears to get stronger every year.

When Obama was elected president and first attended a Summit of the Americas regional gathering in Trinidad in 2009, he promised a new relationship with Latin America, based on regaining US influence in the region. He either ignored or ignorantly misunderstood the changes that had taken place throughout Latin America and had the gall to stand before 33 heads of state and high-level representatives of regional governments and tell them to “forget the past” and move forward together with the United States towards new relations. His arrogant rhetoric reminded the people of Latin America the importance of consolidating and advancing their sovereignty and integration on their own terms. At that summit, a majority of nations, with the exception of the US and Canada, condemned the fact that Cuba continued to be excluded from the Organization of American States solely because of Washington’s influence. In 2012, at the next Summit of the Americas, President Rafael Correa of Ecuador refused to attend in a sign of solidarity with Cuba. “Ecuador won’t be a part of these summits until Cuba is included”, he made clear.

A few months ago, well before Obama and Castro announced efforts to normalize relations, the government of Panama had made public that Cuba would be invited to the 2015 Summit of the Americas, which it will host. Cuba has indicated it would attend. This decision was clearly a sign that Washington’s influence no longer reigned in Latin America – even the regional organization created by Washington to dominate and control the region was now rendered irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Obama’s move on Cuba was not without immediate consequence. While there is no question that the decision to reestablish diplomatic relations, along with the release of the remaining three of the five unjustly detained Cubans, is an enormous, historical victory for the Cuban Revolution, and a tribute to the resistance, dignity and solidarity of the Cuban people, Obama’s motives are not pure.

The day after a well-crafted presidential speech on how US policy has failed in Cuba, which acknowledged the blockade and economic embargo of Cuba had been a fiasco, Obama signed bills imposing sanctions on both Venezuela and Russia. There is little doubt that the sanctions bill against Venezuela, an absurd law titled the Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014, was signed by Obama to appease the small, but influential group of rabidly anti-Castro, anti-Chavez and anti-Maduro politicians and constituents in Miami who were steaming with rage from the shift on Cuba.

The Venezuelan sanctions bill is rather ludicrous. It purports to punish officials in Venezuela who allegedly violated the human rights of anti-government protestors in demonstrations that took place in February 2014. Considering that the majority of those protests were extremely violent and protestors directly caused the deaths of over 40 individuals, most of whom were government supporters, bystanders and state security forces, imposing sanctions on state officials who exercised their duty to protect civilians is illogical. Even more ironic is the passage of this bill while hundreds of protestors against police brutality and racism are being detained and having their rights violated in the United States, at the hands of US authorities. Not to mention that the same Senate that promoted this bill just released an in depth report on torture and grave human rights violations committed by CIA and US military officers.

The sanctions bill against Venezuela goes beyond freezing the assets of a few Venezuelan government officials and revoking their visas. It reaffirms the US government commitment to supporting – financially and politically – the anti-government movement in Venezuela which acts beyond a democratic framework, and it authorizes the preparation of a full-on propaganda war against the Venezuelan government. All of this is reminiscent of the very same failed policy on Cuba that Obama just renounced. So why impose the same on Venezuela?

Appeasing the community in Miami is a major reason. But Obama also needs the change in Cuba policy to save his withering legacy. As the first black president in the United States, Obama expected his legacy to be the end of racial tensions and institutionalized racism in the country. However, the opposite has occurred during his administration. Racial tensions are at an all-time high. Mass protests have erupted nationwide against police brutality in black communities and the injustice blacks face in the US legal system. Racial crimes have increased and people are angry. The “change” Obama promised hasn’t come and he won’t be forgiven for his failure to deliver.

Obama’s healthcare reform has made a mediocre impact and still faces serious threats from a Republican Congress, which has returned to power in full force, winning majorities in both houses thanks to a disgruntled democratic base. While making some executive decisions on immigration, Obama has failed to pass sweeping immigration reform and probably never will after losing democrat seats in the legislature. Though he did withdraw US troops from Iraq as promised, another terrorist group took over significant parts of that country, rendering US operations and billion-dollar investment in bringing democracy to Iraq practically useless. As for Afghanistan, Obama increased US military presence and brought the total war budget well over one billion dollars, making it the longest US military conflict and one of the most costly. He’s brought more war to Pakistan, Yemen and Africa, and destroyed Libya, while later funding and arming warlords and terrorists in Syria to demolish that country too. And to top it all off, Obama has rekindled the Cold War with Russia.

Overall, Obama’s legacy leaves nothing to be desired. He’s failed at home and brought havoc abroad, and Cuba is his savior. Now Obama will be remembered in history as the president who ended the most dysfunctional, damaging and pointless US foreign policy ever. He’ll be recalled for bridging ties not just with Cuba, but with all of Latin America, which would be very noble and legacy-worthy if it were true.

Cuba hasn’t been a real threat to the United States – if it ever was – for a very long time. But Venezuela, because of its vast oil reserves, is. The US needs to control Venezuela’s 300 billion barrels of oil in order to guarantee its long-term survival, and without a subservient government in power, that’s not possible. US policy on Venezuela has been the same since Hugo Chavez was first elected in 1998 and refused to bow to US interests: destroy the Bolivarian Revolution and remove him from power. The same policy is in effect against the government of Nicolas Maduro.

By attempting to isolate both Venezuela and Russia with sanctions and cripple their economies, Washington believes it will succeed in stifling Russia’s expanding relations with Latin America and neutralize Venezuela’s regional influence. The plan is to step in and fill the void with US financial and political clout. And Washington thinks that by reaching out to Cuba, the rest of Latin America will be seduced enough to welcome back US domination.

Cuba may be Obama’s lifejacket, but the ship has sailed. Latin American nations have overwhelmingly condemned US sanctions on Venezuela and called for them to be rolled back. Obama may think he can sacrifice Venezuela in order to save his legacy by engaging with Cuba and closing ranks in the hemisphere, but he’s wrong. The same solidarity that Latin American nations expressed to Cuba for over 50 years is also present for Venezuela. La Patria Grande won’t be fooled by US double standards anymore. Latin America has long expressed its desire for a mature, respectful relationship with Washington. Will the US ever be capable of the same?

A Defiant Ecuador Seeks Solutions in Assange Case

2014-08-23T21:42:00.001-04:30

By Eva Golinger

August 2014

Telesur English

Two years ago, one of the most controversial figures of the age of cyberspace appeared on the doorstep of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. On the verge of losing an appeal in the British courts that could open the door to his extradition to Sweden and then later, the United States, where a secret Grand Jury had convened to indict him, Julian Assange sought refuge in Ecuador’s modest Embassy flat. During the following two months, the Ecuadorian government studiously reviewed his case, calling in experts to discuss and debate the duties and risks Ecuador faced in granting the asylum petition.

On August 16, 2012, Ecuador’s Foreign Minister, Ricardo Patiño, announced that his country would grant Assange diplomatic asylum, a concept enshrined in the Convention on Diplomatic Asylum of 1954, also known as the Convention of Caracas. The British government refused to recognize this status and initially threatened to violate Ecuador’s sovereignty by entering into the Embassy and arresting Assange. After strong protest from the Ecuadorian government and outcry from Latin American nations, England refrained from causing an international uproar by forcing entry into the Embassy, and instead chose to maintain a prominent police presence surrounding the building, impeding Assange’s escape.

Two years later, the Assange case is at a standstill. Despite his legal team’s efforts to end the unsubstantiated persecution against him from Sweden, where no formal charges have materialized, an extradition request still remains to bring him to Stockholm for “questioning”. The British government has made clear it would extradite Assange to Sweden if they could detain him. While no public extradition request has been issued from the United States to Sweden for Assange, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that a Grand Jury may have already indicted him in a US court, on charges, including espionage and/or aiding and abetting the enemy, that could result in his long-term imprisonment were he subjected to a trial. This well-founded fear of political persecution has reinforced Ecuador’s decision to maintain his political asylum.

In 2013, when Foreign Minister Patiño visited Assange in the Embassy on the one-year anniversary of his confinement, Ecuador initiated an effort to create a bilateral working group with the British government to find a solution to the situation. To date, no movement has been made in the group and England has refused to discuss the matter further. Recently, during Foreign Minister Patiño’s second visit to see Assange on August 16, 2014, the British Foreign Office issued a statement claiming they were “committed to finding solution”, yet only according to their vision of the outcome: "We remain as committed as ever to reaching a diplomatic solution to this situation. We are clear that our laws must be followed and Mr Assange should be extradited to Sweden. As ever we look to Ecuador to help bring this difficult, and costly, residence to an end." In other words, the British government sees no other solution than Assange’s extradition. Their unwavering, rigid position leaves no opportunity for diplomacy or creative problem-solving, which is what this case needs.

The Ecuadorian government has reiterated its support for Assange and has made clear that their country is bound by international law to maintain his asylum. As Minister Patiño has affirmed, there is no return policy on asylees who are still subjected to exactly the same conditions as when the asylum was granted. The persecution remains, and there are still no charges of any kind against Assange. Ecuador, a small nation of 15 million inhabitants with bananas and beautiful roses as its main exports, has remained defiant in the face of pressure from England, Sweden and their biggest ally, the United States.

Two years enclosed in the Ecuadorian Embassy, a narrow flat with just a handful of rooms, has taken its toll on Julian Assange. While he continues to work from his small space inside the Embassy, and his organization Wikileaks has not ceased publishing important documents exposing the abuses and illegal acts of powerful interests, the lack of sunlight, fresh air and regular exercise have obviously decreased his quality of life and impacted his health. Despite his confinement and separation from close friends and family, his spirits remain high, as was apparent during the visit with Minister Patiño, and he is optimistic about changes to a law in the UK that potentially could lead to his freedom.

Known within political circles as the “Assange Act”, an amendment was made in early 2014 to the Extradition Act 2003 in the British parliament. Resulting from discontent and discomfort over the legal limbo Julian has been in for the past four years – even two years before receiving asylum from Ecuador, Assange had been on house arrest in England, pending potential extradition to Sweden - several British MPs began debating a substantive change to the law that would impede a future Assange situation from happening to someone else.

The amendment is included in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (not the most socially-friendly name), in Chapter 12, Part 12. It specifically states that “Extradition is barred if no prosecution decision has been made in the requesting territory”, as in Assange’s situation. If the country requesting extradition has not yet charged or decided to try the individual being requested, than the United Kingdom will not extradite. This is exactly the case of Julian Assange. The Swedish prosecution has not decided to try him yet or even formally charge him, and the extradition request is merely based on the desire to “question” him about certain allegations he may or may not be involved in.

In the parliamentary debates in the House of Commons leading up to the passage of the extradition act amendment, specific references to Assange’s case were made. According to the parliamentarians, the new clause, amending the extradition act of 2003, “seeks to ensure that people are not extradited when it is not certain they will be charged, so that they do not sit in a prison for months on end”. Reference was also made to the case of a British citizen, Andrew Symeou, who was extradited to Greece for questioning and remained in inhumane prison conditions for over ten months with no charges against him. In Julian Assange’s case, the debate concluded, “where a decision to charge and try is not taken, extradition cannot take place. People will not be left in limbo...”

Julian’s legal team will need to challenge this law in order for it to be applied to his case, since at present it does not appear to be retroactive. But there is no denying that this change in the law would impede Assange from being extradited to Sweden were it to have been in place previously. Ecuador’s Foreign Minister made reference to the amended law as a potential opening for dialogue with the UK government in the case. Ecuador has also offered to allow Swedish authorities question Assange inside the Embassy, or via videoconference, all to no avail. It seems as though the only parties interested in finding a solution to this situation are the government of Ecuador and Julian Assange. The Brits and the Swedes have done everything possible to stall and stonewall the case.

Foreign Minister Patiño has stated previously that Ecuador could bring the case before the International Court of Justice in the Hague, or the United Nations. The affronts to Ecuador’s sovereignty, the failure to recognize the asylum granted to Julian Assange and the refusal to provide him with safe passage to Ecuadorian territory are all violations of international law. Julian’s human rights are also affected. The inability to fully enjoy his right to asylum and the confining conditions he has been forced to remain in for two years, under threat by arrest by British authorities right outside the Embassy doors and windows, have subjected him to cruel and inhumane punishment. Were he to experience a medical emergency and need hospital attention, the British government has already made clear it would arrest him.

Both Julian Assange and Ecuador have taken on the most powerful world interests, despite the dangers, threats and consequences of their actions. Foreign Minister Ricardo Patiño and President Rafael Correa have made clear that Ecuador will stand strong in its decision to grant Assange asylum under international law, and they will not bow to pressure and intimidation from anyone. The Assange case goes beyond just simple political asylum and issues of sovereignty. It is matter of principle in a time in which information and secrecy have become ever more the tools of the most powerful. Justice must be done for those who have sacrified their liberties to warn us of these dangers.

The Dirty Hand of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Venezuela

2014-04-23T09:09:00.001-04:30

By Eva Golinger

(aquí en español)

Anti-government protests in Venezuela that seek regime change have been led by several individuals and organizations with close ties to the US government. Leopoldo Lopez and Maria Corina Machado- two of the public leaders behind the violent protests that started in February – have long histories as collaborators, grantees and agents of Washington. The National Endowment for Democracy “NED” and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) have channeled multi-million dollar funding to Lopez’s political parties Primero Justicia and Voluntad Popular, and Machado’s NGO Sumate and her electoral campaigns.

These Washington agencies have also filtered more than $14 million to opposition groups in Venezuela between 2013 and 2014, including funding for their political campaigns in 2013 and for the current anti-government protests in 2014. This continues the pattern of financing from the US government to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela since 2001, when millions of dollars were given to organizations from so-called “civil society” to execute a coup d’etat against President Chavez in April 2002. After their failure days later, USAID opened an Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Caracas to, together with the NED, inject more than $100 million in efforts to undermine the Chavez government and reinforce the opposition during the following 8 years.

At the beginning of 2011, after being publically exposed for its grave violations of Venezuelan law and sovereignty, the OTI closed its doors inVenezuela and USAID operations were transferred to its offices in the US. The flow of money to anti-government groups didn’t stop, despite the enactment by Venezuela’s National Assembly of the Law of Political Sovereignty and NationalSelf-Determination at the end of 2010, which outright prohibits foreign funding of political groups in the country. US agencies and the Venezuelan groups that receive their money continue to violate the law with impunity. In the Obama Administration’s Foreign Operations Budgets, between $5-6 million have been included to fund opposition groups in Venezuela through USAID since 2012.

The NED, a “foundation” created by Congress in 1983 to essentially do the CIA’s work overtly, has been one of the principal financiers of destabilization in Venezuela throughout the Chavez administration and now against President Maduro. According to NED’s 2013 annual report, the agency channeled more than $2.3 million to Venezuelan opposition groups and projects. Within that figure, $1,787,300 went directly to anti-government groups within Venezuela, while another $590,000 was distributed to regional organizations that work with and fund the Venezuelan opposition. More than $300,000 was directed towards efforts to develop a new generation of youth leaders to oppose Maduro’s government politically.

One of the groups funded by NED to specifically work with youth is FORMA (http://www.forma.org.ve), an organization led by Cesar Briceño and tied to Venezuelan banker Oscar Garcia Mendoza. Garcia Mendoza runs the Banco Venezolano de Credito, a Venezuelan bank that has served as the filter for the flow of dollars from NED and USAID to opposition groups in Venezuela, including Sumate, CEDICE, Sin Mordaza, Observatorio Venezolano de Prisiones and FORMA, amongst others.

Another significant part of NED funds in Venezuela from 2013-2014 was given to groups and initiatives that work in media and run the campaign to discredit the government of President Maduro. Some of the more active media organizations outwardly opposed to Maduro and receiving NED funds include Espacio Publico, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (IPYS), Sin Mordaza and GALI. Throughout the past year, an unprecedented media war has been waged against the Venezuelan government and President Maduro directly, which has intensified during the past few months of protests.

In direct violation of Venezuelan law, NED also funded the opposition coalition, the Democratic Unity Table (MUD), via the US International Republican Institute (IRI), with $100,000 to “share lessons learned with [anti-government groups] in Nicaragua, Argentina and Bolivia...and allow for the adaption of the Venezuelan experience in these countries”. Regarding this initiative, the NED 2013 annual report specifically states its aim: “To develop the ability of political and civil society actors from Nicaragua, Argentina and Bolivia to work on national, issue-based agendas for their respective countries using lessons learned and best practices from successful Venezuelan counterparts. The Institute will facilitate an exchange of experiences between the Venezuelan Democratic Unity Roundtable and counterparts in Bolivia, Nicaragua and Argentina. IRI will bring these actors together through a series of tailored activities that will allow for the adaptation of the Venezuelan experience in these countries.”

IRI has helped to build right-wing opposition parties Primero Justicia and Voluntad Popular, and has worked with the anti-government coaltion in Venezuela since before the 2002 coup d’etat against Chavez. In fact, IRI’s president at that time, George Folsom, outwardly applauded the coup and celebrated IRI’s role in a pressrelease claiming, “The Institute has served as a bridge between the nation’s political parties and all civil society groups to help Venezuelans forge a new democratic future…”

Detailed in a report published by the Spanish institute FRIDE in 2010, international agencies that fund the Venezuelan opposition violate currency control laws in order to get their dollars to the recipients. Also confirmed in the FRIDE report was the fact that the majority of international agencies, with the exception of the European Commission, are bringing in foreign money and changing it on the black market, in clear violation of Venezuelan law. In some cases, as the FRIDE analysis reports, the agencies open bank accounts abroad for the Venezuelan groups or they bring them the money in hard cash. The US Embassy in Caracas could also use the diplomatic pouch to bring large quantities of unaccounted dollars and euros into the country that are later handed over illegally to anti-government groups in Venezuela.

What is clear is that the US government continues to feed efforts to destabilize Venezuela in clear violation of law. Stronger legal measures and enforcement may be necessary to ensure the sovereignty and defense of Venezuela’s democracy.

A TRIBUTE --- CHAVEZ: A Giant Under the Moon

2014-03-06T09:29:00.001-04:30

(Aquí en español)

By Eva Golinger

A year has passed since the physical parting of Hugo Chavez and it’s still impossible to accept. His voice was a constant in revolutionary Venezuela, his discourse was a school in continuous development. A humble man with a noble soul, Chavez had the courage of warriors and a heart filled with patriotism. He defied the most powerful interests without ever flinching. His hand never trembled, he never bowed down, he was always firm with serenity and conviction, ready to confront the most powerful threats. His value was immense, a soldier of the people, a giant of centuries. Knowing him was a privilege and a priceless treasure.

Chavez had an impact on the world, leaving his fingerprint in struggles and dreams of social justice, from north to south. His legacy is transcontinental, without borders. “Chavez” translates to a symbol of dignity in all languages.

I had the honor of accompanying him on several of his international trips. I witnessed the massive support he received on almost every continent. His mere presence inspired millions. He represented the dreams of so many struggles, so many commitments to humanity, and he proved that another world is possible.

All around the world people ran to see him up close, anxious to hear his words full of hope, simple yet full of profound intimacy. Chavez breathed love, and although millions received him with open arms, there were always dangerous threats around him. He was unpredictable, always a step ahead. Washington called him a “wise competitor”, and coming from the US government that wasn’t only a compliment, but evidenced his grandeur. Not even the empire could control him.

In May 2006 I was on a book tour in Europe with the publication of the German and Italian editions of my first book, The Chavez Code. While finishing up my events in Germany, I had the luck of coinciding with President Chavez’s visit to Vienna, Austria for the Latin America-European Union summit.

I arrived at the hotel where the presidential delegation was staying and after greeting familiar faces in the lobby, I went to my room to rest. An hour later, I went downstairs to see what was going on and to find out the president’s schedule. When I entered the lobby, the friendly presidential protocol officer informed me we would be leaving in a few moments. He asked me to join them in the caravan. I hadn’t yet seen the president but I assumed we were heading out before him to an event, so I got in the car with the delegation.

They took us to a place in the center of Vienna. When we arrived, we saw an enormous amount of people, mainly young, who were both outside and inside the venue. “What is this place?”, I asked. “It’s a popular cultural center here called Arena”, I was told.

We got out of the car and saw thousands of people around the place. There was an event that evening with none other than President Hugo Chavez, leader of the Bolivarian Revolution. A while later, when we had entered the venue to see the impressive amount of people there, I was approached and told that I would be speaking at the event that night, there in front of the European crowd. “What an honor”, I thought, to participate in a public event in Vienna alongside Chavez.

The evening air was brisk and so many people kept arriving that they didn’t fit in the venue. The organizers decided they had to change the event from inside, where only 500 people fit, to right outside in a public square, where thousands could arrive. Never before had there been a phenomenon like this in Vienna. Thousands of European youth had gathered outdoors in a Viennese square to listen to a Latin American head of state. The quantity of people present was spectacular. Chavez wasn’t just a Latin American leader, he was an international sensation.

Time went by and the President didn’t arrive. People were getting anxious waiting for so long – punctuality in Austria was strict and they weren’t used to waiting. A while later, the presidential protocol folks asked me to go on stage with the rest of the delegation. We had to do something, they said, the people were waiting for too long to just leave them in limbo. I went to talk to the other members of the delegation, which included Nicolas Maduro, then President of the National Assembly, legislator Juan Barreto and Planning and Development Minister Jorge Giordani. “They president is not coming”, they told me. “So what are we going to do now?”, I asked. “We can’t just go out there when they are expecting Chavez”.

Two hours had passed from the start time of the event and the public was restless. We went to talk to the organizers, a group of friendly European activists. We told them about the possibility that Chavez wouldn’t come. He was tired and already resting in the hotel, preparing for the heads of state summit the following day.

The news hit them like a rock. It wasn’t possible, they said. Never before in history had so many people come out to a public place to hear a head of state from anywhere. We had to understand the historic importance of the moment.

We understood clearly that under no circumstances could we replace President Chavez before that crowd. It was Chavez or nothing, or better yet, it had to be Chavez, period. We took footage of the venue and thousands present, and we sent it with the Presidential Guard and the President’s assistants, asking them to please convey the importance of the event to him so he would come.

Two hours went by and it was now nighttime, but no one had left. People actually kept arriving. They stayed alert singing “Uh Ah, Chávez no se va” in Spanish and in German, “Chávez geht nicht”.

After four hours under the beautiful full moon of Vienna, anxious for the arrival of the Comandante of the XXI century, there was movement. Chavez had seen the images and he understood the magnitud of the moment and the importance of speaking before European youth. Despite his fatigue and lack of sleep, he appeared, radiant, smiling as he looked upon the young crowd.

The arrival of the President was met with an impressive applause from the public around 10pm. The brilliant light of the moon reflected on the awe and intensity of the faces in the crowd. Everyone was completely attentive, listening hard to the Venezuelan leader. And President Chavez was inspired by the attention and dedication of the Viennese youth, and there outside “Arena”, he launched into a master class about building an international revolutionary movement. He talked about “The Triangle of Victory”, comprised of three principle factors: political objectives, strategy and power framed within conscientiousness, commitment and organization. Everyone stayed during the two hours that Chavez spoke, listening carefully to every detail about the international revolutionary project, showing their support and approval in applause, chants and smiles. “They accuse us of wanting to build an atomic bomb”, exclaimed Chavez. “But we aren’t interested in having atomic bombs. The empire can have all the atomic bombs. We don’t need an arsenal of bombs to save the world. We are the atomic bombs! And above all, youth of the world, you are the atomic bombs...bombs of love, passion, ideas, strength, organization”.

Sixty-four European media outlets covered that historic event in Vienna. “The Che Guevara of the XXI century”, they called him, fascinated with what had happened that night under the full moon. Never before had a head of state gone out to the streets to speak with the people. Never before had so many people spontaneously gathered outdoors in Vienna to hear a head of state speak, let alone one from Latin America. Chavez brought the love and sincerity of the Venezuelan people to Austria, and the people of Vienna received him with open arms.

“You are going to save the world”, he affirmed. “Know that you are not alone here. Know that youth all around the world, who speak different languages, who are bathed in other colors, have the same calling as you...In Latin America, in Africa, in Asia...Youth of the world awaken, workers of the world rise up, women rise up, students rise up. Let’s go together on the path of revolution!”

When he ended his speech, Chavez looked at the glorious full moon that had illuminated the event. “Ah...”, he said. “That full moon, so beautiful, makes me want to grab a guitar and go with you all to the Danub river to sing until dawn”. The glimmer in his eyes gave away his sincerity. It was a special moment, those that occur only once in a lifetime. It seemed like an intimate gathering amongst friends, although most of us didn’t know each other. But, we shared a love for justice and a dream for a better world. Chavez was just another brother in the fight for that dream.

Years later, Chavez’s international influence turned him into the number one enemy of Washington. Someone of his humility, sincerity, courage and conviction was not common, especially as the president of the country with the largest oil reserves on the planet. The threats against Chavez were constant, attempts against his life never ceased. There was a systematic aggression against his government from the most powerful interests in the world, together with their agents in Venezuela. They gave their all against Chavez. A leader of his stature, influence, strength and dignity, with an immense capacity for love, was dangerous for the imperial agenda. They did what they could to neutralize him.

We may never know if his death was provoked or not, although enough evidence exists to investigate. What we do know is that his mortal departure was not a goodbye. Men like Chavez don’t disappear, though some wish they would. Chavez’s legacy lives today and grows beyond the Bolivarian Revolution. His voice is present in every cry for freedom, his gaze is seen in brave young people who defy powerful and dangerous interests to expose truths. His love is present in the solidarity and heartfelt commitment that millions feel for revolutionary Venezuela. His strength and dignity guide the defense of the Patria Grande, today under threat again from those who seek to erase us from history.

Chavez will never disappear. His presence will continue to grow and multiply in every soldier of peace, every warrior for justice. Smiling, with a heart of gold, Chavez will always be a giant under the moon.

Venezuela Beyond the Protests: The Revolution is Here to Stay

2014-02-20T23:50:00.002-04:30

By Eva Golinger

February 20, 2014

For those of you unfamiliar with Venezuelan issues, don’t let the title of this article fool you. The revolution referred to is not what most media outlets are showing taking place today in Caracas, with protestors calling for the ouster of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The revolution that is here to stay is the Bolivarian Revolution, which began in 1998 when Hugo Chavez was first elected president and has subsequently transformed the mega oil producing nation into a socially-focused, progressive country with a grassroots government. Demonstrations taking place over the past few days in Venezuela are attempts to undermine and destroy that transformation in order to return power to the hands of the elite who ruled the nation previously for over 40 years.

Those protesting do not represent Venezuela’s vast working class majority that struggled to overcome the oppressive exclusion they were subjected to during administrations before Chavez. The youth taking to the streets today in Caracas and other cities throughout the country, hiding their faces behind masks and balaclavas, destroying public buildings, vehicles, burning garbage, violently blocking transit and throwing rocks and molotov cocktails at security forces are being driven by extremist right-wing interests from Venezuela’s wealthiest sector. Led by hardline neoconservatives, Leopoldo Lopez, Henrique Capriles and Maria Corina Machado – who come from three of the wealthiest families in Venezuela, the 1% of the 1% - the protesters seek not to revindicate their basic fundamental rights, or gain access to free healthcare or education, all of which are guaranteed by the state, thanks to Chavez, but rather are attempting to spiral the country into a state of ungovernability that would justify an international intervention leading to regime change.

Before Chavez was elected in 1998, Venezuela was in a very dark, difficult period with a dangerously eroded democracy. During the early 1990s, poverty swelled at around 80%, the economy was in a sinkhole, the nation’s vast middle class was disappearing with millions falling into economic dispair, constitutional rights were suspended, a national curfew was imposed and corruption was rampant. Those who protested the actions of the government were brutally repressed and often killed. In fact, during the period of so-called “representative democracy” in Venezuela from 1958-1998, before the nation’s transformation into a participatory democracy under Chavez, thousands of Venezuelans were disappeared, tortured, persecuted and assassinated by state security forces. None of their rights were guaranteed and no one, except the majority excluded poor, seemed to care. International Human Rights organizations showed little interest in Venezuela during that time, despite clear and systematic violations taking place against the people.

Those in power during that period, also referred to in Venezuela as the “Fourth Republic”, represented an elite minority – families that held the nation’s wealth and profited heavily from the lucrative oil reserves. Millions of dollars from oil profits belonging to the state (oil was nationalized in Venezuela in 1976) were embezzled out of the country into the bloated bank accounts of wealthy Venezuelans and corrupt public officials who had homes in Miami, New York and the Dominican Republic and lived the high life off the backs of an impoverished majority.

Hugo Chavez’s electoral victory in 1998 shattered the opulent banquet the Venezuelan elite had enjoyed for decades, while they ran the country into the ground. He was elected precisely to break the hold on power those groups had harnessed for so many years, and Chavez’s promise was revolution – complete transformation of the economic, social and political system in the country. His electoral victories were solid, year after year, each time rising in popularity as more and more Venezuelans became motivated to participate in their governance and the construction of a new, inclusive, nation with social justice as its banner.

Chavez’s election was a huge blow to Washington and the powerful interests in the United States that wanted control over Venezuela’s oil reserves – the largest on the planet. In April 2002, the Bush administration backed a coup d’etat to overthrow Chavez, led by the very same elite that had been in power before. The coup involved mass marches in the streets of Caracas, composed of the wealthy and middle classes, calling for Chavez’s ouster. Snipers were used to shoot on those in the marches, creating violence and chaos that was immediately blamed on Chavez. Television, radio and newspapers in Venezuela all joined in the coup efforts, manipulating images and distorting facts to justify Chavez’s overthrow. He became the villian, the evil dictator, the brutal murderer in the eyes of international media, though in reality those overthrowing him and their backers in Washington were responsible for the death and destruction caused. After Chavez was kidnapped on April 11, 2002 and set to be assassinated, the wealthy businessmen behind the coup took power and imposed a dictatorship. All democratic institutions were dissolved, including the legistature and the supreme court.

The majority who had voted for Chavez and had finally become protagonists in their own governance were determined to defend their democracy and took to the streets demanding return of their president. Forty-eight hours later, Chavez was rescued by millions of supporters and loyal armed forces. The coup was defeated and the revolution survived, but the threats continued.

A subsequent economic sabotage attemped to bring down the oil industry. 18,000 high level technical and managerial workers at the state-owned company, PDVSA, walked off the job, sabotaging equipment and causing nearly $20 billion in damages to the Venezuelan economy. After 64 days of strikes, barren supermarket shelves due to intentional hoarding to create panic, and a brutal media war in which every private station broadcast opposition propaganda 24/7, Venezuelans were fed up with the opposition. Chavez’s popularity soared. A year and a half later, when the opposition tried to oust him through a recall referendum, he won a 60-40 landslide victory.

Leading efforts to overthrow Chavez were the very same three who today call for their supporters to take to the streets to force current President Nicolas Maduro from power. Leopoldo Lopez and Henrique Capriles were both mayors of two of Caracas’ wealthiest municipalities during the 2002 coup – Chacao and Baruta, while Maria Corina Machado was a close ally of Pedro Carmona, the wealthy businessman who proclaimed himself dictator during Chavez’s brief ouster. Lopez and Machado signed the infamous “Carmona Decree” dissolving Venezuela’s democratic institutions, trashing the constitution. Both Capriles and Lopez were also responsible for persecuting and violently detaining members of Chavez’s government during the coup, including allowing some of them to be publicly beaten, such as Ramon Rodriguez Chacin, former Minister of Interior in 2002.

All three have been major recipients of US funding and political support for their endeavors to overthrow Chavez, and now Maduro. The US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its offshoots, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) provided start-up funds for Machado’s NGO Sumate, and Capriles’ and Lopez’s right-wing party Primero Justicia. When Lopez split from Primero Justicia in 2010 to form his own party, Voluntad Popular, it was bankrolled by US dollars.

Over the ten year period, from 2000-2010, US agencies, including the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and its Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI), set up in Caracas in 2002, channeled more than $100 million dollars to opposition groups in Venezuela. The overall objective was regime change.

When Chavez was reelected in 2006 with an even larger margen of victory, nearly 64% of the vote, the US shifted its support from the traditional opposition political parties and NGOs in order to create new ones with youthful, fresh faces. Over one third of US funding, nearly $15 million annually by 2007, was directed towards youth and student groups, including training in the use of social networks to mobilize political activism. Student leaders were sent to the US for workshops and conferences on Internet activism and media networking. They were formed in tactics to promote regime change via street riots and strategic use of media to portray the government as repressive.

In 2007, these student groups, funded and trained by US agencies, took to the streets of Caracas to demand Chavez’s ouster after the government chose not to renew the public concession of RCTV, a popular private television station known for its seedy soap operas. The protests were composed of mainly middle and upper class youth and opposition politicians, defending corporate media and a station also known for its direct involvement in the April 2002 coup. Though their protests failed to achieve their objective, the “students” had earned their credentials as a solid fixture in the opposition. Later that year, their organizing helped to narrowly defeat a constitutional reform package Chavez had proposed in a national referendum.

After President Chavez passed away in March 2013 following a brutal battle with cancer, the opposition saw an opportunity to snatch power back from his supporters. Elections were held on April 14, 2013 in an extremely tense and volatile environment. Nicolas Maduro, Chavez’s chosen successor, ran against Henrique Capriles, who months earlier in October 2012 had lost the presidential election to Chavez by 11 points. This time, however, the results were much narrower with Maduro winning by a slim margen of just under 2 points. Capriles refused to accept the results and called his supporters to take to the streets in protest, to “get all their rage out”. During the two days after the elections, 11 government supporters were killed by Capriles’ followers. It was a bloodbath that received no attention in international media, the victims just weren’t glamorous enough, and were on the wrong side.

As 2013 wore on, the economic crisis in the country intensified and the old strategy of hoarding products to provoke shortages and panic amongst the population was back again. Basic consumer products disappeared from the shelves – toilet paper, cooking oil, powdered milk, corn flour – staples needed for everyday life in Venezuela. Inflation began to rise and speculation, price hikes, were rampant. While some of this was related to government controls on foreign currency exchange to prevent capital flight, a lot had to do with sabotage. A full economic war was underway against Maduro’s government.

Problems persisted throughout the year and discontent grew. But as the electoral period came around again in December, for mayors, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) had sweeping victories. 242 out of 317 mayoralties were won by the PSUV, showing a solid majority of the country still supported the government’s party.

Maduro called opposition governors and newly-elected mayors to a meeting at the presidential palace in late December in an attempt to dialogue and create a space to work together to improve the situation in country. The meeting was generously received by a majority of Venezuelans. Nevertheless, extremists, such as Machado and Lopez, saw the meeting as a threat to their goal of ousting Maduro well before his term ended in 2019. Once again they began to call for street protests and other actions against his government.

In January 2014, as Venezuelans arrived back from their Christmas vacations, economic difficulties continued. Maduro began cracking down on businesses violating newly-enacted laws on price controls and speculation. Towards the end of January, new measures were announced regarding access to foreign exchange that many perceived as a devaluing of the national currency, the bolivar. Sentiment built amongst opposition groups rejecting the new measures and calls for Maduro’s resignation increased. By February, small pockets of protests popped up around the country, mainly confined to middle and upper class neighborhoods.

During the celebration of National Youth Day on February 12, while thousands marched peacefully to commemorate the historic achievements of youth in the nation’s independence, another group sought a different agenda. Opposition youth, “students”, led an agressive march calling for Maduro’s resignation that ended in a violent confrontation with authorities after the protestors destroyed building façades, including the Attorney General’s office, threw objects at police and national guard and used molotov cocktails to burn property and block transit. The clashes caused three deaths and multiple injuries.

The leader of the violent protest, Leopoldo Lopez, went into hiding following the confrontation and a warrant was issued for his arrest due to his role in the deadly events and his public calls to oust the president. Days later, after a lengthy show including videos from a “clandestine” location, Lopez convened another march and used the event to publicly turn himself over to authorities. He was taken into custody and held for questioning, all his rights guaranteed by the state.

Lopez became the rallying point for the violent protests, which have continued to date, causing several additional deaths, dozens of injuries and the destruction of public property. Relatively small, violent groups of protestors have blocked transit in wealthier zones of Caracas, causing traffic delays and terrorizing residents. Several deaths have resulted because protestors refused to let ambulences through to take patients to the emergency room.

Ironically, international media have been portraying these protestors as peaceful victims of state repression. Even celebrities, such as Cher and Paris Hilton have been drawn into a false hysteria, calling for freedom for Venezuelans from a “brutal dictatorship”. The reality is quite different. While there is no doubt that a significant number of protestors in the larger marches that have taken place have demonstrated peacefully their legitimate concerns, the driving force behind those protests is a violent plan to overthrow a democratic government. Lopez, who has publicly stated his pride for his role in the April 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez, continues to call on his supporters to rally against the Venezuelan “dictatorship”.

While dozens of governments and international organizations, including UNASUR and Mercosur have expressed their clear support and solidarity for the Venezuelan government and President Maduro, Washington was quick to back the opposition protestors and demand the government release all those detained during the demonstrations. The Obama administration went so far as to threaten President Maduro with international consequences if Leopoldo Lopez were to be detained. In the aftermath of the first wave of violent protests, Maduro expelled three US diplomats from the US Embassy in Caracas, accusing them of conspiring to recruit students in Venezuela to engage in destabilization.

As the violence continues in some areas around the country, Maduro has made widespread calls for peace. A movement for peace was launched last week, led by artists, athletes and cultural figures, together with organized communities seeking to end not just the current chaotic situation, but also the high crime levels that have plagued the country over the past few years.

Most Venezuelans want peace in their country and a majority continue to support the current government. The opposition has failed to present an alternative platform or agenda beyond regime change, and their continued dependence on US funding and support – even this year Obama included $5 million in the 2014 Foreign Operations Budget for opposition groups in Venezuela – is a ongoing sign of their weakness. As a State Department cable from the US Embassy in Caracas, published by Wikileaks, explained in March 2009, “Without our continued assistance, it is possible that the organizations we helped create...could be forced to close...Our funding will provide those organizations a much-needed lifeline”.

During the past decade in Venezuela, poverty has been reduced by over 50%, healthcare has become free and accessible to all, as has quality education from primary through graduate school. State subsidies provide affordable food and housing for those who need it, as well as job training programs and worker placement. Media outlets, especially community media, have expanded nationwide, giving more space for the expression of diverse voices. Internet access has increased significantly and the state also built hundreds of public infocenters with free computer and Internet access throughout the country. Students are given free laptops and tablets to use for their studies. The government has raised minimum wage by 10-20% each year leading Venezuela to have one of the highest minimum wages in Latin America. Pensions are guaranteed after only 25 years of work and those who work in the informal economy are still guaranteed a pension from the state.

While problems persist in the country, as they do every where, most Venezuelans are wary of giving up the immense social and political gains they have made in the past fourteen years. An opposition with nothing to offer except foreign intervention and uncertainty does not appeal to the majority. Unfortunately, media fail to see this reality, or choose not to portray it in order to advance a political agenda. In Venezuela, the revolution is here to stay and the interests of the 1% are not going to overcome those of the 99% already in power.

Document Evidences Destabilization Plan Against Venezuela

2013-11-06T22:14:00.000-04:30

During the past few months, the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas Maduro has denounced multiple incidents of sabotage against the country’s electrical infrastructure along with an ongoing campaign to undermine the nation’s economy. A majority of international media, together with private media in Venezuela, have ridiculed the Venezuelan President’s accusations, and have instead attempted to pin responsibility on the government for the instability and harm caused to the country by these actions. Nevertheless, an internal document authored by three organizations from Colombia and the United States, evidences a sinister plan against the Venezuelan state to provoke violence – even death – with the intention of justifying an international intervention in anticipation of municipal elections scheduled for next December 8.

The document, titled “Strategic Venezuelan Plan”, was prepared by the Democratic Internationalism Foundation (http://fidauv.org), headed by ex Colombian president Alvaro Uribe, together with the First Colombia Think Tank (http://www.pensamientocolombia.org) and the US Consulting firm, FTI Consulting (http://www.fticonsulting.com). Dated June 13, 2013, the plan was developed during a meeting between representatives from these three organizations, leaders of the Venezuelan opposicion, including Maria Corina Machado, Julio Borges and Ramon Guillermo Avelado, expert in psychological operations J.J. Rendon and the Director of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) for Latin America, Mark Feierstein.

The strategic plan to destabilize Venezuela has the primary goal of debilitating the government before the December 8 municipal elections, as revealed in the document: “The objectives put forth in the present plan are essentially geared towards the municipal elections set for December 8, while at the same time including the accelerated deterioration of the government, facilitating an opposition victory for this event...” Though the text states further, “...but if it could be done beforehand, that would be even better”.

The document also details the strategy to sabotage the electrical system in Venezuela, with the objective of blaming the government for a weak infrastructure and therefore projecting an image of crisis in Venezuela on an international level. As part of the plan, the authors propose, “To maintain and increase the sabotages that affect public services, particularly the electrical system, that will enable responsibility to be placed on the government for supposed inefficiencies and negligence”. For the past few months, blackouts and other electrical shortages have affected different regions throughout Venezuela, causing general discontent and reflecting negatively on the government. Just weeks ago, Venezuelan authorities detained various individuals involved in sabotaging the electrical system and at the end of September, President Maduro expelled three US diplomats from the US Embassy in Caracas for their alleged role in destabilization plans against the state.

In the section labeled “Actions”, the authors of the document detail their next steps to undermine the Venezuelan government. In addition to “Perfecting the confrontational discourse of Henrique Capriles”, the opposition candidate who lost to Maduro in April’s presidential elections, they also talk of “Generating emotion with short messages that reach the largest quantity of people and emphasize social problems, provoking social discontent. Increase problems with supply of basic consumer products”.

Throughout the year, Venezuela has experienced problems with the supply of basic products, such as toilet paper, sugar, milk, oil, butter, flour and other food staples. Venezuelan authorities have confiscated tons of these products illegally held inside warehouses belonging to opposition businesses. They have also captured large quantities of these items on the border with Colombia, where they are sold as contraband.

According to the document, “The Strategic Venezuelan Plan, agreed upon by representatives from the opposition to the government of Nicolas Maduro, is oriented towards these objectives with the strong and constant support of various world figures who aim to return Venezuela to the true democracy and independence, which has been kidnapped for more than 14 years”.

During the 14 years of President Hugo Chavez’s democratic governance, threats against his administration were abundant and destabilization plans never ceased. After the failure of the 2002 coup d’etat against Chavez, which was defeated by his millions of supporters and was organized by the US government, there were numerous attempts to oust him through economic sabotages, electoral interventions, assassination plots, psychological warfare, multimillion-dollar funding to opposition groups from US agencies and a plan to isolate Venezuela on an international level, that never had success.

One of the most visible faces of attempts to subvert Chavez’s government was ex Colombian president Alvaro Uribe. The former Colombian head of state ended his presidency in 2010 calling for international intervention in Venezuela in order to destroy Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution. Uribe has dedicated himself since then to difame Chavez and his legacy, as well as strengthen his ties to anti-Chavez groups inside and outside Venezuela.

The death of Preisdent Chavez in March 2013 didn’t stop Uribe from continuing his actions against Venezuela. With the election of Nicolas Maduro to the presidency and the continuation of the socialist process initiated by Chavez, Uribe has mantained his agressive agenda against Venezuela.

Now this internal document, a product of a meeting between the extreme right-wing in Colombia and Venezuela, together with representatives from the US government, proves the active destabilization plans against Maduro.

As part of this dangerous plot against Venezuela, the authors propose to “Create situations of crisis in the streets that will facilitate US intervention, as well as NATO forces, with the support of the Colombian government. Whenever possible, the violence should result in deaths or injuries”.

Venezuelans, representatives of the opposition, are working together with foreign interests to generate deaths of innocent citizens in their own country, with the objective of justifying a military invasion in their nation. This represents a grave threat – and a vile crime – against the sovereignty of Venezuela.

Furthermore, in addition to promoting an international campaign to marginalize, discredit and tarnish the Maduro government, the document recommends “a military insurrection” against the Venezuelan state. They propose, “contacting active military groups and those in retirement to amplify the campaign to discredit the government inside the Armed Forces...It’s vital to prepare military forces so that during a scenario of crisis and social conflict, they lead an insurrection against the government, or at least support a foreign intervention or civil uprising”.

This document evidences and confirms the veracity – and the severity – of the accusations made by President Nicolas Maduro. Venezuela is under attack, as it has been throughout the past 14 years since the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution and the recovery of Venezuela’s sovereignty, independence and dignity. Let us not forget that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves on the planet. The powerful interests that seek control of those resources will not stop until they attain their objective.

T/ Eva Golinger

Artículo en español con documento original aquí

Hugo Chavez, Dream Maker

2013-03-06T21:29:00.000-04:30

By Eva Golinger

Most of what you read or hear in mass media about President Hugo Chavez is always negative, his faults exaggerated, his discourse distorted and his achievements ignored. The reality is quite different.

Hugo Chavez was beloved by millions around the world. He changed the course of a continent and led a collective awakening of a people once silenced, once exploited and ignored. Chavez was a grandiose visionary and a maker of dreams.

An honest man from a humble background who lived in a mud hut as a child and sold candies on the streets to make money for his family, Chavez dreamed of building a strong, sovereign nation, independent of foreign influence and dignified on the world scene. He dreamed of improving the lives of his people, of eradicating the misery of poverty and of offering everyone the chance of a better life – the “good life” (el buenvivir), as he called it.

President Chavez made those dreams come true. During his nearly fourteen years of governance, elected to three full six-year terms but only serving two due to his untimely death, Chavez’s policies reduced extreme poverty in Venezuela by more than 75%, from 25% to less than 7% in a decade. Overall poverty was reduced by more than 50%, from 60% in 1998 when Chavez first won office to 27% by 2008. This is not just numbers, this translates into profound changes in the lives of millions of Venezuelans who today eat three meals a day, own their homes and have jobs or access to financial aid.

But the dreams don’t stop there. Chavez dreamt of a nation filled with educated, healthy people, and so he established free, quality public education from preschool through doctoral studies, accessible to all. In fact, for those in remote areas or places without educational facilities, schools were built and mobile educational facilities were created to bring education to the people. Chavez also created a national public health system offering universal, free health care to all, with the help and solidarity of Cuba, which sent thousands of doctors and medical workers to provide quality services to the Venezuelan people, many who had never received medical care in their lives.

To strengthen and empower communities, Chavez propelled policies of inclusion and participatory governance, giving voice to those previously excluded from politics. He created grassroots community councils and networks to attend to local needs in neighborhoods across the nation, placing the power to govern in the joint hands of community groups. His vision of diversifying his nation and developing its full potential transformed into railways, new industries, satellite cities and innovative transport, such as MetroCable Cars soaring high into the mountains of Caracas to connect people with their steep hillside homes and the bustling city.

The centuries-old dream of Independence hero Simon Bolivar to build a unified “Patria Grande” (Grand Homeland) in South America became Chavez’s guiding light and he held it high, illuminating the path he paved. Chavez was a driving force in unifying Latin America, creating new regional organizations like the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). These entities have embraced integration, cooperation and solidarity as their principal method of exchange, rejecting competition, exploitation and domination, the main principles of US and western foreign policy.

Chavez inspired a twenty-first century world to fight for justice, to stand with dignity before bullying powers that seek to impose their will on others. He raised his voice when no others would and had no fear of consequence, because he knew that truth was on his side.

Chavez was a maker of dreams. He recognized the rights of the disabled, of indigenous peoples, all genders and sexualities. He broke down barriers of racism and classism and declared himself a socialist feminist. He not only made his own dreams come true, but he inspired us all to achieve our fullest potential.

Don’t get me wrong, things are not perfect in Venezuela by any stretch, but no one can honestly deny that they are much better than before Hugo Chavez became President. And no one could deny that President Hugo Chavez was larger than life.

The first time I flew on President Chavez’s airplane he invited me to breakfast in his private room. It was just me and him. I was nervous and felt anxious and rushed to tell him about the results of my investigations into the United States government role in the coup d’etat against him in 2002. After all, that’s why I was on the plane in the first place. I had been invited to participate in his regular Sunday television show, Alo Presidente (Hello Mr. President) to present the hundreds of declassified documents I had obtained from US government agencies through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that exposed US funding of coup participants. The date was April 11, 2004, exactly two years after the coup that nearly killed him and sent the nation into spiraling chaos.

As I began pulling out papers and spreading documents on the table that separated us, he stopped me. “Have you had breakfast yet”, he asked. “No”, I said, and continued fiddling with the revealing paper before me. “We can discuss that later”, he said, “for now, tell me about yourself”. “How is your mother”, he asked me, as though we were old friends.

A flight attendant came through the door of his private room with two trays and placed them on the table. I quickly gathered up the documents. “Let’s eat”, he said. I started to protest, trying to explain that his time was so limited I wanted to take advantage of every minute. He stopped me and said, “This is a humble breakfast, a breakfast from the barracks, what I most love”. I looked at the tray for the first time. On it was a small plate with an arepa, a typical Venezuelan corn patty, a few shreads of white cheese, a couple of pieces of canteloupe and some anchovies. Beside the plate was a small cup of black coffee. No frills and not what you would expect on a presidential airplane.

“After all, I am just a soldier”, he added. Yes, Chavez, you are a soldier, a glorious soldier of a dignified, proud and kind people. And you are a maker of dreams for millions around the world.

CHÁVEZ

2012-12-12T22:08:00.000-04:30

The first time I met Hugo Chavez was at the United Nations in New York in January 2003. He asked me my name, as if we were chatting between friends just getting to know each other. When I told him “Eva”, he responded “Eva, really?”[i]“Yes, Eva”, I said. “My brother is named Adan”, he said, adding, “My mother wanted me to be a girl so that she could call me Eva, and look, I appeared!” He smiled and laughed with that laugh of his, so pure and sincere it’s contagious to all those near.

He appeared. Chavez, who even underestimated himself.

This man appeared, larger than life, with an immense heart full of his people, pueblo, beating with homeland, patria. A human being appeared, with a great capacity to persist and stand defiantly in the face of the most powerful obstacles.

Hugo Chavez dreamed the impossible and achieved it. He assumed responsibility for the grandiose and difficult tasks that remained undone from the time of independence, those that Simon Bolivar couldn’t attain due to the adverse forces against him. Chavez fulfilled those goals, turning them into reality. The Bolivarian Revolution, the recovery of Venezuelan dignity, social justice, the visibility and power of the people, Latin American integration, national and regional sovereignty, true independence, the realization of the dream of the Patria Grande, and much, much more. These are Chavez’s achievements, the man who appeared just like that.

There are millions of people around the world who are inspired by Hugo Chavez. Chavez raises his voice without trembling before the most powerful, he says the truth – what others are afraid of saying –, he kneels before no one, he walks with firm dignity, head held high, with the people, el pueblo, guiding him and a dream of a prosperous, just and fulfilled nation. Chavez has given us the collective strength to fight inequality, injustice, to build nations and to believe that a better world isn’t just a dream, it’s an achievable reality.

Chavez, a man who could spend time in the company of the world’s richest and most powerful, prefers to be with those most in need, feeling their pain, embracing them and finding ways to improve their lives.

Chavez once told us a story, or told it many times as he often does. He was driving in his motorcade, out in the Venezuelan plains, los llanos, on those long roads that seem to continue infinitely. A dog suddenly appeared at the side of the road, limping with a wounded leg. Chavez ordered the motorcade to stop and went out to get the dog. He hugged the wounded animal, saying it had to be taken to the vet. “How can we leave it here alone and wounded”, he asked. “It’s a being, it’s a life, it needs to be cared for”, he said, demonstrating his sensitivity. “How can we call ourselves socialists without the lives of others mattering? We need to love, we need to care for all, including animals, which are innocent beings. We can turn our backs on no one”, he recalled.

When he told that story I cried. I cried because of my love for animals and the widespread mistreatment they suffer, and how necessary it was for someone like him, Chavez, to say something like that to awaken consciousness about the need to care for those who share our planet. But I also cried because Chavez confirmed something in that moment that I already knew, something I felt in my heart, but was unsure of in my mind. Chavez confirmed his simplicity, his sensitivity and his capacity to love. He confirmed he is a man whose heart feels pain when he sees a wounded animal. A man who not only feels, but acts. That’s who he is.

When Chavez assumed the presidency of Venezuela, the country was limping. He had seen its wounds and knew that he had to do all he could to help. He took Venezuela into his arms, embracing it closely, soothing and seeking how to make it better. He gave everything he had in him - his sweat, soul, strength, energy, intelligence and love – to change Venezuela with dignity, growth, sovereignty, and nation-building. He looked after it day and night, never leaving it alone. He found its beauty, its strength, its potential and its greatness. He helped it to grow strong, beautiful, visible and happy. He led its rebirth and filled its pulse with force and passion, with people’s power and a dignified homeland.

Chavez has given everything of himself and asked for nothing in return. Today, Venezuela grows and flourishes, thanks to his commitment and vision, thanks to his dedication and determination, thanks to his love.

Thank goodness you appeared, Chavez.

- Eva Golinger

[i] “Adán y Eva” in Spanish is “Adam and Eve” in English.

Venezuela: A Threat to Washington?

2012-07-19T15:15:00.000-04:30

From the first time Hugo Chavez was elected President of Venezuela in 1998, Washington and its allies have been trying to undermine his government. When Chavez was just a presidential candidate, the US State Department denied his visa to participate in television interviews in Miami. Later, when he won the presidential elections, Ambassador John Maisto called him personally to congratulate him and offer him a visa. The following months were filled with attempts to “buy” the newly elected President of Venezuela. Businessmen, politicians and heads of state from Washington and Spain pressured him to submit to their agendas. “Come with us”, urged Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, trying to seduce him with offers of wealth and luxury in turn for obeying orders.

When Chavez refused to be bought, he was ousted in a coup d’etat April 11, 2002, funded and planned by Washington. When the coup failed and Chavez’s supporters rescued their democracy and president in less than 48 hours, attempts to destabilize his government continued. “We must make it difficult for him to govern”, said former US State Department chief Lawrence Eagleberger.

Soon, Venezuela was overrun with economic sabotage, oil industry strikes, chaos in the streets and a brutal media war that distorted the reality of the country on a national and international level. A plan to assassinate Chavez with Colombian paramilitaries in May 2004 was impeded by state security forces. Months later, the US-backed opposition tried to revoke his mandate in a recall referendum, but again, the people saved him in a 60-40 landslide victory.

The more popular Chavez became, the more millions of dollars flowed from US agencies to anti-Chavez groups to destabilize, descredit, delegitimize, overthrow, assassinate or remove him from power by any means possible. In December 2006, Chavez was reelected president with 64% of the vote. His approval rating grew in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. New governments in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Uruguay and several Caribbean nations joined regional initiatives of integration, cooperation, sovereignty and unity, encouraged by Caracas. Washington began to lose its influence and control over its former “backyard”.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas (ALBA), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), PetroCaribe, PetroSur, TeleSUR, Bank of ALBA, Bank of the South and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) were created. Washington isn’t included in any of these organizations, nor is the elite that previously dominated the region.

In January 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Chavez was a “negative force” in the region. In March, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) placed Venezuela on their list of “Top 5 Hot Spots”. A few months later, Reverend Pat Robertson publicly called for the assassination of Chavez, claiming it would cost less than “a $2 billion war”. That same year, when Venezuela suspended cooperation with the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) because it was found committing acts of espionage and sabotage, Washington classified Venezuela as a nation “not cooperating with counter-narcotics” efforts. No evidence was presented to show alleged Venezuelan government ties to drug trafficking.

In February 2006, Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte referred to Venezuela as a “dangerous threat” to the US. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfled compared Chavez to Hitler. That same year, Washington created a special intelligence mission dedicated to Venezuela and Cuba, increasing resources for operations against them. In June 2006, the White House placed Venezuela on a list of countries “not cooperating sufficiently with the war on terror”. The classification included a sanction prohibiting the sale of military and defense equipment from the US and US companies or those using US technology to Venezuela. No evidence was ever shown to back such serious claims.

In 2008, the Pentagon reactivated its Fourth Fleet, the regional command in charge of Latin America and the Caribbean. It had been deactivated in 1950 and hadn’t functioned since then, until Washington decided it was necessary to increase its presence and “force” in the region. In 2010, the US established an agreement with Colombia to set up 7 military bases in its territory. An official US Air Force document justified the budget increase for these bases in order to counter the “threat from anti-American governments in the region”.

International media call Chavez a dictator, tyrant, authoritarian, narco, anti-American, terrorist, but they never present proof for such dangerous titles. They have converted the image of Venezuela into violence, insecurity, crime, corruption and chaos, failing to mention the incredible achievements and social advances during the last decade, or the causes of the social inequalities left behind from previous governments.

For years, a group of US congress members - democrats and republicans - have tried to place Venezuela on their list of “state sponors of terrorism”. They claim the relationships between Venezuela and Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, and even Venezuela and China evidence the “grave threat” represented by the South American nation to Washington.

They say again and again that Venezuela and Chavez are threats to the US. “He must be stopped”, they say, before he “launches Iranian bombs against us”.

In an interview a few days ago, President Barack Obama said Chavez was not a threat to US security. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he was. The ire of the Miami Cuban-Venezuelan community came down upon Obama. But they shouldn’t worry, because Obama increased funding to anti-Chavez groups this year. More than $20 million in US taxpayer dollars have been channelled from US agencies to help fund the opposition’s campaign in Venezuela.

Is Venezuela a threat to Washington? In Venezuela, the only “terrorists” are the groups trying to destabilize the country, the majority with political and financial support from the US. The drug traffickers are in Colombia, where the production and transit of drugs has increased during the US invasion disguised as Plan Colombia. Relations with Iran, Cuba, China, Russia and the rest of the world are normal bilateral – and multilateral – ties between countries. There are no bombs, no attack plans, no sinister secrets.

No, Venezuela is not that kind of threat to Washington.

Poverty has been reduced by more than 50% since Chavez came to power in 1998. The inclusionary policies of his government have created a society with mass participation in economic, political and social decisions. His social programs – called missions – have guaranteed free medical care and education, from basic to advanced levels, and provided basic food items at affordable costs, along with tools to create and maintain cooperatives, small and medium businesses, community organizations and communes. Venezuelan culture has been rescued and treasured, recovering national pride and identity, and creating a sentiment of dignity instead of inferiority. Communication media have proliferated during the last decade, assuring spaces for the expression of all.

The oil industry, nationalized in 1976 but operating as a private company, has been recuperated for the benefit of the country, and not for multinationals and the elite. Over 60% of the annual budget is dedicated to social programs in the country, with the principal focus on eradicating poverty.

Caracas, the capital, has been beautified. Parks and plazas have turned into spaces for gatherings, enjoyment and safety for visitors. There’s music in the streets, art on the walls and a rich debate of ideas amongst inhabitants. The new communal police works with neighborhoods to battle crime and violence, addressing problems from the root cause.

The awakening in Venezuela has expanded throughout the continent and northward into the Caribbean. The sensation of sovereignty, independence and union in the region has buried the shadow of subdevelopment and subordination imposed by colonial powers during centuries past.

No, Venezuela is not a threat to US security. Venezuela is an example of how a rising people, facing the most difficult obstacles and the brutal force of empire, can build a model where social justice reigns, and human prosperity is cherished above economic wealth. Venezuela is a country where millions once invisible are today, visible. Today they have a voice and the power to decide the future of their country, without being strangled by foreign hands. Today, thanks to the revolution led by President Chavez, Venezuela is one of the happiest countries in the world.

That is the threat Chavez and Venezuela represent to Washington: The threat of a good example.

- Eva Golinger

Qué vergüenza, Dan Rather

2012-05-31T14:01:00.000-04:30

Difusión de información falsa de Dan Rather sobre Venezuela y el presidente Hugo Chávez

Por Eva Golinger

Desde que al presidente venezolano, Hugo Chávez, le diagnosticaron cáncer y le extirparan un tumor maligno de su región pélvica en junio pasado, ha circulado todo tipo de rumores, mentiras y especulaciones sobre su estado de salud. La mayor parte del despliegue exagerado ha venido de conocidos medios de comunicación antichavistas, tales como el Miami Herald y varios blogs en línea administrados por extremistas de derecha como el ex subsecretario de Estado de Bush, Roger Noriega, quien ha estado obsesionado con Chávez desde hace años. Todos citan fuentes anónimas que dicen que tienen "información privilegiada" sobre la salud del Mandatario venezolano.

No es de sorprender que esos medios de comunicación, conocidos por sus distorsiones de la realidad de Venezuela durante diez años, publiquen falsedades e historias morbosas sobre el presidente Chávez. Pero que un veterano periodista de investigación serio como Dan Rather, caiga en la narración de historias necrofílicas sobre el Presidente venezolano es verdaderamente decepcionante.

Rather, quien ahora dirige su propio show (Dan Rather Reports) en HDNet, publicó una información el miércoles 30 de mayo que afirmaba que la salud del presidente Chávez está "grave" y ha "entrado en la etapa terminal". Rather también afirma que su fuente anónima de "alto nivel", que según él es cercana al Presidente de Venezuela, le dijo que Chávez no va a vivir "más que un par de meses como máximo".

En la breve información que difundió, y a la que califica de “exclusiva”, Rather también participa con su lenguaje sesgado llamando "dictador" al presidente democráticamente electo de Venezuela.

¿Qué impulsó a Dan Rather a escribir esta diatriba? ¿Por qué iba a engrosar las filas de Roger Noriega, de la desgracia del The Miami Herald y de un montón de pseudo-periodistas que se babean con sus sueños húmedos morbosos sobre el “decadente” estado de salud del presidente Chávez?

Lo evidente es que Rather se apresuró en apretar el gatillo para "disparar" su historia "exclusiva". Justo el día antes, el presidente Chávez encabezó un Consejo de Ministros transmitido en directo por televisión y que duró más de cuatro horas. El Jefe de Estado venezolano apareció lleno de energía, optimismo y se centró en sus funciones, e incluso cantó un par de canciones como es la costumbre del ecléctico y carismático Chávez. Reafirmó su candidatura para las elecciones presidenciales del 7 octubre. (¡Sí, Venezuela es una democracia!) Eso dista mucho de estar en su "lecho de muerte", como Rather implica.

El presidente Chávez sí tiene cáncer. Fue el primero en informar sobre su estado de salud, y ha sido abierto sobre su tratamiento y recuperación desde su primera operación en junio pasado para extirpar el tumor inicial. Chávez luego se sometió a cinco sesiones de quimioterapia, cuatro de las cuales fueron realizadas en Cuba. Estaba recuperándose bien e incluso fue el anfitrión de una cumbre histórica importante en Caracas en diciembre pasado para inaugurar la recién creada Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC), en la que las 33 naciones de la región están representadas.

Pero a principios de febrero, Chávez anunció que un segundo tumor, más pequeño, se había detectado en la misma área en su región pélvica, y tuvo que ser extirpado. De nuevo volvió a Cuba para la cirugía, y posteriormente recibió varias sesiones de radioterapia. Según Chávez, no había metástasis, y ninguno de sus órganos resultó afectado. El 11 de mayo, regresó a Venezuela después de completar el tratamiento y expresó su optimismo por su recuperación: "Ya en el avión... Rumbo a la Patria venezolana. Con más optimismo que nunca! Viviremos y venceremos!", dijo Chávez ese día en un mensaje en Twitter.

Desde entonces, el Presidente venezolano ha participado en varias reuniones televisadas y llamado a varios programas de noticias para discutir sus políticas y proporcionar información actualizada sobre su estado de salud. Ha admitido que ya no puede ser el "caballo de trabajo" que era antes, y que ahora debe limitarse a una jornada de 8 horas, asegurándose de mantener su dieta y dormir bajo control. Pero antes de su problema de salud, Chávez era un súperpresidente, que aparecía en la televisión en actos públicos durante horas - a veces hasta ocho horas - y participaba en tres o cuatro actividades diarias, a menudo en diferentes partes del país. Apenas dormía y bebía cantidades excesivas de café negro con azúcar. Trabajaba hasta la madrugada escuchando todas las voces y atendiendo todas las solicitudes. Su nivel de energía era extremo, como era su ansiedad y compromiso de continuar la reconstrucción de Venezuela, y asegurar que sus políticas redujeran la pobreza y atendieran a los más necesitados.

Ahora, Chávez es candidato presidencial para un tercer periodo, y su ritmo ya no es extremo, pero sin duda está a la par o por encima de sus homólogos. Incluso durante su tratamiento de cáncer, el presidente Chávez estuvo a la altura de sus funciones, informando al público a través de la televisión y de Twitter acerca de las cuestiones presupuestarias y de los nuevos proyectos en marcha. Nunca dejó caer la pelota, a pesar de la gravedad de su situación.

Chávez tiene cáncer, y está combatiéndolo duro, con la misma fuerza que ha utilizado para impulsar su nación hacia adelante, y a menudo contra los obstáculos más difíciles. Pero el presidente Chávez no está "fuera del juego", como Dan Rather implica con morbosidad. Las encuestas lo muestran con ventaja de dos dígitos sobre el candidato presidencial de la oposición, Henrique Capriles Radonski, un neoconservador conocido por su papel violento en el golpe de estado contra Chávez en abril de 2002. La mayoría de los venezolanos conocemos - y amamos - al presidente Chávez por su inmensa humanidad y su apasionado compromiso con el mejoramiento de sus vidas. Y van a votar por él otra vez.

Dan Rather, siempre ha insistido en la necesidad de tener "valor" a la hora de reportar, sin embargo, demuestra cobardía y ambición descuidada apresurándose a publicar información no confirmada sobre la salud del presidente Chávez, y revendiendo epítetos difamatorios para describir al Jefe de Estado venezolano. También demuestra una completa falta de respeto a la humanidad del presidente Chávez perpetuando rumores terribles sobre su mortalidad. El señor Rather parece haber olvidado su ética y principios periodísticos, y ha elegido - por lo menos en este caso - ser un peón del periodismo amarillista.

Shame on You, Dan Rather: Rather’s False Reporting on Venezuela & President Hugo Chavez

2012-05-30T22:02:00.000-04:30

By Eva Golinger

Since Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was diagnosed with cancer and a malignant tumor was removed from his pelvic region last June, all kinds of rumors, lies and speculations have circulated about his health. Most of the hype has come from known anti-Chavez media, such as the Miami Herald and several online blogs run by right-wing extremists like Bush’s former Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, who’s been obsessed with Chavez for years. All cite unnamed sources who claim they have “insider information” about the Venezuelan head of state’s health. It’s been unsurprising that those media outlets, known for their decade-long distortions of Venezuela’s reality, would publish such falsities and morbid tales about President Chavez. But that a serious, veteran, investigative journalist, such as Dan Rather, would indulge in the necrophiliac story-telling about the Venezuelan President is truly disappointing.

Rather, who now runs his own show on HDNet, Dan Rather Reports, posted a report on Wednesday, May 30, claiming President Chavez’s health is “dire” and has “entered the end stage”. Rather also claims his unnamed “high-level” source, who he alleges is close to the Venezuelan President, told him Chavez won’t live “more than a couple of months at most”. In his brief report, which he calls an “exclusive”, Rather also bids in with his own biased language, calling the democratically-elected Venezuelan President a “dictator”.

What prompted Dan Rather to write such diatribe? Why would he join the ranks of Roger Noriega, the wretched Miami Herald and a slew of pseudo-journalists drooling over their morbid wet dreams of President Chavez’s failing health?

What is apparent is that Rather was quick to the gun to “break” his “exclusive” story. Just the day before, President Chavez hosted a cabinet meeting broadcast live on television that lasted more than four hours. The Venezuelan head of state appeared energized, optimistic and focused on his duties, and even sang a few heartfelt songs, as is custom for the eclectic and charismatic Chavez. He reaffirmed his candidacy for the October 7th presidential elections. (Yes, Venezuela is a democracy!) That’s a far cry from being on his “death bed”, as Rather implies.

President Chavez does have cancer. He’s been the first to inform on his health, and has been open about his treatment and recovery since his first operation last June to remove the initial tumor. Chavez then underwent five sessions of chemotherapy – four of which were done in Cuba. He was recuperating well and even played host to a major historical summit in Caracas last December to inaugurate the newly-formed Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), in which all 33 nations in the region are represented.

But in early February, Chavez announced that a second, smaller tumor had been detected in the same area in his pelvic region, and had to be removed. He again returned to Cuba for surgery, and subsequently received several rounds of radiation therapy. According to Chavez, there was no metastasis, nor were any of his organs affected. On May 11, he returned to Venezuela after completing the treatment and expressed his optimism for recovery. "I'm on the plane... Heading for the Venezuelan fatherland. With more optimism than ever! We will live and we will conquer!" Chavez said that day in a message on Twitter.

Since then, the Venezuelan President has participated in several televised meetings and called in to different news programs to discuss his policies and provide updates on his health. He has admitted he can no longer be the “work horse” he was before, and now must limit himself to an 8-hour workday, ensuring he keeps his diet and sleep in check. But previous to his health scare, Chavez was a super-President, appearing on television in public events for hours – sometimes even eight hours – and participating in three to four activities daily, often in different parts of the country. He barely slept and drank excessive amounts of black, sugary coffee. He worked until the wee hours of the morning and listened to every voice, attended every request. His level of energy was extreme, as was his anxiety and commitment to continue rebuilding Venezuela and ensuring his policies reduced poverty and provided for the most needy.

Now, as Chavez runs for his third full term, his pace is no longer extreme, but it’s certainly on par or above his counterparts. Even throughout his cancer treatments, President Chavez was on top of his duties, informing the public via television and Twitter about budgetary issues and new projects underway. He never dropped the ball, despite the severity of his situation.

Chavez has cancer, and he is fighting it hard, with the same strength he has used to propell his nation forward, often against the toughest obstacles. But President Chavez is not “out of the game”, as Dan Rather morbidly implies. Polls show him with double-digit leads over the opposition presidential candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski, a neoconservative known for his violent role in the April 2002 coup d’etat against Chavez. A majority of Venezuelans know – and love – President Chavez for his immense humanity and his passionate commitment to improving their lives. And they will vote for him again.

Dan Rather has always emphasized the necessity of “courage” in reporting, yet he shows cowardice and sloppy ambition by racing to publish unconfirmed reports on President Chavez’s health, and by touting slanderous epithets to describe the Venezuelan head of state. He also shows a complete lack of respect for President Chavez’s humanity by perpetuating gruesome rumors about his mortality. Mr. Rather appears to have left his journalist ethics and principles behind, and has chosen – at least in this case – to be a pawn of yellow journalism.

Venezuela: The Threat of a Good Example?

2012-01-12T13:56:00.002-04:30

BY EVA GOLINGER

Washington has made no secret of its disdain for Venezuela’s President Chavez and mass media have turned a democratic leader into a dictatorship. Does Venezuela really represent a threat to the United States or is the hype just an excuse for regime change?

[NOTE: I accompanied President Chavez on his last trip to Iran in October 2010 and can attest to the legitimate relationship between both nations. We did not visit nuclear plants, instead we visited housing construction sites which were subsequently used as models for a public housing program currently underway in Venezuela in joint venture with Iran. I also personally visited the Iranian-Venezuelan tractor factory in southeastern Bolivar state in Venezuela several years ago and rode on one of the tractors. I can solidly say it was not radioactive nor a front for an atomic bomb.]

The visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Latin America this week caused a frenzy in Washington. The thought of US Enemy #1 just miles away, south of the border, cozying up to nations once dominated by Washington’s agenda was too much to bear for a government desperately trying to isolate Iran and rid the Persian nation of the Islamic Revolution. Days before Ahmadinejad’s arrival to Venezuela, his first stop on a four-country Latin American tour, the US State Department warned the region of receiving the Iranian President and strengthening ties while Washington was intensifying sanctions against Iran and increasing pressure on Ahmadinejad’s government. As a sign of its severity, Washington also expelled a Venezuelan diplomat serving as General Consul in Miami, for alleged links to an unsubstantiated Iranian plot against the United States.

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez laughed off Washington’s warnings as words from a “ridiculous empire” that no longer “dominates us in Latin America”. “We are sovereign nations”, Chavez made clear, as he received the Iranian President with open arms. Chavez even ironized about Washington’s accusations that the Iranian-Venezuelan relationship represents a threat to the United States.

“They accuse us over and over again of plans to attack the United States. They say we are building a bomb to launch against Washington. See that hill right there”, said President Chavez to journalists at the presidential palace covering Ahmadinejad’s arrival. “The grass will open up to reveal a big atomic bomb that President Ahmadinejad and I will launch against the White House”, he joked.

“The only war Venezuela and Iran are waging together is the war against hunger, against poverty, against exclusion”, clarified Chavez in a stern tone.

For years now, US government officials, outside analysts, think tanks, government consultants and media commentators have made wild-eyed accusations against Venezuela, claiming it is building missile bases with Iran to plan attacks against the US and hosting terrorist training camps for members of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These absurd claims go as far to allege Venezuelan-Iranian joint ventures, such as car and bicycle factories and milk processing plants are fronts for secret underground uranium enrichment sites where nuclear bombs are being made right now for use against the United States. Even a commercial flight between Caracas and Teheran was claimed by these US “analysts” and some members of Congress, such as Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (both Florida Republicans), as a “terror flight” used to transport “radioactive materials” and “terrorists”.

As ridiculous as Washington’s allegations against Venezuela may seem, these dangerous, unsubstantied accusations are being used to amp up hostilities against the South American nation, channel multimillion-dollar funding to anti-Chavez groups in an attempt to destabilize the Venezuelan government and to further perpetuate a media campaign demonizing the Venezuelan head of state, painting the oil-producing country as a dictatorship.

Over the past few years, as the campaign against Venezuela has intensified, common jargon in mass media referring to Venezuela and President Chavez includes terms such as “dictator”, “authoritarian”, “tyrant”, “terrorist”, “threat” and portrays the Latin American country as a “failed state” where human rights are constantly “violated” and freedom of expression is non-existent. Anyone who has ever visited Venezuela during the Chavez administration knows that not only is there no dictatorship, but democracy is open, vibrant and participatory, free speech flourishes and Venezuelans enjoy more human rights guarantees than their northern neighbors in the United States. Media need be reminded that President Chavez has been elected by more than 60% of the vote in transparent electoral processes with 80% voter participation certified by international observers.

As President Chavez pointed out recently, the Venezuelan government is investing more in social programs and anti-poverty measures each year while countries such as the United States are cutting back social services. In Venezuela, poverty has been reduced by over 50% during the last ten years, thanks to the social policies of the Chavez administration, while in the United States, 1 in 5 children are currently living in extreme poverty. Unemployment in Venezuela was 6.5% in December 2011, while in the US, the rate sat at 8.5%. Exclusion, lack of opportunity, voter abstention and other social ills are on the rise in the United States.

“Obama, forget about it. Mind your own business and take care of your own country, where you have a lot of problems”, suggested President Chavez during a recent speech. Chavez was also quick to point out that Obama just cut federal assistance for home heating oil costs for low income families, leaving thousands to suffer through a bitter cold winter, choosing between food or warmth. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan government just renewed and expanded its home heating oil assistance program to communities in the US through Citgo, its US-based oil company. For the past 7 years, the Venezuelan company Citgo has been the only oil corporation in the US willing to provide reduced-cost home heating oil to those in need. It’s ironic that the Venezuelan government is helping people in the US while the US government and US companies refuse to do so.

VENEZUELA & IRAN: THE REAL THREAT

The relationship between Venezuela and Iran may cause alarm in some circles in Washington, but it’s not for the reasons portrayed in the media. As founding members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960, Venezuela and Iran have shared close relations for decades. Both countries have strategic interests around the world. However, it wasn’t until recently that these relations broadened beyond energy.

Iran’s entry into Latin America as a trade partner, along with China and Russia, is the real threat to US hegemony in the region. US companies, that have monopolized the hemisphere for over a century, are now being replaced by Asian, Middle Eastern and European ventures willing to provide more enticing offers to countries such as Venezuela. Agreements with Iran, for example, include technology transfer, not just the purchase of products. The car factories Iranian companies have built in Venezuela are not just for assembly of an Iranian product. The agreements include providing Venezuelans with the know-how to produce cars from the raw materials to the end product. This knowledge is essential to ensure long-term development, growth and economic stability.

The hyped-up, falsified accusations of terrorism and warmongering against Venezuela – none of which have ever been substantiated with real evidence – are dangerous attempts to scare public opinion into justifying some kind of aggression against a peaceful nation. Venezuela has never invaded, attacked, threatened or intervened in another country, nor has it bombed or assassinated the citizens of other nations. Venezuela has a policy of peace, and it’s never broken or violated that promise.

Venezuela also has the sovereign right to engage in relations with other nations as it sees fit and to develop its own internal policies to best benefit the well being of its people. That seems to be the greatest threat of all to the United States.

Ejército de EEUU busca la radiación para matar a los líderes de la Guerra Fría

2011-12-31T19:04:00.001-04:30

Ejército de EEUU busca la radiación para matar a los líderes de la Guerra Fría

{Original in English here]

Por Robert Burns - The Associated Press

Publicado: Martes 09 de octubre 2007

En uno de los secretos más duraderos de la Guerra Fría, el Ejército de Estados Unidos exploró la posibilidad de utilizar venenos radioactivos para asesinar a "personas importantes", como líderes militares o civiles, según documentos desclasificados obtenidos por The Associated Press.

Aprobados por los niveles más altos del Ejército estadounidense en 1948, el esfuerzo formó parte de la búsqueda secreta de los militares para un "nuevo concepto de guerra" usando materiales radiactivos de la bomba atómica para contaminar franjas de tierra enemiga o para utilizar contra bases militares, fábricas o tropas enemigas.

Los historiadores militares que han investigado el amplio programa de guerra radiológica, dijeron en entrevistas que nunca antes habían visto evidencia de la búsqueda de un arma de asesinato, hasta ahora. Usando armas así contra figuras públicas tiene precedentes. El año pasado, un atacante desconocido utilizó una pequeña cantidad de polonio-210 para asesinar al crítico del Kremlin Alexander Litvinenko en Londres.

No se mencionan personas afectadas en las referencias sobre las armas de asesinato en los documentos desclasificados del gobierno, que fueron recibidos en respuesta a una solicitud bajo la Ley de Acceso a la Información (FOIA) presentada por la AP en 1995.

Los antiguos documentos dados recientemente a la AP fueron censurados por el gobierno estadounidense para eliminar detalles sobre los agentes de guerra radiológica y otros detalles. La censura refleja que la preocupación sobre el potencial para el uso de venenos radiactivos como arma es más que una nota histórica, sino que se cree que es buscado por la actual terroristas empeñados en atacar objetivos de los EE.UU.

Los documentos no indican si un arma radiológica para asesinar a individuos de alto rango fue usado alguna vez o incluso si fue finalmente desarrollado por los EE.UU. Los documentos no indican hasta qué punto llegó el proyecto del Ejército. Un memorando de diciembre 1948 describe el proyecto, y otra nota de ese mes indicó que estaba en marcha. Las principales secciones de varios informes de progreso en 1949 fueron censuradas antes de la liberación de los documentos a la AP.

El esfuerzo más amplio del uso ofensivo de guerra radiológica al parecer murió alrededor de 1954, al menos en parte debido a la convicción del Departamento de Defensa de que las armas nucleares eran una mejor opción.

No está claro si el trabajo pasó a otra agencia como la CIA. El proyecto recibió la aprobación final en noviembre de 1948 y comenzó el mes siguiente, justo un año después de la creación de la CIA en 1947.

Fue una época turbulenta en la escena internacional. En agosto 1949, la Unión Soviética probó con éxito su primera bomba atómica, y dos meses más tarde los comunistas de Mao Zedong triunfaron en la guerra civil china.

Mientras los científicos de EE.UU. desarrollaron la bomba atómica durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, fue reconocido que los agentes radiactivos utilizados o creados en el proceso de fabricación tenían un potencial letal. El primer informe público del gobierno estadounidense sobre el proyecto de la bomba, publicado en 1945, señaló que los productos radiactivos de fisión de un reactor de uranio como combustible podrían ser extraídos y utilizados "como una forma particularmente cruel de gas venenoso."

Entre los documentos entregados a la AP - una nota del Ejército de fecha 16 de diciembre 1948, y clasificada secreto - se describe un programa intensivo para desarrollar una variedad de usos militares de los materiales radiactivos. Trabajar en un "arma de ataque subversivo de los individuos o grupos pequeños" fue catalogado como una prioridad secundaria, que se limitó a estudios de viabilidad y experiencias.

Las principales prioridades enumeradas fueron:

• Armas de contaminar "las zonas pobladas o de otra manera críticas por largos períodos de tiempo."

• Municiones de la combinación de explosivos de alta potencia con material radiactivo "para lograr daños físicos y contaminación radiactiva simultáneamente".

• Armas de aire y / o armas de superficie que se extendieran la contaminación a través de un área para ser evacuado, por lo que éste no podrá utilizarse por las fuerzas enemigas.

El objetivo declarado era crear un prototipo de armas de prioridad para el No. 1 y No. 2 para el 31 de diciembre de 1950.

La cuarta prioridad del ranking fue "municiones para atacar a los individuos" usando agentes radiactivos para los que "no hay curas ni terapia."

"Esta clase de municiones se proponía para el uso de agentes secretos o unidades subversivas en ataques letales contra grupos pequeños de individuos importantes, por ejemplo, durante las reuniones de líderes civiles o militares", decían los documentos.

El asesinato de personalidades extranjeras por parte de agentes del gobierno de EE.UU. no fue prohibido explícitamente hasta que el presidente Gerald R. Ford firmó una orden ejecutiva en 1976 en respuesta a las revelaciones de que la CIA había planeado en la década de 1960 el asesinato del presidente cubano Fidel Castro, incluso por envenenamiento.

El 16 de diciembre 1948, un informe destacó que un ataque letal contra una persona utilizando material radiactivo se debería hacer de una manera que hiciera que sea imposible rastrear la participación del gobierno de EE.UU., un concepto conocido como "negación plausible" que es fundamental para las acciones encubiertas de EE.UU.

"El origen de la munición, el hecho de que un ataque se ha hecho, y el tipo de ataque no debe ser determinable, si es posible", decía. "La munición debe ser discreta y fácilmente transportable."

Se pensaban que los agentes radiactivos eran ideales para este uso, según el documento, debido a su alta toxicidad y el hecho de que las personas afectadas no podían oler, gustar o sentir el ataque.

"Debería ser posible, por ejemplo, desarrollar una munición muy pequeña, que podría funcionar imperceptiblemente y que establecería una concentración invisible, pero altamente letal en una habitación, con los efectos visibles sólo mucho después de la hora del ataque," decía.

Tom Bielefeld, un físico de Harvard que ha estudiado el tema de armas radiológicas, dice que aunque nunca había oído hablar sobre este proyecto, sus objetivos técnicos suenan factibles.

Bielefeld señaló que el polonio, la sustancia radiactiva utilizada para matar a Litvinenko en noviembre de 2006, tiene exactamente el tipo de características que serían adecuadas para la misión letal que se describe en la nota de 16 de diciembre de 1948.

Barton Bernstein, profesor de historia de la Universidad Stanford en California que ha realizado una amplia investigación sobre los esfuerzos de los militares de EE.UU. para desarrollar la guerra radiológica, dijo que este aspecto no había llegado anteriormente a la luz pública.

"Este es uno de los elementos que nos sorprende, pero no debe sorprendernos, ya que en la Guerra Fría, todo tipo de formas de matar a la gente, de todas las maneras - inhumanas, bárbaras y hasta peor - se contemplaron periódicamente a altos niveles del gobierno de Estados Unidos en lo que fue visto como una guerra justa contra un enemigo odiado y odioso", dijo Bernstein.

El proyecto fue dirigido por el Cuerpo Químico del Ejército, comandado por el general de división Alden H. Waitt, y supervisado por un organismo ya desaparecido llamado el Proyecto de Armas Especiales de las Fuerzas Armadas. El primer jefe del proyecto fue el mayor general Leslie R. Groves, jefe del Ejército del Proyecto Manhattan que construyó las primeras bombas atómicas. El proyecto fue aprobado por el sucesor de Groves, el general de división Kenneth D. Nichols.

Los documentos desclasificados fueron puestos en público en los archivos del Proyecto de Armas Especiales de las Fuerzas Armadas en el Archivo Nacional de Estados Unidos.

Entre los receptores del documento del 16 de diciembre se encontraban Herbert Scoville, Jr., el director técnico del Proyecto de Armas Especiales de las Fuerzas Armadas y el subdirector de la CIA para la investigación, y Samuel T. Cohen, un físico de Rand Corp. que había trabajado en el Proyecto Manhattan.

El primer visto bueno para el Ejército de llevar a cabo su proyecto de armas radiológicas se dio en mayo de 1948, un punto importante de la historia de EE.UU., porque fue justo después de la utilización con éxito de dos bombas atómicas contra Japón para poner fin a la Segunda Guerra Mundial. El ejército estaba ansioso para explorar las implicaciones de la ciencia atómica para el futuro de la guerra.

En un documento desclasificado de julio 1948 delineando la intención del programa antes de haber recibido los detalles para la aprobación final, un punto de enfoque fue la larga duración de la contaminación de grandes extensiones de tierra donde los residentes tendrían que salir o morirían de la radiación dentro de uno a 10 años.

"Se cree que este es un nuevo concepto de la guerra, con resultados que no se pueden predecir", decía el documento.

Guerra contra Venezuela: Las Falsas Acusaciones de Washington Contra el Gobierno de Chávez

2011-12-24T10:19:00.000-04:30

Por Eva Golinger

Desde el fracaso del intento de golpe apoyado por Estados Unidos en contra del Presidente Hugo Chávez en Venezuela en abril de 2002, Washington sigue buscando una variedad de estrategias para sacar del poder al abrumadoramente popular Jefe de Estado Suramericano. El financiamiento multimillonario a grupos antichavistas en Venezuela a través de los organismos del Gobierno estadounidense, como la Fundación Nacional para la Democracia (NED por sus siglas en inglés) y la Agencia del Desarrollo de los EEUU (USAID por sus siglas en inglés), se ha incrementado exponencialmente en los últimos diez años; así como el apoyo político directo a través de asesores, estrategas y consultores, todos buscando ayudar a una oposición impopular y desfasada para llegar al poder.

Los organismos gubernamentales estadounidenses, incluyendo el Departamento de Estado, la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA por sus siglas en inglés), La Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia y el Pentágono, han abultado su lenguaje hostil contra el Gobierno de Venezuela en los últimos años. La importante nación productora de petróleo ha sido incluida en las innumerables e infundadas “listas” producidas anualmente por Washington, como por ejemplo, “incumplimiento en la cooperación en la lucha antinarcóticos”, “incumplimiento en el apoyo en la guerra contra el terrorismo”, “trata de personas” y otros, basados en decisiones políticas y no en evidencia concreta y sustancial para apoyar sus acusaciones. Estas calificaciones han permitido a Washington no sólo justificar el uso de millones dólares de los contribuyentes estadounidenses distribuidos a grupos antichavistas con fachada de ONG, sino incrementar la presencia militar en la región y convencer a la opinión pública de que Hugo Chávez es un enemigo.

A pesar de las “promesas” de relaciones respetuosas y de no intervención, el lenguaje hostil y las acciones hacia Venezuela del Gobierno de Obama han llevado a congelar las relaciones diplomáticas entre ambas naciones, sumado a los planes expansivos dentro de Washington para incluir a la nación Suramericana en el “eje terrorista del mal”. El proceso en contra de Venezuela, que comenzó durante la administración de George W. Bush, ha sido rápidamente acelerado por Obama. Con el Comité de Asuntos Exteriores de la Cámara de Representantes de EEUU en manos de los republicanos de Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen y Connie Mack (ambos furibundos enemigos de Chávez), el Congreso ha estado presionando para lograr acciones directas contra Venezuela buscando provocar la expulsión de Chávez y colocar a un Gobierno “Amigable con EEUU” en el poder.

Venezuela no sólo tiene las reservas de petróleo más grandes del planeta, con posiblemente más de 500 billones de barriles, aproximadamente 300 certificables, sino que la posición geopolítica del país como puerto de Suramérica, con fronteras en el Caribe, los Andes y el Amazonas, la convierten en una de las naciones estratégicamente más importantes del mundo. Adicionalmente al petróleo, Venezuela tiene inmensas reservas minerales, metales pesados, uranio y agua.

El creciente liderazgo de Chávez y su influencia en la región han enojado a Washington desde hace algún tiempo. Los esfuerzos por demonizar, ridiculizar y hasta ignorar al Jefe de Estado venezolano han sido utilizados por el Gobierno de EEUU y los medios de comunicación masivos durante los últimos años, creando una percepción distorsionada de la realidad de Venezuela en la opinión pública. A pesar de las numerosas elecciones realizadas, todas supervisadas por observadores internacionales, en las cuales Chávez ha ganado con alrededor del 60% de los votos, los medios internacionales proyectan al Presidente venezolano como un “dictador” y a la nación como un “Estado fallido”. Sin embargo, la creciente y vibrante democracia venezolana, en la que una mayoría anteriormente excluida y silenciada por Gobiernos anteriores apoyados por EEUU, hoy participan libre y ampliamente, han logrado cambios extraordinarios en la nación, incluyendo una reducción de un 50% de la pobreza, garantía de asistencia médica y educación gratuitas, una tasa de desempleo del 6% (una baja respecto al 15% anterior) y un gran desarrollo en cuanto a infraestructura.

Aunque el Presidente Obama se había abstenido de hablar sobre Venezuela (igual que su predecesor Bush) una reciente entrevista en un periódico nacional antichavista, El Universal, evidencia un cambio en la política. La entrevista, que se apoya en una alarmante transmisión de un “reporte” no corroborado que intenta vincular a Venezuela, Cuba e Irán con un complot terrorista en contra de EEUU, aparecida en el canal latino más grande de Estados Unidos, Univisión, se lee como una página sacada del grueso libro de falsas acusaciones hechas en contra de Venezuela desde que Chávez llegó al poder en 1999.

En respuestas escritas al periódico venezolano, Obama (o su equipo de asesores) insinuó que Venezuela era una dictadura y manifestó su “preocupación por las medidas del Gobierno que han restringido los derechos universales de los venezolanos, amenazan los principales valores democráticos y fracasaron en contribuir con la seguridad en la región”. Por supuesto Obama omite citar ejemplos reales para confirmar su “preocupación”. Estas son simplemente el tipo de declaraciones que han sido regurgitadas por los voceros de Washington durante la última década, nunca con una sola prueba de evidencia viable para respaldar sus afirmaciones condenatorias.

Ningún derecho ha sido restringido en Venezuela por el Gobierno. De hecho, los derechos se han ampliado bajo la nueva Constitución que fue escrita y ratificada por los venezolanos en un Referéndum Nacional en 1999. Los venezolanos tienen los derechos básicos de atención médica, educación, alimentación, vivienda, trabajo digno, salario mínimo, participación, expresión, recreación y cultura, lo que los 300 millones de habitantes de Estados Unidos no tienen. Y es cínico decir que Venezuela, un país con un poder militar mínimo que jamás ha atacado a otra nación ni amenazado o invadido a ningún vecino, es “una amenaza regional para la seguridad”. La historia del Gobierno de EEUU de 200 años de invasiones, masacres, golpes, intervenciones y otras agresiones en contra de casi todas las naciones de América Latina y el Caribe no puede quedar “en el pasado” como quisiera Obama.

Obama no omitió mencionar su “preocupación” acerca de la relación de Venezuela con Irán, sobre la cual afirmó “Tomamos muy en serio las actividades de Irán, incluyendo las de Venezuela y continuaremos monitoreándolas de cerca”. No es coincidencia que estas declaraciones vinieron seguidas del documental al estilo Hollywood de Univisión, “La Amenaza Iraní”, que hace peligrosas afirmaciones difamatorias en contra de la administración de Chávez en un intento por incluir a Venezuela en un falso complot terrorista.

A pesar de la ridiculez de las afirmaciones de Univisión, miembros del Congreso están conversando con Obama para que tome acciones preventivas en contra de Irán y Venezuela. Otros “comentaristas” y “analistas” están ocupados escribiendo blogs y columnas advirtiendo sobre la creciente amenaza terrorista al Sur de la frontera estadounidense. Estas peligrosas e infundadas acusaciones pueden fácilmente ser usadas para justificar un ataque contra Venezuela, como usaron las armas de destrucción masiva en contra de Iraq y “proteger a la población” se uso en contra de Libia.

Irán y Venezuela tienen una relación comercial normal. Ambos países comparten tecnología y recursos para hacer carros y bicicletas, construir viviendas y operar fabricas de leche. Desde luego los carros, las viviendas y la leche no se equiparan a una amenaza terrorista. Una y otra vez, Venezuela ha demostrado que no hay “campos de entrenamiento terrorista” en su territorio. Ni tampoco está construyendo en secreto una bomba para atacar a EEUU. Venezuela es una nación pacifica. No invade, ataca ni amenaza a otros países.

Las temerarias agresiones de Obama en contra de Venezuela podrían llevar a una atrocidad innecesaria. Como dijo el Presidente Chávez, a Obama le iría mejor enfocándose en los problemas que tiene en casa, en lugar de crear otros más en el exterior.

War on Venezuela: Washington’s False Accusations Against The Chavez Government

2011-12-22T13:06:00.001-04:30

By Eva Golinger

Ever since the US-supported coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela failed in April 2002, Washington has been pursuing a variety of strategies to remove the overwhelmingly popular South American head of state from power. Multimillion-dollar funding to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela through US government agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), has increased exponentially over the past ten years, as has direct political support through advisors, strategists and consultants- all aiming to help an unpopular and outdated opposition rise to power.

US government agencies, including the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Directorate of Intelligence and the Pentagon, have pumped up their hostile language towards the Venezuelan government in recent years. The major oil-producing nation has been placed on the countless, and baseless “lists” produced annually by Washington, including “failure to cooperate with counter-narcotics efforts”, “failure to aid in the war on terror”, “trafficking in persons”, and others, that are based on political decisions instead of concrete, substantial evidence to support their accusations. These classifications have enabled Washington to justify not only the millions of US taxpayer dollars channeled to anti-Chavez groups fronting as NGOs, but also to increase military presence in the region and convince public opinion that Hugo Chavez is an enemy.

Despite “promises” of respectful relations and non-intervention, the Obama government’s hostile language and actions towards Venezuela have led to a freezing of diplomatic relations between both nations coupled with expanding plans within Washington to include the South American nation in the “terrorist axis of evil”. The build-up against Venezuela that began during the George W. Bush administration has been rapidly excelerated by Obama. With the House Foreign Relations Committee in the hands of Florida Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Connie Mack – both rabid Chavez-haters – Congress has been pushing hard for direct actions against Venezuela to provoke Chavez’s ouster and place a “US-friendly” government in power.

Not only does Venezuela have the largest oil reserves on the planet, with possibly over 500 billion barrels, about 300 certifiable, but the country’s geopolitical position as the port of South America, with borders on the Caribbean, Andean and Amazon, make it one of the most strategically important nations in the world. In addition to oil, Venezuela has vast mineral reserves, heavy metals, uranium and water.

President Chavez’s growing leadership and influence in the region has angered Washington for some time. Efforts to demonize, ridicule and even ignore the Venezuelan head of state have been employed by the US government and mass media over the past several years, creating a distorted perception amongst public opinion of Venezuela’s reality. Despite numerous elections, all overseen by international observers and in which Chavez has won with around 60% of the vote, international media portray the Venezuelan President as a “dictator” and the nation as a “failing state”. But Venezuela’s growing, vibrant democracy, in which a majority previously excluded and silenced by prior US-supported governments today participate freely and widely, has achieved extraordinary changes in the nation, including a 50% reduction in poverty, a guarantee of free, universal healthcare and education, a 6% unemployment rate (down from 15%) and major infrastructure development.

While President Obama has largely refrained from personally commenting on Venezuela, as did his predecessor Bush, a recent interview provided to an anti-Chavez national daily newspaper, El Universal, evidences a shift in policy. The interview, given on the heels of an alarming broadcast of an uncorroborated “report” attempting to link Venezuela, Cuba and Iran to a terrorist plot against the US, which aired on the largest Spanish-language station in the United States, Univision, reads like a page right out of the thick book of false accusations made against Venezuela since Chavez came to power in 1999.

In written responses to the Venezuelan newspaper, Obama (or his team of advisors) insinuated Venezuela was a dictatorship and expressed his “concern about the government’s actions, which have restricted the universal rights of the Venezuelan people, threatened basic democratic values, and failed to contribute to security in the region”. Obama, of course, fails to cite any real examples to substantiate his “concerns”. These are merely the types of statements that have been regurgitated by Washington’s spokespeople over the past decade, never with a shred of viable evidence to back their damning claims.

No rights have been restricted in Venezuela by the government. In fact, rights have been amplified under the new constitution that was written and ratified by the people of Venezuela in national referendum in 1999. Venezuelans have the basic rights to healthcare, education, food, housing, dignified work, a living wage, participation, expression, recreation and culture that the 300 million citizens of the United States don’t have. And it’s cynical to say that Venezuela, a country with minimal military power that has never attacked another nation, threatened or invaded a neighbor, is a “regional security threat”. The US government’s 200-year history of invasions, massacres, coups, interventions and other aggressions against almost every Latin American and Caribbean nation cannot be left “in the past” as Obama would prefer.

Obama didn’t fail to mention his “concern” about Venezuela’s relationship with Iran, regarding which he stated, “We take Iranian activities, including in Venezuela, very seriously and we will continue to monitor them closely”. It’s no coincidence that these statements follow the airing of the Hollywood-esque Univision documentary, “The Iranian Threat”, which makes dangerous defamatory claims against the Chavez administration in an attempt to include Venezuela in a bogus terrorist plot.

Despite the ridiculousness of the Univision claims, members of Congress are bantering Obama to take preemptive action against both Iran and Venezuela. Other “commentators” and “analysts” are busy writing blogs and columns warning of the growing terrorist threat south of the US border. These dangerous, unfounded accusations could easily be used to justify an attack against Venezuela, as weapons of mass destruction was used against Iraq and “protecting the population” was used against Libya.

Iran and Venezuela have a normal commercial relationship. The two countries share technology and resources to make automobiles and bicycles, build housing construction and run milk factories. Surely cars, homes and milk don’t equate to a terrorist threat. Time again, Venezuela has shown there are no “terrorist training camps” on its soil. Nor is it secretly building a bomb to attack the US. Venezuela is a nation of peace. It does not invade, attack or threaten other countries.

Obama’s reckless bandwagoning of aggression against Venezuela could lead to an unnecessary atrocity. As President Chavez said, Obama would be better off focusing on the troubles at home, rather than trying to create new ones abroad.

A Union is Born: Latin America in Revolution

2011-12-08T15:16:00.001-04:30

By Eva Golinger

While much of the world is in crisis and protests are erupting throughout Europe and the United States, Latin American and Caribbean nations are building consensus, advancing social justice and increasing positive cooperation in the region. Social, political and economic transformations have been taking place through democratic processes in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil throughout the past decade, leading to a massive reduction in poverty and income disparity in the region, and a substantial increase in social services, quality of life and direct participation in political process.

One of the major initiatives of progressive Latin American governments this century has been the creation of new regional organizations that promote integration, cooperation and solidarity amongst neighboring nations. Cuba and Venezuela began this process in 2004 with the founding of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), that now includes Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Dominica, St. Vincent’s and the Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda. ALBA was initially launched in response to the US government’s failed attempt to impose its Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) throughout the region. Today ALBA is a thriving multilateral organization with member nations that share similar political visions for their countries and for the region, and includes numerous cooperation agreements in economic, social and cultural areas. The fundamental basis of trade amongst ALBA nations is solidarity and mutual benefit. There is no competition, exploitation or attempt to dominate amongst ALBA states. ALBA even counts on its own currency, the SUCRE, which allows for trade between member nations without dependence on the US dollar.

In 2008, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) was formally established as a regional body representing South American states. While ALBA is much more consolidated as a unified political voice, UNASUR represents a diversity of political positions, economic models and visions for the region. But UNASUR members share the common goal of working towards regional unity and guaranteeing the resolution of conflicts through peaceful and diplomatic means. UNASUR has already played a key role in peacefully resolving disputes in Bolivia, particularly during an attempted coup against the government of Evo Morales in 2008, and has also successfully moderated a severe conflict between Colombia and Venezuela, leading to the reestablishment of relations in 2010.

Two hundred years ago, South American Independence hero Simon Bolivar, a native of Venezuela, dreamed of building regional unity and creating a “Patria Grande” (Grand Homeland) in Latin America. After achieving independence for Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia, and fighting colonialists in several Caribbean nations, Bolivar attempted to turn this dream of Latin American unity into reality. His efforts were sabotaged by powerful interests opposing the creation of a solid regional bloc, and eventually, with the aid of the United States, Bolivar was ousted from his rule in Venezuela and died isolated in Colombia several years later. Meanwhile, the US government had proceeded to implement its Monroe Doctrine, a decree first declared by President James Monroe in 1823 to ensure US domination and control over the newly-freed nations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Nearly two hundred years of invasions, interventions, aggressions, coup d’etats and hostilities led by the US government against Latin American nations shadowed the 19th and 20th centuries. By the end of the 20th century, Washington had successfully imposed governments in every Latin American and Caribbean nation that were subordinate to its agenda, with the exception of Cuba. The Monroe Doctrine had been achieved, and the US felt confident in its control over its “backyard”.

The unexpected turn at the beginning of the 21st century in Venezuela, formerly one of Washington’s most stable and subservient partners, came as a shock to the US. Hugo Chavez had been elected President and a Revolution had begun. A coup d’etat attempt in 2002 failed to subvert the advancement of the Bolivarian Revolution and the spread of revolutionary fever throughout the region. Soon Bolivia followed, then Nicaragua and Ecuador. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay elected socialist presidents, two of them former guerrilla fighters. Major changes began to occur throughout the region as the peoples of this vast, diverse and rich continent assumed power and made their voices heard.

Social transformations in Venezuela that gave voice to people’s power became exemplary for others in the region, as did President Chavez’s defiance of US imperialism. A powerful sentiment of Latin American sovereignty and independence grew stronger, even reaching those with governments aligned with US interests and multinational control.

On December 2-3, 2011, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was born and the overwhelming force of a continent nearly 600 million strong, achieved a 200-year dream of unity. The 33 member nations of CELAC all agree on the unquestionable necessity to build a regional organization that represents their interests, and that excludes the overbearing presence of the US and Canada. While CELAC will take time to consolidate, the exceptional commitment evidenced by the 33 states present at its launching in Caracas, Venezuela, cannot be underestimated.

CELAC will have to overcome attempts to sabotage and neutralize its expansion and endurance, and the threats against it and intents to divide member nations will be numerous and frequent. But the resistance of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean who have resumed this path of unity and independence after nearly two hundred years of imperialist aggression, demonstrates the powerful force that has led this region to become an inspiration for those seeking social justice and true freedom around the world.

US & Arab Protests Rooted in Latin American Revolutions

2011-11-24T13:47:00.002-04:30

Inspiration South of the Border

By Eva Golinger

The Occupy Wall Street protests spreading across the United States have finally garnered the attention of national and international public opinion. The prolonged economic crisis and exclusionary political structure have propelled thousands of people in the United States to step out of their comfort zones, take to the streets and demand change. Brutal police repression in response to peaceful demonstrations in cities throughout the US has made international headlines, evidencing the hypocrisy of a government quick to accuse and criticize others for human rights violations, while perpetuating the same, if not worse, nasty behavior at home.

Many analysts and commentators have attributed the protests in the US to the so-called “Arab Spring” taking place in Tunisia, Egypt and other Middle Eastern and African nations. The movements in the US and Arab world have shared similar tactics and characteristics, including the use of social media such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to mobilize demonstrations and publicize protest activities and state repression. The protagonists of these revolts have been primarily young people and those outraged and disgruntled at systems that have failed them and left millions impoverished with no opportunities.

In Spain and Chile, similar demonstrations have taken place since the beginning of 2011, led by thousands of youth and students protesting unfair and unequal political and economic systems. The demands of all these protests, from the Arab World, to Europe to the United States, have included basic rights such as free education, dignified jobs, housing, healthcare and more inclusion and participation in politics and government. Less representation, more participation – these are the cries of the “indignados” rising up around the world.

What few have noted, or have intentionally omitted, is how the peoples of Latin America arose at the beginning of this century, with demands and dreams identical to those protesting today in the US, Europe and Arab nations, and were able to take power democratically and begin re-building their nations. The influence of the twenty-first century revolutions in Latin America on the Occupy Movement and the Arab Spring cannot be underestimated.

INSPIRATION SOUTH OF THE BORDER

Slogans, chants and comments by Occupy Wall Street protestors calling for an end to corporate rule and demanding more equitable public spending and opportunities for the majority (the 99%) are familiar to those heard throughout Venezuela in the 1990s, when privatization overtook the oil-wealthy nation, multinationals ruled and the people were relegated to shantytowns.
Decades of exclusion, repression and mismanagement of government and resources in Venezuela led the people (the 99%) to revolt in 1989 against an administration quickly selling their nation to the highest buyer. The “Caracazo” on February 27, 1989, was a mass popular uprising in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, against privatization and globalization; against corporatocracy. The government, led by then President Carlos Andres Perez, responded with brutal repression. Over 3,000 were violently killed by state authorities. Bodies were hurled into mass graves and left to rot.

But the brutality of state violence did not stop the Venezuelan majority. Throughout the 1990s, the people began to organize their frustrations into a nationwide coalition seeking to break free of the two-party “representative” system that had ruled for decades. As the economy faltered, banks collapsed, politicians embezzled and stole what they could and tried to sell the rest, the people mobilized. In 1998, a new president was elected by this grassroots movement, ending the reign of corporate rule guised as democracy.

The new government, led by Hugo Chavez, promised a complete transformation of the system. It would be deconstructed and rebuilt by the people. Democracy would no longer be “representative”, it would be participatory. There would be a redistribution of public resources to ensure the 99% were included. Healthcare and education would be free, universal and accessible to all. A new constitution would be drafted and ratified by the people, to reflect the needs, dreams and realities of today’s society. People would govern on a grassroots level through community councils and assemblies, which would control local resources and provide community members with decision-making power over how resources should be used. Community, alternative and public media would proliferate and be encouraged by the state, in order to broaden access and ensure all voices were heard.

Foreign debts would be ended and relationships with international financial institutions terminated. Important strategic resources would be nationalized and taken back from multinational corporations and placed under worker control. Public enterprises would become worker-run and owned. Foreign policy would be based on sovereignty and respect for other nations, with an emphasis on integration, cooperation and solidarity instead of exploitation, competition and domination.

This is not a utopia, this is the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. It has taken years to build and there are still decades to go and many problems and difficulties to overcome, but the people of Venezuela, the 99%, were able to take power democratically and transform their nation.

In 2005, the indigenous peoples of Bolivia won power through democratic elections, after centuries of exclusion, colonialism and domination by a minority ruling class. They rose up and mobilized against the racist, corporatocracy ruling their nation and took it back. Under the presidency of Evo Morales, the nation’s first indigenous head of state, a new constitution was drafted and ratified by the people in national referendum and major social transformations have been taking place to implement a system of social justice.

In Ecuador, after years of political and economic turmoil, revolts, coup d’etats and several ousted presidents, the people elected Rafael Correa and the Citizen’s Revolution came to power in 2007. Freeing the nation from the reigns of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, reviving the economy and transferring power to the people are actions that are transforming Ecuador into a sovereign, dignified nation.

NEUTRALIZE, DESTROY OR CO-OPT THE REVOLUTION

While all of these Latin American revolutions are still in process, their emphasis on grassroots nation-building, people’s power, social justice and true sovereignty have clearly inspired others around the world to fight for change in their own nations. But why have so few failed to see the importance of the influence of these revolutions on what is taking place today in the US, Europe and the Arab world?

Primarily because these are successful, democratic, peaceful revolutions by the people, of the people and for the people. There was no “outside” influence that directed them, manipulated them or tried to “co-opt” them, as has happened in the case of the “Arab Spring”. They did not come about by wars or violent revolts, but rather through democratic processes. Of course there have been many attempts to neutralize and destroy these Latin American revolutions, including a coup d’etat in Venezuela in 2002, an attempted coup in Bolivia in 2008 and another attempted coup in Ecuador in 2010. All have failed to date.

US agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, Open Society Institute and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), have been funding and manipulating many of those groups and organizations involved in the different revolts in Arab nations. The Obama administration has been heavily involved in the movements in Tunisia and Egypt, evidenced by continuous visits by State Department representatives to these nations to ensure the political outcome is favorable to US interests. Washington has also been attempting to promote similar uprisings in nation’s with inconvenient governments, such as in Syria and Iran. The brutal war against Libya and extrajudicial assassination of Muammar al-Gaddafi was a skewed attempt by the US to front a “people’s revolution” in the North African nation.

The manipulation and infiltration by external forces in movements in the Arab world have contributed to their chaos, disorder and failure to materialize into real revolutions- true transformations of their political, economic and social structures. It would be a bitter, tumultuous defeat for the US and its Western allies were these Arab nations to build the sovereign, revolutionary movements millions in those lands are demanding.

And back in the US, the violent repression against the Occupy movement is a clear attempt to neutralize and discredit the first possible coalition that could grow into a powerful political force which could free the country from the democrat-republican reign. While this movement struggles to consolidate and define its objectives, the revolutions south of the border continue to expand.

Corporate media censors, distorts and attempts to silence the advances of the people’s movements in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and other Latin American nations. The leaders of these movements are demonized by mass media in an effort to diminish the importance of their actions and to turn them into fearful characters viewed as “madmen”.

Despite these attempts to tarnish them, Latin America’s revolutions of the twenty-first century have paved the way for others in the Global South, and the North, to raise their voices and join together to build a better world.

A Vigorous President Chavez Disproves Media Rumors About His Health, Plays Ball

2011-09-29T18:10:00.002-04:30

Unfounded rumors claiming the Venezuelan President was hospitalized and experiencing severe health problems were discounted by the head of state during an exercise session in the presence of reporters Thursday

International media began spreading rumors and outright lies about the Venezuelan President’s health from the time he first underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor from his pelvic region in June this year. After Chavez completed his fourth and final chemotherapy session last week and resumed his path to full recovery, media began disseminating wild propaganda claiming the treatment “hadn’t worked” and Chavez’s health was deteriorating. Despite numerous live telephone interventions given by the President on television this past week, the rumors wouldn’t cease. So, he put them to rest by publicly playing a game of catch with some of his staff.

Chavez: Media involved in morbid, sick campaign

Tensions built Wednesday evening as the Miami-based publication, El Nuevo Herald, published a front page story claiming President Hugo Chavez had been hospitalized for kidney failure and was rapidly deteriorating. The report was based on anonymous sources and quotes from alleged individuals close to the Venezuelan government and “witnesses” to the hospitalization.

Behind the Herald’s campaign has been former US Ambassador Roger Noreiga, a self-proclaimed “anti-communist” who served in both Bush administrations and was schooled in Latin American policy by the likes of John Negroponte and Otto Reich, part of the US team responsible for conducting dirty wars in Central America in the 1980s. Noriega also provided extensive support for the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chavez, when he was US Ambassador to the Organization of American States.

Noriega has falsely claimed for months that President Chavez’s health is failing and that he has less than a 50% chance of survival.

But each allegation has been disproven by Chavez himself, who has consistently informed on the positive progress of his health after a “baseball-sized” cancerous tumor was removed from his body in June. Since then, he has undergone 4 successful sessions of chemotherapy and says the cancer is “gone” fom his body. “I had cancer, but now I do not”.

On Thursday, Chavez affirmed he had the best proof that his recovery is advancing fine. "I'm here; this is my answer", he told reporters at the presidential palace, raising his arms and gesturing at his body. "I am my own answer".

An Urgent Call for Peace: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s Speech Before the United Nations

2011-09-28T13:50:00.001-04:30

September 27, 2011

I address these words to the United Nations General Assembly, to this great forum where all the peoples of the earth are represented, to express Venezuela’s truths and to reassert our inalienable commitment to justice and equality, that is to say, to peace.

Peace, peace, peace… We do not look for the peace of the cemetery, as Kant said ironically, but a peace based on the most zealous respect for international law. Unfortunately, the UN, throughout its history, instead of adding and multiplying efforts in favor of peace among nations, has ended up supporting, sometimes through its actions and other times by omission, the most ruthless injustices.

We should always remember that “saving future generations from the scourge of war” is mentioned in the Preamble of the Charter of the United Nations – but it’s just dead letter. From 1945 on, wars have done nothing but inexorably increase and multiply. We see, once again, Libya destroyed and bloodstained by the will of the powerful.

I call on the governments of the world to reflect: Since September 11th, 2001, a new and unprecedented imperialist war has begun, a permanent war, in perpetuity.

We have to look directly at the terrifying reality of the world we live in. It is necessary to ask a series of questions on the basis of the risks and threats we face: Why is the United States the only country that fills the planet with military bases? What does it allocate such a staggering budget for increasing its military power? Why has it unleashed so many wars, violating the sovereignty of other nations which have the same rights to their own fates? How can international law be enforced against the United States’ insensible aspiration to military hegemony of the world in order to ensure control over energy sources to sustain their predatory and consumer model? Why does the UN do nothing to stop Washington? If we answer these questions sincerely we would understand that the empire has awarded itself the role of judge of the world, without being granted this responsibility by anyone, and, therefore, imperialist war threatens us all.

Washington knows that a multipolar world is already an irreversible reality. Its strategy consists of stopping, at any price, the sustained rise of a group of emerging countries, by negotiating great interests with its partners and followers in order to guide multipolarity along the path the empire wants. What is more, the goal is to reconfigure the world so it is based on US military hegemony.

Humanity is facing the very real threat of a permanent war. The empire is ready to create the political conditions for triggering a war anywhere, and the case of Libya is proof. Within the imperial view of the world, Clausewitz’s axiom is being reversed: politics are the continuation of war by other means.

What is behind this new Armageddon? The absolute power of the military-financial leadership that is destroying the world in order to accumulate even more profits; a military-financial power that is subordinated, de facto, to an increasingly larger group of States. Keep in mind that war is capital’s modus operandi: war ruins the majority and makes only a few wealthier.

Right now, there is a very serious threat to global peace. A new cycle of colonial wars, which started in Libya, have the sinister objective of reviving the capitalist global system which is going through a structural crisis today. There are no limits to its consumerist and destructive voracity. The case of Libya should alert us to the attempt to implement a new imperial kind of colonialism, that of military interventionism backed by the antidemocratic organs of the United Nations and justified on the basis of prefabricated media lies.

Humanity is on the brink of an unimaginable catastrophe. The world is marching inexorably towards the most devastating ecocide. Global warming and its frightening consequences are announcing this, but world perspective on the ecosystem, which resembles the ideology of the conquistadors Cortes and Pizarro, as the influential French thinker Edgar Morin rightly pointed out, leads to continuously degrading and destroying. Energy and food crises are sharpening, but capitalism continues to trespass all limits with impunity.

Given such a meager outlook, the great US scientist Linus Pauling, awarded the Nobel Prize on two occasions, continues enlightening our path: “I believe that there is a greater power in the world than the evil power of military force, of nuclear bombs -- there is the power of good, of morality, of humanitarianism. I believe in the power of the human spirit”. Let us mobilize all the power of the human spirit. It is time now. It is imperative that we unleash a great political counter-offensive in order to prevent the powers of darkness from finding justifications for going to war, from unleashing a widespread global war through which they attempt to save western capital.

Venezuela calls for the establishment of a broad alliance for peace and against war, with the supreme aim of avoiding war at all costs. Warmongers, and especially the military-financial leadership that sponsor and lead them, must be defeated.
Let’s build the balance of the universe foreseen by the Liberator, Simon Bolívar – the balance that, according to his words, cannot be found within war; the balance that is born out of peace.

Remember that Venezuela, alongside the member countries of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), was actively advocating for a peaceful and negotiated solution to the Libyan conflict. That is also what the African Union tried. However, in the end, the logic of war decreed by the UN Security Council and put into practice by NATO, the armed wing of the US empire, was imposed. And, the logic of war is spearheaded by corporate mass media, do not forget.

Remember that the “Libyan Case” was brought before the Security Council on the basis of an intense propaganda campaign by western mass media, who lied about the alleged bombing of innocent civilians by the Libyan Air Force, not to mention the grotesque media manipulation of Tripoli’s Green Square. This premeditated bunch of lies was used to justify irresponsible and hasty decisions by the Security Council, which paved the way for NATO’s military regime change policy in Libya.

It is worthwhile to ask: What has the no-fly zone established by Security Council resolution 1973 become? How could NATO perform more than 20,000 missions against the Libyan people if there was a no-fly zone? After the Libyan Air Force was completely annihilated, the continued “humanitarian” bombings show that the West, through NATO, intend to impose their interests in North Africa, turning Libya into a colonial protectorate.

How can we say that an arms embargo was imposed on Libya when it was NATO itself that introduced thousands of heavy weapons to support a violent upheaval against that country’s legitimate government?

The embargo was, of course, meant to prevent the Libyan government from defending its sovereignty.

This demonstrates, once again, the cruel logic of international relations, where the law only applies to the weak. What is the real reason for this military intervention? Recolonizing Libya in order to capture its wealth.

Everything else is related to this goal. “Nobody colonizes innocently”, as the great Martinican poet Aime Cesaire said, quite rightly, in his extraordinary essay called “Discours sur le colonialisme”.

By the way: the Residence of the Venezuelan Ambassador in Tripoli was invaded and looted, and the UN did nothing, remaining ignominiously silent.

We call for the immediate cessation of bombing operations in Libyan territory. Similarly, we will continue calling for respect for international law in the case of this sister nation. We will not remain silent in light of the evil intention of destroying the basis of its sense and reason. Therefore, we ask this Assembly: Why is the Libyan seat in the UN granted to the “national transition council”, while the admission of Palestine is blocked by ignoring, not only its lawful aspiration, but also the existing will of the majority of the General Assembly? Venezuela hereby ratifies its unconditional solidarity with the Palestinian people and its total support for the Palestinian national cause, which naturally includes the immediate admission of Palestine as a full member state within the United Nations.

And the same imperialist pattern is being repeated regarding Syria. If some permanent members of the Security Council had not taken the firm stance that was missing in the case of Libya, it would have authorized shooting missiles and bombs at Syria.
It is intolerable that the powerful of this world intend to claim for themselves the right to order legitimate and sovereign governments’ rulers to step down. This was the case in Libya, and they want to do the same in Syria. Such are the existing asymmetries in the international setting and such are the abuses against the weakest nations.

It is not for us to bring forward a conclusive judgment about the national situation in Syria. First, because of the inherent complexity of any national reality and, second, because only the Syrian people can solve their problems and decide their fate in light of the people’s right to self-determination, which is an inalienable right in all respects.

If we direct our eyes to the Horn of Africa we will witness a heartbreaking example of the UN’s historical failure. Most serious news agencies report that 29,000 children under the age of 5 have died in the last three months.

The great journalist Frida Modak, in her article, “To Die in Somalia”, reveals all the misery there, which is worse than that ravaging the rest of the vast region of the Horn of Africa, and which undermines the role of large international organizations, such as the UN. She writes: “What is needed to face this situation is $400 million, not to solve the problem, but just to address the emergency that Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia are going through. According to all sources, the next two months will be crucial to prevent more than 12 million people from dying, and the worst situation is in Somalia”.

This reality could not be more atrocious, especially if, at the same time, we ask ourselves how much is being spent to destroy Libya. This is the answer of US congressman Dennis Kucinich, who said: “This new war will cost us $500 million during its first week alone. Obviously, we do not have financial resources for that and we will end up cutting off other important domestic programs’ funding”.

According to Kucinich himself, with the amount spent during the first three weeks in Northern Africa to massacre the Libyan people, much could have been done to help the entire region of the Horn of Africa, saving tens of thousands of lives.

The reasons behind the criminal military engagement in Libya are not humanitarian at all: they are based on the Malthusian notion that “there are just too many people in the world” and they have to be eliminated by generating more hunger, destruction and uncertainty, and creating – at the same time –more financial profits. In this regard, it is frankly regrettable that in the opening address of the 66th General Assembly of the UN, an immediate appeal to solve humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa was not made, while instead we were assured that “the time has come to act” on Syria.

As of 2010, 19 UN General Assembly votes confirm the universal will demanding that the United States stop the economic and trade blockade against Cuba. Since all sensible international arguments have been exhausted, we have no choice but to believe that such cruel actions against the Cuban Revolution result from imperial arrogance in view of the dignity and courage shown by the unsubmissive Cuban people in their sovereign decision to determine their own fate and fight for their happiness.

From Venezuela, we believe it is time to demand of the US not only an immediate and unconditional end to the criminal blockade imposed against the Cuban people, but also the release of the five Cuban antiterrorist fighters held hostage in the prisons of the US Empire for the sole reason of seeking to prevent the illegal actions of terrorist groups against Cuba, under the protection of the US government.

Mr. President of the General Assembly and distinguished representatives of the peoples of the world, we want to reiterate that it is impossible to ignore the crisis of the UN. Before this same General Assembly we expressed, back in 2005, that the UN model had been exhausted. Back then, we also expressed the urgent need for it to be rebuilt.

Up until now, nothing has been done. The political will of the powerful has prevailed. Certainly, the UN, in its current functioning, docilely serves their interests. For us, it is obvious that the UN is not improving, nor will it improve from the inside. If the Secretary General, along with the President of the International Criminal Court, take part in an act of war, as in the case of Libya, nothing can be expected from the current structure of this organization and there is no longer time for reform. The UN does not accept any reform whatsoever; the illness at its core is deadly.

It is unbearable that there is a Security Council that turns its back, whenever it wants to, on the clamor of the majority of nations by deliberately failing to acknowledge the will of the General Assembly. If the Security Council is some sort of club with privileged members, what can the General Assembly do? Where is its room for manoeuver, when Security Council members violate international law?

Paraphrasing Bolivar when he spoke of nascent US imperialism in 1818, we have had enough of the weak following the law while the strong commit abuses. It cannot be us, the peoples of the South, who respect international law while the North violates it, destroying and plundering us.

If we do not make a commitment, once and for all, to rebuilding the United Nations, this organization will lose its remaining credibility. Its crisis of legitimacy will be accelerated until it finally implodes. In fact, that is what happened to its immediate predecessor: the League of Nations.

A crucial first step in rebuilding the United Nations would be to eliminate the category of permanent members and veto power within the Security Council. Likewise, the decision-making power of the General Assembly must be maximized democratically. We also demand an immediate, in-depth revision of the UN Charter with the aim of drafting a new Charter.

Peoples of the World:

The future of a multipolar world, in peace, resides in us, in the organization of the majority of the people on earth to defend ourselves against the new colonialism, in order to achieve a balance in the universe that is capable of neutralizing imperialism and arrogance.

This broad, generous, respectful, and inclusive call is addressed to all the peoples of the world, but especially to the emerging powers of the South, which must assume, with courage, the role that they are called on to play immediately.

From Latin America and the Caribbean, powerful and dynamic regional alliances have emerged, seeking to shape a regional democratic space, respectful of differences and eager to emphasize solidarity and cooperation in order to foster the ties that bind us and settle what keeps us apart politically. And this new regionalism allows for diversity and respects the various rhythms of nation. Thus, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) advances as an avant-garde experiment of progressive and anti-imperialist governments, seeking ways to break the prevailing international order and strengthening the capacity of the people to face, together, the reigning powers. But this does not prevent its members from making an enthusiastic push for the consolidation of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), a political bloc that federates the 12 sovereign States of South America with the purpose of grouping them under what the Liberator Simon Bolivar called “a Nation of Republics”.

Furthermore, the 33 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are currently preparing to take the historic step of establishing a great regional entity that joins us all, without exclusions, where we can together design the policies that will ensure our wellbeing, our independence, and our sovereignty, on the basis of equality, solidarity, and complementarity.

Caracas, the capital of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, is proud to host, next December 2 and 3, the Summit of Heads of State and Government that will establish, definitively, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).
The people of Venezuela place our hopes on a broad alliance among the regional organizations of the South, such as the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), CARICOM (the Caribbean Community), SICA (the System of Central American Integration), the African Union, ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations) or ECO (the Economic Coordination Organization), and especially the cross-regional organizations among emerging powers, such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), which should become a pole of influence in coordination with the peoples of the South.

I want to conclude by remembering words of the great Venezuelan singer, Ali Primera. In one of his songs he asks us: "What is man’s struggle to achieve peace? And what peace, if they want to leave the world just as it is?” Today more than ever before, the worst crime against peace is to leave the world as it is. If we leave the world as it is, the present and future will be determined by perpetual war. On the contrary, to quote Ali Primera again, achieving peace involves radically reversing all that impedes humanity from being humane.

Hugo Chavez
President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Venezuelan diplomat says Chavez urged Iran’s president to release 2 jailed Americans

2011-09-25T12:24:00.001-04:30

By Associated Press, Published: September 22

CARACAS, Venezuela — A Venezuelan diplomat said Thursday that President Hugo Chavez played a behind-the-scenes role in efforts to secure the freedom of two Americans who were released from prison by Iran this week.

Deputy Foreign Minister Temir Porras said Venezuela’s government was approached for help last year by friends and supporters of the two men, Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer.

Porras said Chavez, who is a strong critic of Washington yet expresses friendship for the U.S. people, believed the Americans’ account that they were simply hiking when they were detained in 2009 along the Iran-Iraq border and accused of spying.

He said Chavez made his plea on the Americans’ behalf to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, first during a visit to Tehran in October and later in telephone conversations early this year.

“He made a request through the president for Iranian institutions to carry out a benevolent review of these young men’s case and ... make a humanitarian decision so they could return to their families,” Porras told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

Chavez has had close relations with Ahmadinejad, and the two have regularly teamed up to criticize the U.S. government and defend Iran’s nuclear energy program.

Porras said Sarah Shourd, a third American hiker who was detained but was released a year ago, was among those seeking Venezuela’s assistance, as was actor Sean Penn, who has a friendly relationship with Chavez.

American linguist and activist Noam Chomsky also signed a letter asking for Chavez’s support in calling for the Americans’ release, Porras said.

The two Americans were released Wednesday under a $1 million bail-for-freedom deal.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the pair’s release was a gesture of Islamic mercy and a response to calls for their freedom by leaders such as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Oman’s ruler and Chavez.

Porras said Chavez felt it best to keep his requests private. “It was kept absolutely secret in the first place because our top interest was that the arrangement be successful,” the diplomat said.

Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American lawyer and editor of the English edition of state newspaper Correo del Orinoco, said some of her friends who are close with the hikers contacted her soon after the three were detained to see if Venezuela could help.

Golinger, a close Chavez ally, said she took up the matter with the Foreign Ministry and eventually with the president.

“He saw the humanitarian side of this and saw that in the end it seems as though this was a very unfortunate misunderstanding,” Golinger said.

Venezuela hails Chavez role after Iran frees hikers

2011-09-25T12:15:00.001-04:30

-Andrew Cawthorne, Reuters

Venezuela's government said on Thursday that vocal U.S. critic Hugo Chavez played an influential behind-the-scenes role in securing the release of two Americans detained in Iran while hiking on the border in 2009.

The U.S. pair -- Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer -- flew out of Iran this week after Oman paid bail of $1 million and various foreign leaders intervened on their behalf.

Venezuelan Deputy Foreign Minister Temir Porras told Reuters the Venezuelan president took up the case with the government of ally President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after being alerted to the Americans' plight by friends in U.S. intellectual circles.

"He talks regularly with President Ahmadinejad. On the occasions he could, he requested it as a humanitarian, brotherly gesture," Porras said.

"They (Fattal and Bauer) were in an unfortunate situation, wrapped up in geopolitical tensions that went beyond them."

Iranian media quoted their Foreign Ministry as saying U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Chavez and the governments of Iraq and Oman had all intervened on behalf of the Americans.

The involvement of the fiercely "anti-imperialist" Chavez highlights his closeness to the Iranian government, which is a constant source of disquiet in Washington. It is not the first time Chavez has made humanitarian gestures on behalf of Americans, such as sending cheap fuel for low-income families.

Ahmadinejad is due to visit Venezuela after the U.N. General Assembly, although Chavez is still in Cuba after a fourth session of chemotherapy for his cancer treatment.

'DISCREET MOVE'

The normally flamboyant Venezuelan leader's intervention on behalf of the two American detainees -- who denied charges of spying -- was deliberately low-key, Porras said.

"It shows a respectful, diplomatic, discreet move can have positive results for U.S. citizens. That was not necessarily the attitude of the State Department and U.S. authorities who demand and pressure in a rather arrogant way," he said.

In Washington, a State Department official said: "We are relieved and happy that Josh and Sean are safe with their families" and had no further comment.

Chavez frequently accuses right-wing U.S. politicians of demonizing ideological opponents like Iran and Venezuela, which are allies in the OPEC group of oil producers, as a pretext for aggressive moves like possible invasions.

"There are two possibilities: they are ill-informed people or ill-intentioned people," Porras said of the persistent accusations that Venezuela and Iran are a menace to stability.

"Venezuela has always shown its peaceful nature."

Eva Golinger, a Venezuelan-American lawyer who lives in Caracas and is a friend of Chavez, told Reuters she brought the American hikers' case to his attention back in 2009 because she knew a friend of theirs.

"They have strong, progressive politics. I gave my word to Chavez that they did not appear to be spies," she said. "He was immediately open to doing something."

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Brokers Release of US Hikers from Iran

2011-09-22T12:51:00.002-04:30

BY EVA GOLINGER

The Iranian Foreign Ministry has confirmed the release of Joshua Fattal and Shane Bauer was in large part due to the request and mediation efforts of President Chavez

Iran’s release of US citizens Joshua Fattal and Shane Bauer on Wednesday, September 21, made headlines worldwide, but little details were initially provided regarding the reasons behind their liberation. The Iranian Foreign Ministry has now publicy affirmed the release of Fattal and Bauer was in response to requests made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, along with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of state of Iraq and Oman.

The two US citizens were originally detained on July 31, 2009, along with Sarah Shourd, after they were caught by Iranian border guards who claimed they had entered Iranian territory without authorization. The three young US citizens alleged they were hiking in Iraqi Kurdistan, a touristy area for outdoor activities that borders Iran, and were kidnapped by the Iranian security forces while on Iraqi territory.

They were immediately taken to Tehran and jailed, accused of espionage and illegal entry into the country. After more than a year in detention, Sarah Shourd was released on $500,000 bail last September 14, 2010, on humanitarian grounds due to a health condition.

The trial against the three US citizens began on February 6, 2011, without the presence of Shroud, who remained in the US with her family, fighting for the release of her two friends, one of whom, Shane, became her fianceé while in prison. On August 20, 2011, Bauer and Fattal were convicted of “illegal entry” and “espionage” by the Iranian court and sentenced to a prison term of 8 years. Spying typically carries a death sentence in Iran.

During the past few weeks, rumors circulated regarding the imminent release of the two “US hikers”, as they’ve been referred to by news media. Their lawyer in Iran, Masoud Shafiei, had announced to the press that despite their 8-year sentence, they would soon be released.

In early September, Iranian President Ahmadinejad affirmed that by unilateral humanitarian gesture, he would request release of Bauer and Fattal, and on September 21, the two left the Iranian prison, where they had been held for more than two years, to finally go home.

VENEZUELA’S ROLE

While the US government failed to facilitate in anyway the release of the three US hikers, Venezuela played a key role. Soon after the initial detention of the hikers, an informal request was made to President Hugo Chavez to intervene on behalf of the three US citizens, based on Venezuela’s close ties with Iran. Chavez, who formerly and successfully mediated the release of several hostages held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 2007-2008, including several US citizens, agreed to get involved.

Over the past year and a half, Venezuela has played a key role in mediating and negotiating the release of Bauer and Fattal. Pleas were also made directly to President Chavez requesting his involvement in the release of the hikers by US author Noam Chomsky and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, along with Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn and other allies of Venezuela.

While Chavez made the request to release Bauer and Fattal directly to President Ahmadinejad, Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry dealt with the details of the mediation process for their liberation.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement a day after the release on Thursday, September 22, confirming the important role Venezuelan President Chavez played in the release of Bauer and Fattal.

“The statement said that after the completion of the judicial processing, the Islamic Republic of Iran released the other two on bail again due to Islamic kindness and affection and in order to show respect for the mediation efforts made by several world leaders, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and top authorities of several friendly states like Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Omani King Sultan Qaboos as well as a number of religious figures, who have all requested their freedom”, reported FNA.

According to Venezuelan officials, President Chavez’s involvement in mediating the release of Bauer and Fattal was a “pure, humanitarian gesture of solidarity”.

Once again, President Chavez has played a major role in assuring the freedom of US citizens imprisoned for different reasons around the world.

PS: I personally confirm all the details of President Chavez's involvement in the release of the US hikers, as I was also involved from the beginning to get Chavez on board.

US: $20 million for the Venezuelan opposition in 2012

2011-08-11T14:17:00.001-04:30

BY EVA GOLINGER

[en español]

Washington is preparing funds to support the opposition’s campaign against President Hugo Chavez during the coming presidential elections in 2012

Since Hugo Chavez won his first presidential elections in 1998, the US government has been trying to remove him from power. With multimillion-dollar investments, every year Washington’s agencies advise and aid anti-Chavez groups with their campaigns and strategies against the government.

Despite multiple attempts, including a coup d’etat in 2002 that briefly ousted President Chavez, their efforts have been in vain. The Venezuelan President’s popularity continues to rise and opposition leaders have failed to convince constituents of their plans. The latest polls show Chavez’s support above 57%, while the opposition fails to even reach 20%.

Nonetheless, Washington continues to seek new mechanisms to achieve its eternal objective of recovering control over Venezuela’s strategic resources – the largest oil reserves on the planet – and this means putting an end to Hugo Chavez.

One of the US government’s principal tactics has been feeding the internal conflict in Venezuela through the consolidation of an opposition movement, that despite its impossibility of uniting, continues to maintain itself active in the country’s political sphere.

THE MONEY

The main engine behind this tactic has been the multimillion-dollar investment of Washington’s agencies, together with several European and Canadian foundations, in the Venezuelan opposition. The money has come with strategic support from top campaign and political consultants, who aid in everything from image to discourse.

Through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a congressionally created entity funded by the State Department, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), Washington has channeled more than $100 million to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela since 2002. A majority of those substantial funds have been used to run opposition candidates’ campaigns, as well as finance those well crafted media campaigns against the Chavez government that flood the national and international press.

Despite the economic crisis in the US, the funds to Venezuela’s opposition continue to flow.
In February 2011, President Barack Obama requested $5 million for opposition groups in Venezuela in his 2012 National Budget. It marked the first time a sitting US president openly requested money in the national budget to fund Chavez’s opposition, especially during a time when domestic funding is being cut. Apparently, Obama prefers to spend US taxpayer dollars on efforts to oust the Venezuelan President – elected democratically and supported by the majority – instead of investing in the health and well being of the US people.

Those $5 million comprise only a quarter of the total funds so far prepared by Washington for the Venezuelan opposition in 2012.

THE EMBASSY

The US Embassy in Caracas, Venezuela, has been the center of distribution and coordination of the majority of USAID and NED funds since 2002. However, until the end of 2010, USAID maintained offices of 3 contractors in Caracas: International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI). Through these entities, particularly DAI, USAID channeled millions each year to hundreds of opposition groups, programs, projects and campaigns in Venezuela. IRI and NDI supplied more political advice and aid than liquid funds.

These three agencies abruptly parted Venezuela after the nation’s legislative body passed a law in December 2010 prohibiting foreign funding for political means in the country. In early 2011, USAID published a statement on its website claiming its Venezuela program had been transferred to the Washington office. No other information was provided.

Nevertheless, USAID’s 2012 budget includes $5 million more for its work in Venezuela. The agency, which is a funding branch of the State Department, has no authorized projects in Venezuela or agreements with the Venezuelan government. From the beginning, its motives have been purely political.

Without the presence of these three agencies in Caracas, the US Embassy has taken on an even more important role – evident in the major boost in its 2012 budget. In 2010, the Embassy in Caracas had an annual budget of $18,022,000; in 2011 it dropped to $15,980,000. But in 2012, the budget swoops up to $24,056,000, nearly a $9 million increase.

The US doesn’t even have an ambassador in that embassy, nor plans to name one. Relations with Venezuela are frozen and handled at the “charge d’affairs” level. Furthermore, the number of embassy staff has remained the same since 2010: 81 employees. So, what is the extra $9 million for?

There is no doubt that these funds are destined for the electoral campaigns in 2012, when Venezuela has both presidential and regional elections. Now that USAID and its contractors are no longer operating in-country, the embassy will be the principle channel to ensure those funds reach their destination.

So far, the total reaches $19 million – at minimum – from Washington to the Venezuelan opposition in 2012, but that’s not all.

In the State Department’s 2012 budget, $48,160,000 was requested to fund the Organization of American States (OEA). In the justification for those funds, State specifies that part of the money will be used “to deploy special ‘democracy practitioner’ teams to states where democracy faces threats from the growing presence of alternate concepts such as the ‘participatory democracy’ advocated by Venezuela and Bolivia”.

Additionally, the budget claims the funds will be used to support “the appropriate responses to threats on freedom of expression and abuses by governments against their people, particularly in states such as Venezuela and Cuba”.

At minimum, a few of those $48 million will be filtered to groups in Venezuela that work against the government of Hugo Chavez.

THE NED

And then there’s still the NED, which funds with at least $1 million annually a dozen groups in Venezuela, including Sumate, CEDICE, Futuro Presente, Liderazgo y Visión, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (IPyS), Consorcio Justicia, Radar de los Barrios, Ciudadanía Activa, and others.

The NED’s budget for 2012, which is $104,000,000, states the following: “In the Andean region, the Venezuelan presidential election scheduled for December 2012 will have relevant consequences for the country and the neighborhood, as President Chavez seeks reelection for an additional six-year term. NED will support civil society organizations in their efforts to enhance voter participation and promote free, fair and competitive elections”.

Although the exact amount of money the NED will be providing to Venezuelan opposition groups in 2012 is not specified, it’s plans to intervene in Venezuela’s electoral process is obvious.

These multimillion-dollar funds destined to the Venezuelan opposition in 2012 leave no doubt that Washington will continue its plans to interfere in Venezuela’s internal politics, while trying – by any means – to impede the future of the Bolivarian Revolution. At the same time, these millions reinforce the decade-old belief that Chavez’s opposition remains “Made in USA”.

Estados Unidos: $20 millones para la oposición en Venezuela en 2012

2011-08-11T12:14:00.001-04:30

Por Eva Golinger

Ya Washington viene preparando fondos para apoyar la campaña electoral de la oposición contra el Presidente Hugo Chávez durante las próximas elecciones presidenciales en diciembre 2012

Desde que ganó Hugo Chávez sus primeras elecciones presidenciales en 1998, el gobierno de los Estados Unidos ha estado intentando sacarlo del poder. Con inversiones multimillonarios, cada año las agencias de Washington asesoran y ayudan a los sectores anti-chavistas con sus campañas y estrategias de desestabilización en Venezuela.

A pesar de sus múltiples intentos, incluyendo un golpe de estado en 2002 que brevemente forzó al Presidente Chávez del poder, sus esfuerzos han sido en vano. La popularidad del jefe de estado venezolano sigue subiendo, y los dirigentes opositores no logran convencer al público venezolano de sus proyectos. Las últimas encuestas colocan el apoyo al Presidente Chávez por encima de 57%, mientras que la oposición no sobrepasa el 20%.

No obstante, Washington sigue buscando nuevos mecanismos para lograr su eterno objetivo de recuperar el control sobre los recursos estratégicos de Venezuela – las más grandes reservas petroleras del mundo – y eso significa poner fin a Hugo Chávez.

Una de sus principales tácticas ha sido la alimentación del conflicto interno en Venezuela a través de la consolidación de un movimiento opositor, que a pesar de la imposibilidad de mantenerlo unido, siempre permanece en las esferas de la política del país.

LA PLATA

El principal motor detrás de esta táctica ha sido la inversión multimillonaria de las agencias de Washington, junto a algunas europeas y canadienses, en el sector opositor venezolano, tanto como el apoyo estratégico que estas mismas agencias han prestado con asesores expertos en todo, desde la imagen hasta el discurso.

A través de la National Endowment for Democracy (NED), una agencia creada por el Congreso estadounidense y financiada por el Departamento de Estado, y la Agencia Internacional del Desarrollo de Estados Unidos (USAID), Washington ha canalizado más de 100 millones de dólares a grupos anti-chavistas en Venezuela desde el 2002. Gran parte de ese dinero ha sido utilizado para ejecutar las campañas electorales de los candidatos opositores, además de las permanentes campañas mediáticas que inundan los medios nacionales e internacionales contra el gobierno de Hugo Chávez.

A pesar de la crisis económica en Estados Unidos, este dinero no ha parado.

En Febrero 2011, el Presidente Barack Obama solicitó 5 millones de dólares en su presupuesto nacional para el 2012 para financiar grupos anti-chavistas en Venezuela. Fue primera vez que un presidente estadounidense había solicitado dinero abiertamente para financiar grupos de oposición en Venezuela, además de hacerlo en su presupuesto nacional, y en un momento cuando él mismo está recortando fondos para los servicios sociales de los propios estadounidenses. Prefiere Obama gastar dinero en esfuerzos para sacar al Presidente de Venezuela – un presidente electo democráticamente y apoyado por la mayoría de su país - que satisfacer las necesidades de su propio pueblo.

Pero esos 5 millones de dólares no son sino la cuarta parte del dinero que Washington ya está preparando para enviar a la oposición venezolana en 2012.

LA EMBAJADA

La Embajada de Estados Unidos en Caracas, Venezuela, ha sido el centro de distribución y coordinación de la mayoría de estos fondos de la USAID y la NED desde el 2002. No obstante, hasta finales del 2010, la USAID mantenía oficinas de 3 de sus contratistas en Caracas: el Instituto Republicano Internacional (IRI), el Instituto Demócrata Nacional (NDI) y Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI). A través de estas entidades, particularmente DAI, USAID canalizaba millones de dólares cada año a cientos de grupos, proyectos, campañas e iniciativas de la oposición en Venezuela. IRI y NDI suministraban más asesoría política que dinero líquido.

Las tres agencies de Washington salieron abruptamente de Venezuela, cuando ya para finales del 2010, la Asamblea Nacional aprobó una ley prohibiendo esta clase de financiamiento externo para fines políticos en el país. A principios del 2011, USAID colocó una nota en su página web diciendo que su programa para Venezuela había sido transferido a su oficina para América Latina en Washington. Ninguna otra información sobre su Oficina de Iniciativas hacia una Transición (OTI), que había mantenido en Caracas desde 2002, fue ofrecida al público.

No obstante, en el presupuesto de la USAID para 2012 un mínimo de 5 millones de dólares adicionales ya aparecen apartados para sus proyectos en Venezuela. La USAID, que es un brazo financiero del Departamento de Estado, no tiene ningún proyecto autorizado por el gobierno venezolano en Venezuela. Sus únicos motivos en Venezuela han sido fines políticos, en contra del gobierno de Hugo Chávez.

Sin la presencia física de estas tres agencias en Caracas, la Embajada de Estados Unidos asume un papel más importante - y lo evidencia su notable aumento en presupuesto para el 2012. En 2010, la Embajada en Caracas tenía un presupuesto de $18,022,000; esto bajó en 2011 a $15,980,000 dólares. Pero para el 2012, sube a $24,056,000, un aumento de casi $9 millones de dólares.

Ni siquiera hay embajador de Estados Unidos en esa embajada, solo hay una encargada de negocios. Además, el número de empleados en la embajada ha quedado igual durante estos tres años: 81 personas. No hay aumento en empleados para el 2012. Entonces, ¿para qué son los $9 millones de dólares adicionales?

Sin duda son para la campaña opositora durante las elecciones presidenciales y regionales en 2012. Ahora que la USAID y sus contratistas no están operando directamente en el país, es la Embajada que servirá como canal de estos fondos ilícitos que violan las leyes venezolanas.

Ya van $19 millones de dólares – mínimo – de Washington para la oposición en 2012, pero no es todo.

En el presupuesto del Departamento de Estado para 2012, también se destaca $48,160,000 para la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA). En la justificación de ese presupuesto multimillonario, específicamente dice que parte de ese dinero sería utilizado para “continuar el despliegue de equipos especiales de ‘practicantes de democracia’ en estados donde la democracia enfrenta amenazas de la creciente presencia de conceptos alternativos como la ‘democracia participativa’ de Venezuela y Bolivia...”

Dice adicionalmente que el dinero sería utilizado para “apoyar la respuesta adecuada frente a las amenazas contra la libertad de expresión y los abusos cometidos de gobiernos contra sus pueblos, particularmente en Venezuela y Cuba...”

Entonces, por lo menos unos cuantos millones de esos $48 millones van a ser canalizados a grupos en Venezuela que activamente trabajan contra el gobierno de Hugo Chávez.

LA NED

Y no hay que olvidar a la NED, que cada año ha financiado con un mínimo de $1 millón de dólares a una docena de grupos en Venezuela, incluyendo a Súmate, CEDICE, Futuro Presente, Liderazgo y Visión, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad (IPyS), Consorcio Justicia, Radar de los Barrios, Ciudadanía Activa, entre otros.

Su presupuesto para el 2012, de $104,000,000, destaca lo siguiente: “En la región andina, las elecciones presidenciales en Venezuela que tomarán lugar en diciembre 2012 tendrán consecuencias relevantes para el país y sus vecinos, mientras el Presidente Chávez busca la reelección para un mandato adicional de seis años. La NED apoyará a las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en sus esfuerzos para mejorar la participación electoral y promover elecciones libres, justas y competitivas”.

Aunque no distingue la cantidad exacta de dinero que la NED estará dando a los grupos en Venezuela en 2012, sí dice claramente que estarán interviniendo en el proceso electoral del país.

Todo este dinero multimillonario que será destinado a la oposición venezolana en 2012 no deja duda que Washington sigue con sus mismos planes de siempre para interferir en la política interna de Venezuela e intentar – de cualquier manera – impedir la continuación de la Revolución Bolivariana. Al mismo tiempo, estos millones de dólares evidencian que la oposición venezolana sigue siendo, “Made en USA”.

President Chávez appears on Venezuelan TV in Working Meeting

2011-07-01T12:20:00.002-04:30

RIght now, footage of President Chavez in a meeting with members of his cabinet, including Foreign Minister Nicolás Maduro, General Henry Rangel Silva and Adan Chávez, is airing on Venezuelan television. The working meeting took place this Wednesday, June 29, from Havana, where Chávez is recovering from his recent surgery to remove first a pelvic abscess and later a cancerous mass, which was successfully extracted in entirety. The Venezuelan President appears fully energetic, strong, and pretty much his usual chatty self, talking about issues in Venezuela, foreign policy and the latest books he's reading. He is smiling, full of his usual passion and concerns for everything happening in Venezuela. Of course, he didn't fail to respond to the latest threats made by Washington against Venezuela when just this Monday, the US State Department put Venezuela on a list of countries allegedly "trafficking in persons". "The only threat is the Yankee Empire", exclaimed Chávez, with his usual fervor. Ah yes, this is the Chávez we know well!!!

[You can view his speech made last night, June 30, to the Venezuelan people here with English subtitles ]