News SBQ/HOV

Cuba’s Municipal Elections Results: Initial Notes

Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:14:00 +0100

June 7, 2010.The results of Cuba’s elections, whether the municipal partial elections taking place every two and a half years or the national and provincial elections which take place every five years, require serious and detailed analysis. This will be done in a further work. However, it is important for the moment to deal in the form of notes with some media disinformation regarding the municipal elections which just concluded.

In a Miami Herald article by Juan Tamayo dated April 28, 2010, the headline reads: “Dissidents: Voting shows frustration”; the article adds that the voting reflects “growing disgruntlement” on the island.i He also provides some statistical results and uses them to support his assertion.

In this piece I will address the statistical material first and then discuss whether the data support´s Tamayo´s thesis.

The Miami Herald indicates that voter turn-out fell, even though it admits that the decrease was small, while putting a lot of emphasis on the increase in the percentage of blank and nullified votes. To his credit, Tamayo provides basically correct information on voter turn-out, but this does not tell the whole story. Partial municipal elections are held every two and half years from 1976 to 2010, for a total of fourteen elections.ii The 2010 final elections results, rounding off the figures, indicate that 95.9% of those eligible to vote did so. Tamayo insinuates that this is lower than every year since 1976 which registered a 95.2% voting rate. However, the statistics also show that aside from 1976, the first year of elections, this year’s voter turn-out were not the lowest. There was one year, 2002, in which 95.8% of the electorate went to the polls, a very small fraction lower than this year. The 2002 election results also showed that 2002 witnessed a drop from the previous elections in 2000.

However, did this decrease reflect a tendency in the Cuban electoral mood? No, because in the following elections (both in 2005 and 2007) the voting rate actually increased. The point is that one cannot look at changes in the Cuban elections results (such as 2010) and read into them a tendency according to personal whims or desires. Anyone hoping that the next municipal elections to be held as part of the general elections in two a half years (2012-13) may show a further diminution in voting patterns, can very well be disappointed as was the case after the drop in 2002. Furthermore, the fourteen elections show regular up and down swings in voter participation which do not necessarily indicate anything, as they are quite small differences. The main feature is that all fourteen municipal elections from 1976 to 2010 indicate a very high voter turnout from 95.2 % to 95.9%.

The Miami Herald article turns more openly negative when it deals with blank and null votes, indicating that
“The 8.91 percent of null and blank votes in Sunday’s balloting was higher than in three known previous elections – 7 percent in the 1993 national legislative elections, 7.2% in the 1997 municipal elections and 5.9 percent in the 2000 municipal elections, according to Jorge Domínguez, a Harvard University Cuba expert. Results for other elections were not available.”

With all due respect for Professor Domínguez, results are in fact available for other elections.iii For example, in the 1995 partial municipal elections, 4.3% cast blank votes while no less than 7.0% spoiled their ballot, for a total of 11.3% blank and spoiled ballots. This was a higher non-valid vote rate than this year, 2010. In the municipal elections following the 2005 vote, held in 2007, the percentage of blank and spoiled ballots dipped to 3.23% and 3.98%, for a non-valid total of 7.21%.

The article mentions elections for the National Assembly held every five years. Professor Domínguez is correct when he indicated that the total blank and null votes amounted to about 7.0% in the 1993 general elections for the Parliament; however, he insinuated that the 2010 elections results represent a noticeable reduction in positive voting. However, what is significant about these 1993 results, as we inquired above about the increase in non-valid votes on the municipal levels? Does the voting pattern in any way indicate a tendency departing from the general trend? No, this does not seem to be the case. For example, in the next three national elections for the parliament following the 1993 elections, the 7% non-valid result in 1993 melted down to 5.02% (1998), to 3.86% (2003) and to 4.77% (2008).iv Once again, one must be beware of jumping to premature conclusions. Like the municipal elections, national parliamentary elections consistently show a very high voter rate and a very low non valid voting rate, varying every five years, but only minimally.

In 2010, the final results in the first round show that 4.59% deposited blank votes and 4.30% spoiled ballots, the second highest in municipal elections since 1995. Let us make some notes on this. Firstly, not all blank and spoiled ballots represent a rejection of the system nor favour the dissident option for political change. Some voters do so by error and there are other factors such as the Jehovah Witnesses, who do not oppose the revolution or its political system; however, their religion beliefs prohibit them from casting a vote for an individual. Initial investigation indicates that that the number of Jehovah Witnesses is on the increase in Cuba.

However, the most glaring proof against the supposed homogeneity of non-valid votes lies in the spoiled ballots. I have directly observed on many occasions, especially in the 1997-98 elections and more recently the 2007-2008 elections the public counting of the votes by the electoral boards members in the polling stations after the voting had come to an end. With my own photos as a proof, quite a few ballots are spoiled by misplaced enthusiasm. For example, I have seen a ballot in a Plaza de la Revolución polling station where a voter wrote-in Raúl Castro. This was immediately declared by the electoral board to be a spoiled ballot because Raúl Castro was not a candidate in the constituency and in any case write-ins are not recognized in Cuba. I have seen other ballots dutifully completed according to the law; however a sketch of Che Guevara was drawn by the elector on the ballot which was thus nullified. There are many other such examples as well as others including errors. As far as errors are concerned, on the municipal level, one has the right to vote for only one of candidates on the ballot as compared to the right to vote for several at the national level. Despite all the efforts, there is apparently some confusion when some voters enter the private voting stall, thus their vote is inadvertently spoiled. For those who purposely spoil their ballot, it is very clear, they do so quite graphically as is their right.

And so while it is true that one cannot say what proportion of blank and spoiled ballots does not represent rejection but rather errors or misplaced enthusiasm; however, one thing for sure, it is safe to say that a certain amount of the total non-valid voting does not at all constitute a rejection of the system.

Let us now turn to the assertion in the Miami Herald that the April voting results reflects “frustration” and “disgruntlement.” This is presented as a major discovery which is obviously intended to drive a wedge between the citizens and the leadership at all levels, seeing as this conclusion regarding the elections results are attributed to “dissidents.” It is in fact true that there exists in Cuba at this time a lot of “frustration” and “disgruntlement,” if we make a concession for argument’s sake and use the terms employed by the Herald. However, the Cuban government from the leadership to the vast majority on down at the grass-roots level and from the base up to the leadership are trying to respond to dissatisfaction by solving problems.

Some of those who analyze negatively the 2010 elections results compare them to the previous ones, especially the 2007-2008 elections which showed a lower blank and spoiled ballot rate. Those elections terminated in January 2008. What has happened in 2008, 2009 and in the beginning of 2010? Firstly, Cuba like the rest of the world has felt the effects of the global economic and financial crisis. Secondly, combined with this, the Miami Herald surely remembers that Cuba was the victim of three massive hurricanes in 2008 in a very short period of time: Gustav, Ike and Paloma caused over $10 billion in damage and massive uprooting which is not even calculable in dollars. Thirdly, the Cuban government has been and is attempting to bring about changes, especially those concerned with perfecting economic activity such as production and distribution. The sincere talk and action related to change encourages expectations; however, given the complexity of the international and domestic situation this very prospective of striving to respond to frustration and disgruntlement with positive results can at times not come about as rapidly and massively as many Cubans would hope. This situation therefore results perhaps in more disenchantment and not less. These are questions that anyone seriously dealing with the current Cuban political process has to pose to oneself and reflect upon.

Taking all this into account, that is, the world economic crisis since the last elections, the three hurricanes in 2008 and the rising expectations of change within the limits of the international and domestic situation, one may have to say that the increase in the 2010 protest vote through blank and nullified votes is not very high.

The opponents of Cuba view the island, as Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano says, with a magnifying glass when it comes to what they perceive as a negative incident or tendency; it is only just therefore that all factors, even secondary ones, be taken into account while of course not exaggerating their relative importance such as potential voters absent on international missions, a holiday coinciding with elections and what some citizens see as an increase in the number of Jehovah Witness adherents.

There have been previous efforts by journalists and/or academic at showing that elections in Cuba demonstrate opposition by the Cubans. Following the 1995 municipal elections US academic Miguel Centeno, a Cuba detractor, declared that the results show “significant discontent.” However, according to the investigation carried out this was not supported by sources or statistics.v As indicated above, while the 1995 elections did indicate a decrease in positive voting, what happened in the next general elections at the national, provincial and municipal elections in 1997-98? The positive voting bounced back and increased. And here we are fifteen years later (after the 1995 misguided evaluation of “discontent”) and we still hear talk about discontent from basically the same sources.

Nor was the 1995 evaluation the last one to have proven to be wrong. For example, perhaps the dissidents were expecting a far lower voter turn-out and a far higher increase in black and spoiled ballots in the 1997-98 elections. Over ten years ago, in the 1998 general national elections for the parliament, there were major expectations from amongst the dissidents for a massive and noticeable rejection through the ballot box compared to the previous 1993 general elections. Cuban Parliament President Ricardo Alarcon indicated on January 13, 1998 that certain diplomatic sources in Havana sympathetic to the dissidents were anxiously expecting a sharp increase in blank and spoiled ballots.vi All the conditions were present for such an outcome: the effects of the 1992 Torricelli Act and the 1996 Helms-Burton Act, the 1997 call by President Bill Clinton for a “democratic Transition Government” in Cuba with the accompanying funding of dissidents, all this in the context of the Special Period in Cuba caused by the collapse of the former USSR and the resulting major damage to the Cuban economy. At the same time, some of the worst effects of this situation began to improve albeit slightly, such as the decrease in black-outs caused by energy sources. However, despite the mainly unfavourable situation which vastly outweighed the minor improvements, the dissidents did not see their dream come true.vii When their wishes did not come about, one of Cuba’s most noted dissidents, Elizardro Sánchez was obliged to admit “that the 1998 national elections ‘signified the renovation of the mandates and the legitimacy of the government.’” viii

Above we have outlined only two examples, the 1995 partial municipal elections and the 1997-98 national general elections for the Parliament.

Both the Miami Herald, their supporters in Miami and elsewhere in the US and the few that exist on the island do not understand a very important feature of the Cuban political culture. Going way back at least to the second half of the nineteen century to date, the very vast majority of Cubans think and act in the following way: despite all the shortcomings and problems in Cuba, many of which come about as a result of its own deficiencies, Cubans do not like to be told what to do, especially by the US and Europe. The response is always to defend the system and work to overcoming its negative features and imperfections on their own. The more one attempts to meddle in Cuba’s internal affairs, the more the Cubans continue to follow their own path with a view of perfecting its system, while not blindly following avenues which do not contribute to advancing the situation.

Examining cold statistics and superficially drawing conclusions according to pre-determined preferences from the slightest change in figures or graphic curves represents a weakness in Eurocentric social sciences and history. It blinds one from examining the content, that is, the society in question, its evolution and political culture. In any case, as far as the next elections in Cuba are concerned, it is the Cuban people who will have the last say. Even then, elections in Cuba constitute only one relatively small process in the Cuban version of democracy. Between now and the next elections, Cubans have many ways in which they can have their voices felt and act upon on them. For example, while the votes were being counted on April 25, important debates were and are taking place in the Cuban press regarding the current economic and social situation and what to do about it. The issue of election results and society in Cuba is a very complex one and cannot be studied superficially. You can even have citizens who are involved in revolutionary change with much more passion than in elections or being an elected delegate, even though they of course vote in this process.

A few more notes on the municipal elections. The current Cuban municipal elections are almost terminated but not quite yet. They were initiated on January 4, 2010 when the Council of State according to the Cuban Constitution and the Electoral law convoked the elections. One of the first acts is to update the voters’ registration list based on the ongoing and permanent list of citizens, their age and adresses. Voter registration in Cuba is ex-officio: it is automatic for all those sixteen years and older; there is nothing to do in order to get on the registration list which is public.

From February 24 to March 24 thousands of local compact neighbourhood nomination meetings were held with only a couple of hundred voters eligible to participate in each one. Citizens have the right to nominate any neighbour in their constituency (district/riding) to run as a candidate. From two to eight neighbours can be nominated, those getting the most votes in a show of hands voting procedure are declared to be candidates. Secret, universal suffrage elections then took place on April 25 whereby voters can choose one of these nominated candidates. Since one has to receive at least 50% of the votes to be declared the winner, it is quite frequent that no candidate gets 50% the first time around. This year 14% of the 15,093 constituencies had to go into a second tour whereby voters voted for one amongst the two who had gotten the most (but not 50%) votes or the two who were tied.

This second tour took place on May 2, the day after May 1, a major day for Cubans all across the island. Normally voter turn-out is lower for second tour election. For the 2010 second tour, all of the emphasis in the week leading up to the second tour was on the mobilization for May 1, virtually nothing on the elections. Surprisingly (including for this writer), 90% of the electorate voted despite all the emphasis on May 1. Normally voting the voting rate for the second tour is between 89 and 93%, always lower than the first tour; for example second tour voting rate was 93.6% in 1986, 89% in 1995, 94.77%, in 1997, 93.5% in 2005.ix

However, in three constituencies, seeing as that there was a tie between the two candidates, a third tour was called for. These elections are being held on May 16.

On May 19 the municipal assemblies’ newly elected delegates will meet in the 169 municipalities across the country in order to constitute the assemblies. One of the main objectives of this first session is to elect the president and vice-president of the municipal assembly by secret vote from amongst those elected to the Assembly. This brings to an end the 2010 municipal elections, even though in the coming weeks and months, the permanent work commissions in the municipal assemblies and the People’s Councils and their respective presidents and vice-presidents are updated taking into account the newly elected delegates, a large number of which are not incumbents, but rather elected for the first time. The daily work of the elected delegates, with all its trials and tribulations, begins so that the electors can see the results and act upon them before the next elections.

By Arnold August

Flotilla massacre exposes criminal blockade of Gaza

Sat, 05 Jun 2010 14:24:30 +0100

In the middle of the night of the 31st of May, 64 km off the coast, Israeli commandos rappelled down from helicopters onto the 6 ship flotilla. Activists say they boarded the ships firing. The Israeli government decided to use deadly force to maintain their blockade of the Gaza strip, provoking waves of protest. These events have exposed the policy of Israeli imperialism to the masses everywhere: Gaza is a ghetto, kept in starvation conditions, and no one may interfere. This will have effects across the world, even in Israel itself.

Gaza - A Prison Camp

In order to understand what happened on the ships, it is important to understand the conditions that exist in Gaza.

Since 2007, when Hamas was elected with a majority, the Israeli state has maintained a complete blockade of the strip. Nothing comes in or out without army approval. No one is allowed to enter or leave. Food, medical supplies, and even construction materials are severely restricted.

The situation is desperate, as a Financial Times article shows:

Outrageous as this behaviour was, the true outrage is the illegal blockade of Gaza that it enforced. Since the January 2009 Gaza war, which exposed Israel’s determination to destroy Hamas’s capabilities regardless of the cost to innocent Palestinians, Israel and Egypt have colluded to prevent the enclave’s reconstruction. According to the United Nations, three-quarters of the damage has not been repaired and 60 per cent of homes do not have enough food.

The reasoning for the blockade given by Israeli imperialism, and approved by US imperialism, has been to prevent Hamas from building rockets. It just so happens that the material they are so worried could be used for rockets is essential for rebuilding the homes destroyed in 2009: cement. It is completely banned.

Blockade helps Hamas

This blockade has only served to reinforce Hamas, which has been getting a hefty cut from lucrative smuggling operations through clandestine tunnels into Egypt. The World Bank estimates that 80 percent of Gaza's imports come through the tunnels. In 2008, Palestinians broke a hole through the border with Egypt, and the UN estimated that half of the 1.5 million population of the Gaza strip poured through to get gas, cooking oil and other everyday items before the border was sealed again by the Egyptian army

This shows just how explosive the situation was even then. Since then, it has only gotten worse, as the Egyptian government began building a steel barrier underground in an attempt to block the tunnels. Furthermore, without legal trade, particularly into Israel, Gaza's economy has collapsed. The CIA World Factbook estimates that the unemployment rate in 2009 was 40%. 44% of the population are youth 14 or under. What future can they expect to have? It is these conditions that ensure that when they reach working age, they have nowhere to go and are easy prey for recruitment by reactionary organizations like Hamas.

This is the situation in Gaza, an entire people kept in an open-air prison.

The Gaza Freedom Flotilla Attacked

It is these conditions that the army acted to “defend” on Monday.

A group of solidarity organizations organized to break the blockade. 6 ships were prepared, the lead ship from Turkey, carrying 10,000 tons of prefabricated houses, building materials, medical supplies and essentials, and left port from Cyprus in an attempt to provide relief. The 700 passengers set out in the direction of Gaza, as a protest against the blockade.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed the army acted in self-defence, but the night raid on the ships occurred in international waters. As the soldiers first boarded the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship, they came under attack with sticks. The Israeli army claims that the first soldiers were armed only with paintball guns, and live guns were only deployed after they came under gunfire on the ship.

But the IDF's own reports of the seized ships show that no guns were found, except those brought on board by the IDF. In other words, either the activists seized their guns, in which case the IDF soldiers were armed from the beginning, or this is simply untrue. Furthermore, the IDF has posted videos with activists using chairs and sticks, but no video of gunfire has been shown.

Another Financial Times article points out that the IDF moved quickly to isolate the activists once they were on shore, posting armed guards at the hospitals with instructions that they were not to speak to the media, in an attempt to prevent them from questioning the story being presented by the government. When they were finally contacted, this is what some of them had to say:

However, the few accounts to have emerged from the other side paint a different picture. Greta Berlin, a representative of the Free Gaza Movement, said that she and her fellow activists were watching the live stream from the Mavi Marmara when the assault took place. “We saw them come off the helicopter, we saw them turn around, look at each other and then shoot. We were speechless watching this,” she said.

Hanin Zoabi, an Arab-Israeli member of the Israeli parliament, was aboard the Mavi Marmara. He said: “It was clear from the size of the force that boarded the ship that the purpose was not only to stop this [voyage] but to cause the largest possible number of fatalities in order to stop such initiatives in the future.” (Furious debate over moment of attack, FT, June 1, 2010)

Either way, Israeli imperialism sent commandos to board the ships in the middle of the night, in order to prevent the breaking of the blockade, and at least 9 people are now dead as a result. Other reports put the figure at 19. Dozens have been injured, and around 600 activists remain in prisons across Israel, being interrogated. A full list of the names of those dead or injured has yet to be released, although some information has come out.

Israeli Imperialism Becomes a Burden to its Allies

This incident is too much for the allies of Israeli capitalism, who have come under pressure and been forced to come out with condemnations one after another.

The interests of the different capitalist classes coincide with, but are not identical to the interests of the Israeli ruling class. Turkey, previously one of the closest regional allies, has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv. 3 out of the 6 ships were Turkish, and the largest contingent of the passengers was Turkish, some of whom are among the dead. The protest in Ankara was enormous.

The Egyptian ruling class, another close ally, was charged with being the other side of the vice squeezing the Gaza strip. When the border was broken open in 2008, the order was given to the Egyptian army to open fire on the crowds and reseal it. Protests shook the country then, and even larger ones in 2009 during the bombing of Gaza. Their complicity in the oppression of the Palestinian people has added to the widespread hatred for Mubarak and his regime amongst the working masses in Egypt. Now they've decided continuing it would be too dangerous. As of today, the Rafah crossing has been reopened in a limited capacity, though it's unclear for how long.

The EU has issued condemnations, but the most important effect will be felt in Washington.

The US was attempting to manoeuvre for more sanctions against Iran in recent weeks, this has made that all but impossible. This follows several similar embarrassing incidents for Obama. As we reported previously, the Gaza war was undertaken without consultation with Obama, and with very bad timing from his point of view. American imperialism was losing the war in Iraq, and was attempting to come to some sort of arrangement with the Syrian and Iranian ruling classes, without whom a pullout would become a fiasco.

Such a deal with imperialism would for these elites require something tangible that could justify the 180 degree turn, and hence the importance of at least the image of a solution to the question of Palestine. That war was a warning from Israel to Obama: “we will not toe the line in any deal done without us”.

Obama's calls for a halt to illegal settlement building resulted in similar embarrassment. Vice-President Joe Biden had to cut short his visit to Israel and return to Washington when more buildings were announced while he was on an official trip to the region. This could not have been accidental, it was a calculated insult expressing anger at criticism of the settlements.

Even layers within the Israeli ruling class are beginning to see the writing on the wall:

"Israel is gradually turning from an asset to the United States to a burden," said Dagan, speaking before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, according to Haaretz.

Crocodile Tears and International Law

But the chorus of condemnation from western governments is simple hypocrisy. None of the powers did anything to stop the blockade for the past few years, and their protests against "violations of international law" mean nothing. International law is no different than any other bourgeois law: it is the law of the ruling class.

Many honest activists are raising the cry against the illegality of boarding ships in international waters, the illegality of disproportionate use of force, and the illegality of collective punishment inflicted on the Palestinian masses in the form of the blockade. This all may be true, but it misses the point. These laws are meaningless for the powerful. Imperialist powers only apply them when they suit their interests; otherwise they simply call for inquiries without teeth and cry crocodile tears about "impunity".

There is no hope of the bourgeois UN doing more than writing a resolution. Ban-Ki Moon will continue to "urge", Obama will continue to "regret", and Netanyahu will continue to ignore. We must look to our own class for a solution, not to the den of thieves.

Obama, who was supposed to represent change, didn't even condemn the attack, only saying that he wants an "impartial inquiry".

In contrast to the stale and hypocritical remarks of the bourgeois, the response of the masses across the world came like a breath of fresh air.

For a labour boycott campaign

Those who organized the flotilla showed great personal courage. They knew what they were facing and several paid the ultimate price for their convictions. We fully share their burning indignation at the brutal injustices committed every day against the men, women and children of Gaza by the Israeli aggressors. But we point out that humanitarian aid cannot solve a problem that is of a political character.

We are convinced that it would be more effective to create a worldwide movement against Israeli occupation. Such a movement, if it is to succeed, must be based in the international working class organisations. Instead of the kind of campaigns that have been tried (and failed) in the past to boycott Israeli oranges, it would be far better to commit the trade unions to an international boycott of Israel until it has lifted its criminal blockade of Gaza and granted the just demands of the Palestinian people.

Such a labour boycott should be accompanied by an international campaign of mass meetings to explain to the world what is happening in Palestine and mobilize the public opinion of the workers of the world. Such a campaign would have far more effect inside Israel than a million resolutions from the Security Council in New York or a hundred hypocritical speeches by Hillary Clinton.

Mass working class action the only solution

Despite short notice, protesters responded to the call for action across the world. There were protests in Cairo, Montreal, Madrid, Athens, Rome, Paris, London, Dublin, Sydney, just to name a few cities.

Most important of all was the demonstration in Tel Aviv. Tellingly, the protest in Tel Aviv drew 3000 people, and Israeli Arabs have called a general strike against the attack and the blockade. Reports say the strike, called by the Higher Arab Monitoring committee, had close to 100% participation. Shops were closed and quiet ruled in Dir al-Hana, Arabeh, Sakhnin, Kafr Kana and Nazareth. This is only the beginning.

Another two ships which were delayed and couldn't keep up with the flotilla have decided to continue the trip, and are expected to enter Gaza's waters on Friday. Others are also planned in the weeks ahead. If the Israeli regime is serious about maintaining the blockade, they will board these ships as well, which will mean the possibility of more deaths and injuries, which will in turn mean an intensification of protests worldwide.

The biggest danger for the Israeli ruling class is at home. It is the danger that another explosion could occur amongst the million-strong Israeli Arab population, who make up 20% of the total population of the country. Even more dangerous is the response amongst Jewish Israelis, many of whom participated in the protest in Tel Aviv. A general strike by the Israeli Arab workers could raise this issue in a serious way within Israel, and the regime will be scrambling to ensure the protests do not spread to the Jewish working class.

Because at the end of the day, it is the Jewish workers who are always being asked to send their sons and daughters off to die in Lebanon, the West Bank, Gaza, and now at sea. The dangerous question is now becoming: for what? To prevent the rebuilding of homes in Gaza? To prevent a group of activists from bringing medical supplies to the strip?

This event will leave its mark on the region, and the Israeli masses. Already, Zionism is losing its grip on the youth, the future. In the Tel Aviv municipal elections - as we reported previously - the Israeli Communist Party candidate received a level of support which must have been shocking to the Israeli ruling class, considering that their platform includes the right of return and that this is a party that unites Israeli Arabs and Jews. An interview with Knesset member Dov Khenin makes clear that this is only the tip of the iceberg:

The interesting phenomenon was that we succeeded with the 'City for All' movement to achieve nearly 35% of the vote for the mayorship in Tel Aviv. 35% of the votes, well of course not enough to win the mayorship, but it was a very big success for a local movement which ran for the elections without money at all, with the support only of the enthusiasm of volunteers; we had approximately 2,500 volunteers working for us all around the city, which in Israeli terms is a very very big number. And the most interesting phenomenon was that we got the votes of about 75% of young people below 35. (Ending the vicious circle of hate and blood: an interview with Israeli Knesset member Dov Khenin, our emphasis)

It is this reality that Palestinian solidarity activists should keep in mind. Zionism is losing ground amongst the future workers of Israel. In the final analysis, this means the death of Israeli imperialism, and the most urgent task is to build the unity needed to achieve it.

The Israeli Communist Party needs to back the call for a general strike against the blockade, and call on Jewish workers to join it. The masses in Gaza need the Israeli working class, and the workers across the world, now more than ever.

It is time for the Israeli workers to break with their ruling class. This bourgeoisie is exposing the Jewish workers to wars and asking them to bleed for the fatherland. But whose fatherland is it really? Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz answers this question best:

"The fact that the Israeli economy is controlled by 30 families does not constitute corruption. But it does cause economic problems and damages competition," Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said this weekend during an interview with the Channel 2 television program "Friday Studio."

"We must find ways to reduce centralization without harming the economy," Steinitz said. He noted that he objects to the high salaries among Israeli executives, but also any attempts to rein in oversized wages through legislation.

"Throughout the world, including the United States and Europe, there is great opposition to unduly high salaries, but throughout the world there is also opposition to passing laws against this practice," Steinitz said. "Even President Barack Obama backed down from plans to impose legislation in the United States against high pay for executives."

In Israel, the finance minister continued, there are people whose salaries are so scandalous and unjustified they are essentially robbing their companies' shareholders - "but in business the rule is 'don't be right, be smart.'" Steinitz did not provide any details of his, or his ministry's, plan to fight these exaggerated salaries or whether such a plan even exists. (Finance Minister: Israel's economy being controlled by 30 families is a problem, Haaretz, May 5, 2010

This is the government and the ruling class working Israelis are being asked to uphold through the pact between the classes - Zionism.

A fatherland where 30 families control the entire economy. A fatherland where 23.6% of the population is below the poverty line: living on less than $7.30 a day. Zionism cannot put food on the table for working class families. It is nothing but a mirage, a national myth that there are common interests between Jewish worker and boss and the enemy is in the Gaza strip and the West Bank. What shared interests can there be between the top 30 capitalist families, who hold the lives and futures of the millions of Israelis as well as the Palestinians in their hands like playthings, and the Israeli working masses who will be expected to pay for the effects of the global economic crisis?

Already in 2009, Israeli businessmen began to abandon their workers and go into hiding, leaving them with months of unpaid wages and nothing but a store to loot:

The two-day spree shocked and puzzled Israelis, who assume that the rule of law prevails in their society. Yet this and other recent cases of looting have coincided with news that the economy, flattened late last year after half a decade of enviable growth, had slid into recession.

The outbreaks are isolated and few, but labor activists and social commentators warn that many Israelis are becoming desperate.

"What we're seeing are small stories about collapsing businesses and layoffs that threaten their livelihoods," said Dafna Cohen, a spokeswoman for the Histadrut, Israel's trade union federation. "These small stories are the beginning of a big fire." (In Israel, recession pressures boil over into looting, LA Times, March 19, 2009)

Class struggle is not abolished by Zionism, it has only been hidden beneath the nationalism. But there are signs it is seething beneath the surface. Another dip, or even a decision to break trade relations by Turkey, where hundreds of Israeli companies operate, could bring these divisions to the surface again. Then a big fire is exactly what we could see.

In the meantime, Israeli imperialism continues to blunder, spending the political capital amassed by Zionism over the past 62 years. This is can't go on forever.

What is to be done?

After decades, the struggle for national liberation of the Palestinians, this goal has not been advanced one millimetre. This is a hard thing to say, but it is the truth. It is essential that the most advanced elements of the Palestinian youth should think seriously about what is to be done. The recipes of the past have all failed to bring a solution any nearer.

Neither the endless talks between the leaders, nor the endless stream of meaningless UN Resolutions have brought any tangible result. But the firing of rockets into Israel, the suicide bombings and the deaths of many martyrs have proved equally futile. Even worse, they have been counterproductive. They have served to push the Israeli population even more firmly behind the reactionary Zionist regime.

World public opinion has been shocked at this latest act of barbarism by Israeli forces. It has rekindled the instinctive sympathy of the workers of the world for an oppressed people. This must serve as the starting point for a worldwide movement. The Marxists will participate energetically in the organizing of a mass struggle against the occupation develops worldwide. But if the understandable frustration of the Palestinians leads to the strengthening of terrorist tendencies amongst the youth, it will undermine all that has been achieved.

There can never be any possibility of victory for the Palestinian people unless a wedge is driven between the Zionist reactionaries and the Israeli masses. Among a sizeable section of the Israeli workers and youth there is war-weariness. They are tired of an endless and senseless struggle that has destroyed many lives and never leads to a solution. But they can see no way out of this vicious circle of violence.

There must be many people among the Palestinians who are equally discontented with the role of both the Fatah and Hamas leaderships, but can see no alternative. In the rank and file of the PLO, and especially in the ranks of the PFLP there must be militants who are seeking a revolutionary socialist alternative to the old leaderships.

The road to solving the problems of the working masses of Israel passes through the overthrow of the top 30 families, the nationalization of their economic assets, and the organization of the economy into a democratic plan administered by the working class as a whole. It just so happens this elite also owns the corporations where Israeli Arabs work. Here we find a real common enemy.

Not to mention the fact that walls, bombs, settlements, guns: all are produced by enormous corporations owned by these same fat cat capitalists.

The working masses, be they Palestinian, Israeli Arab or Israeli Jew, cannot win any lasting improvement to their conditions without a common movement for the overthrow of capitalism itself.

The fault line that goes through every capitalist society is present in Israel as well, and the awakening of the Israeli workers and youth would bring the foundations of Israeli imperialism crashing down. A mass movement against Zionist capitalism, bringing together Israeli Arabs and Jews, would be a powerful force. Upon winning power, the Israeli working class would be the only force that could truly immediately abolish the virtually genocidal conditions Palestinians masses are subjected to, offering them a voluntary socialist federation of both peoples.

A revolutionary movement in Israel would also have reverberations in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and across the region, where not one regime is stable and all collude with imperialism while crying crododile tears for the Palestinians.

A socialist federation of the Middle East would open a real golden age for the masses of the region, freeing them from the bloody chains of Islamism, Zionism and Imperialism. A revolution in life and culture would ensue, focusing the world's attention on the region not because of the blood spilt by today's ruling classes, but because of the enormous achievements and the beacon of hope such a federation would become.

This is the only solution.

Written by Isa Al-Jaza'iri Wednesday, 02 June 2010

Honduras: a dictatorship in sheep's clothing

Fri, 28 May 2010 22:41:07 +0100

América Socialista – the Panamerican magazine of the International Marxist Tendency, interviewed Tomás Andino, a leading member of the Honduran Resistance.

América Socialista .- After the fraudulent elections organised by the Micheletti dictatorship, the attention of the bourgeois mass media on Honduras has dropped drastically and the official version that Honduras is a democracy is now accepted. Can you tell us what the real situation in the country is?

Tomás Andino .- The media blackout about the situation in Honduras is part of the US strategy to mould world public opinion into thinking that everything is back to “normal” here and that it is therefore “justified” to recognise the government of Porfirio Lobo Sosa. However, the reality is that in Honduras the break with democracy has not been solved because the coup regime is still in place, even with the same faces. For instance, we have the same Supreme Court of Justice, the same Public Prosecutor, the same Supreme Accounting Court and 80% of the Members of Parliament (imposed by the electoral farce of November 2009) participated in the coup. To top it all, the new Joint Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Carlos Antonio Cuellar, appointed by the National Congress, was one of the six Battalion Commanders who participated directly in taking president Zelaya out of the country.

Even today there are more “retired” army officers in the administration than there were under Micheletti. They are put in key positions from where they can control the country and undermine the Resistance. For this reason, migration control, the merchant fleet and the control of many hospitals is in the hands of former officers of the Armed Forces; even the state telecommunications company, Hondutel, has been given to none other than General Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, who led the coup d’état.

On the other hand, Honduran society is deeply divided between a minority which supports this regime and a majority which rejects it. Therefore, deep-down, nothing has been solved in the area of Democracy. What we have is a dictatorship in sheep’s clothing.

AS .- We have heard reports of the selective assassinations of trade union and peoples’ leaders, could you give us more information so that we can publicise it widely?

TA .- At the time of the daily marches, between July and November 2009, the forces of repression implemented crowd suppression tactics which shocked the world. For instance, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission reported that during the repression of the more than 300 demonstrations during the Micheletti government, more than 3000 people were injured as a result of police and military violence, but only 5 people died while taking part in the demonstrations.

After the election farce on November 29, 2009, the methods of repression changed and became more selective, thus less overt, but deadlier. As a result we have had nearly 100 men and women killed and dozens of failed assassination attempts. Their aim is to sow terror amongst the activists of the Resistance so as to demobilise them. Their preferred targets are the middle-ranking leaders of the trade union, peasants' organisations, teachers’ unions, or left-wing activists (we could mention amongst the latter, Comrade Manuel Flores, Trotskyist leader of the PSOCA in Honduras). The killer's hand reaches not only these leaders, but also their relatives, that is, daughters, wives, brothers, etc. In many instances there is an attempt to present the killings as being the result of a “settling of accounts” on the part of organised crime, feuds between the mara gangs, or “crimes of passion”. In the months of March and April, 7 journalists have been killed. For this reason there are more than 200 Resistance activists and leaders in exile because they have suffered attempts on their lives or received death threats.

The death squads, according to information that we have gathered, are made up of elite cadres led by Israelis and Colombians.

AS .- Could you also tell us about the conflict which developed in the Bajo Aguán region?

TA .- This conflict is not new, but has been rekindled after the arrival of Porfirio Lobo to power. In the region of the Bajo Aguán, which was in the past the capital of the Agrarian Reform, 3,500 peasant families, belonging to 28 rural communities have been demanding for a number of years the recovery of around 20,000 Ha of land, planted with African Palm, which were purchased by three landlords through fraudulent means from the peasant cooperatives which owned them. One of these land-owners is Miguel Facussé, possibly the richest man in the country and padrino of the Honduran oligarchy.

The peasants occupied this land a few years ago and have defended it machete in hand. Of course, the land-owners did not remain with arms crossed, and had already killed, before the Coup, a dozen of the peasant leaders with methods of sicariato (targeted political killings by hired guns). However, the peasants replied by using self-defence methods which generated harsh armed clashes with deaths on both sides. It is not by chance that this militant peasant movement became one of the strongholds of the Resistance against the coup d’état. As a matter of fact, this was the only sector which the army could not evict during the Micheletti period.

But on the same day on January 27, when Mr Porfirio Lobo was receiving the Presidential sash, a massive military operation started with a large scale offensive in order to evict the peasants resulting in several comrades wounded. Nevertheless, they did not manage to evict them and the conflict in the Aguan was brought to centre stage of the national situation to the point where Porfirio Lobo made it one of his main challenges in the social field.

The offer of the Pepe Lobo Government to the peasants with the help of his stooges, the Democratic Unification Party (former left party in control of the National Agrarian Institute), was to offer them 6,000 Ha of land which would be bought from the land owners, despite the fact that these were sobretechos, that is, illegally held. At the beginning of April, spurred on by the land owners, the so-called “government of reconciliation” of Pepe Lobo ordered the sending of 4,000 soldiers and more than 1,000 police officers to the region to surround the peasant communities, turning the Bajo Aguan into a war zone, with an undeclared state of siege.

Under conditions of such a military mobilisation and an imminent massacre, the peasants proposed an agreement by which they would extend the government’s proposal to 13,000 Ha. as well as other commitments for technical support and loans, as well as having the right to determine themselves which land they would occupy. Even though the agreement is a set back of the Aguan Unified Peasant Movement (MUCA), in relation to their original demand, the positive aspect is that it did not end up smashed by a military defeat as the landowners would have liked. The aim of preserving their organisation was achieved and the Resistance has kept this pillar in the struggle for the Constituent Assembly in the region. Now the land owners are reneging on the agreement and the conflict could restart.

AS .- The information we receive is that, despite repression, the Resistance and its Front are still strong and have mass support. Could you give us an overview of the most recent mobilisations and meetings?

TA .- The support of the masses for the Resistance is still massive and firm. It is true that since the election farce there are no daily demonstrations, but when the Resistance calls for a march this is always massive. In January there were 3 large marches of at least 50,000 each; in February and March there were two, of some 20 to 30,000 people, and on May Day we had half a million people marching all over the country following the slogans of the Resistance. This means that the political and social movement of the Peoples’ Resistance continues in a vigorous way and that the people identify the government of Pepe Lobo as a continuation of the dictatorial coup.

AS .- The Resistance has launched a campaign of signatures for the Constituent Assembly. Could you tell us what the aims of this campaign are and its success so far?

TA .- The aims of the campaign for a Declaración Soberana (a statement of the people about the need for a Constituent Assembly) are political and organisational. There are two main political aims. Firstly, to get the people to express through signing this declaration what it could not express because of the coup - a consultation about a Fourth Ballot as to whether the people agreed with calling a Constituent Assembly in order to re-found the country. Secondly, to express the support of the resistance for the return of citizen Manuel Zelaya Rosales, as well as that of the more than 200 political exiles.

The organisational aim is to take advantage of this mobilisation in order to incorporate more people to the rank and file structures of the National Front of Peoples’ Resistance (FNPR) in preparation for the Front’s Founding Assembly which will take place in September this year as we aim to become the most powerful political force in the country.

AS .- This year of struggle since the coup has radicalised the situation in Honduras and has meant an extraordinary process of political education for the Honduran labour movement and the people. What are the main conclusions which have been drawn?

TA .- The lessons are fundamental and have no precedent in our country's history:

1. There has been a giant leap in the class consciousness of the majority of the population because through the struggle for democracy the people have been able to identify that the enemy which is always on the other side are the bosses and the land owners, and of course, imperialism.

2. There has been an unprecedented break with bourgeois democracy, with the collapse of the Liberal Party, which was a pillar of the capitalist political system, and with a massive discrediting of the bourgeois electoral mechanism (abstention in the last election was at least 65%, when previously the average was 25%). It is not by chance that the strategy of imperialism today includes repairing this mechanism which is fundamental to maintain their domination.

3. In the consciousness of the people, all the intermediate institutions of the ruling class (the Churches, human rights institutions, mass media, academia, etc.) which previously held sway, and prevented the people from seeing clearly who is who, have suffered from a massive discrediting. Today, all these institutions are in clear decline.

4. There is a strong consciousness regarding the unity of the peoples’ movement, which has been achieved like never before in the country’s history. This unity expresses itself through the fierce defence of the FNPR.

5. Today, the people in Resistance have a clear idea that its aim is to achieve a New Honduras, without oligarchs, without military officers and without imperialists; where we can have social justice and a genuine democracy. And it is clear that the way to achieve it is through a Constituent Assembly which should mean a radical break with the present.

6. The people in resistance have gone beyond the demands of the concrete day to day struggle – even though these have not been abandoned – and have set themselves strategic political aims, like the taking of power, which are today only prevented by bayonets. Even the more bread and butter trade unions of the past are now forced to take a position and adapt their political language or risk being overtaken by the rank and file. The clearest example of this was on May Day when the main demand was that of the Constituent Assembly as well as the other demands of the Resistance.

But making a critical balance sheet, I see that the area in which there is a need for more maturity, or where we need to break a final link, is the trust that the people might still have in politicians who from the ruling class embrace the discourse of the Resistance. Yet I trust that through practical experience, which has already put many instances of mediation against the ropes, we will reach the conclusion that a new society can only be achieved through the strength of the people, organized in the FNPR.

AS .- What are the lessons of the position of the US, in this, the first coup d’état in Latin America under the Obama administration?

TA .- The people have gone through a very steep learning curve regarding Obama and imperialism in general. Before, some comrades had hopes that his election could have changed things, but with his covert support for the coup d’état, which was clear for the broadest masses, all doubts have been clarified. Today, the increasingly brazen intervention of US ambassador Hugo Llorens only serves to increase the rejection of the people to this representative of the empire. Nowadays nobody in the Resistance has any doubts about the role it plays on the side of the enemies of Democracy.

AS .- In our opinion, the struggle for the democratic and anti-imperialist demands, summed up in the Constituent Assembly, cannot be separated from the struggle against capitalism and for socialism. Do you think that the idea of socialism is today more present? What is your opinion about this?

TA .- The concept of socialism is certainly now more present than before, because of the identification of where we are going to in Honduras as “Bolivarian Socialism” - although nobody can say clearly what is meant by this. In fact, president Zelaya himself says that his ideology is a “pro-socialist Liberalism”, and paradoxically he is the one who uses the term "Socialism" more than the left wing forces in the Resistance. This could be misleading, because from the examples he gives (the Scandinavian countries), President Zelaya is really thinking about social-democracy.

Regardless of this, today we have the best possible conditions to educate the people in genuine socialism. The experience of the coup d’état has saved the left decades of political education regarding the impossibility of genuine Democracy under capitalism. Now the question is to prove that only revolutionary socialism is genuinely democratic. This is the challenge that we face. Regarding this, I think that in Honduras, because of what I have explained before, the terrain is fertile to develop a campaign in favour of such a vision like there has never been in the country - even more favourable than during the 1958 strike.

AS .- President Chávez made a call for the formation of the V International, which he described as anti-imperialist, socialist and anti-capitalist. What do you think? Has this been discussed in the Front?

It has not been discussed in the Front, but judging from the enormous sympathy which president Chávez has amongst the Resistance I think that it can easily gather a lot of support, maybe with the exception of the comrades of Liberals in Resistance who are less identified with the left. As a matter of fact, the FNPR has defined itself as a an anti-capitalist, anti-neoliberal, anti-imperialist, anti-patriarchal and anti-racist political and social organisation and this would make it easier for the FNPR to identify with the proposal of president Chavez.

In my opinion an International is needed, but it must be working class based. I mean by this, made up of political and social organisations representing the masses and which, of course, should be based on a correct policy of alliances with other class sectors, but fundamentally following the program of the working class.

I do not believe in purely anti-imperialist fronts, like some comrades are suggesting, because there is a certain tendency to include anyone in this definition, including enemies of the working people like the Mexican PRI. It will lead to nothing because at the end of the day, their fear of the self-determination of the mobilised masses is bigger that their antipathy for the empire.

AS .- The official leadership of Democratic Unification decided to participate in the elections of the Micheletti regime, but yourself and others opposed this. What happened to UD? What is the way forward for the organisations of workers based on a socialist perspective? What is now your point of reference or political project?

TA .- The UD was born as a party which united the different expressions of the left but was unable to consolidate a political and ideological program. It moved away from the rank and file, abandoning the barricade of the social struggle of the people and emphasised struggle in parliament. This pushed it towards accommodation to the system until it became absorbed by it. Now its leaders are political opportunists and play the role of the fifth wheel of the coup plotting oligarchy in the hope that they will throw a few crumbs to them.

As a result of this, there were constant internal crises in UD. Subsequently, little by little, all the left groupings over a ten year period left it so that now only a small handful of opportunist leaders remain as it is merely a home for opportunists who leave the parties of the ruling class.

I resigned from UD at the beginning of the year, because I think that it is a party that cannot be reclaimed. Together with other comrades I have committed myself to contribute to the unity of the Honduran revolutionary left, to make sure that it plays a role in the building of a revolutionary National Peoples’ Resistance Front based on the working class, having socialism as its perspective and the mobilisation of the working class as its main method of struggle.

AS .- What message would you send to democratic and worker activists around the world regarding the situation in Honduras? What can they do?

TA .- International solidarity is crucial. It was thanks to thousands of brothers who mobilised around the world that the Honduran Resistance got the necessary energy to resist for seven months in the streets without a pause. Thanks to that, the Micheletti government was unable to consolidate itself and even the Porfirio Lobo one has not been able to do so.

My first appeal is not to believe what the imperialist mass media say about everything having gone back to “normal”. We ask you to spread the word that here the coup plotters are still in power with the support of the US empire, but also we ask you to spread the word that under the surface there is an enormous movement of the peoples’ vanguard which continues the struggle for a new Honduras, now in much more favourable conditions from the point of view of the consciousness of the people. This is why the coup plotters fear us so much and are attempting to silence our voices. Despite our dead comrades, the struggle continues without respite.

The fact that you don’t see daily demonstrations in the streets, which characterised the first stage of our Resistance, is because in Honduras we have decided to move on from mobilisations in the streets to mobilisations in mass meetings and rank and file organisation in every neighbourhood, municipality and department in order to build this beautiful tool of struggle, the FNPR. This is a complicated task, one that it is not easy at all.

My appeal is to break the media blockade which imperialism has established, struggle against the recognition of the Pepe Lobo government by your own bourgeois governments, support the struggle of the people for the calling of a Constituent Assembly and support the struggle of the FNPR, the most important vanguard organisation in the country.

Worker Self-Management Introduced in Primary Industry Companies in Guayana, Venezuela

Wed, 19 May 2010 21:09:17 +0100

Merida, May 16th, 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – Yesterday president Hugo Chavez swore in a range of directors of state owned companies that comprise the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG). The directors were chosen by workers’ working groups and ratified by the president. Chavez also announced a range of measures to further implement the Plan Socialist Guayana, including some nationalisations and eliminating outsourcing.

A range of workers and ministers told the press that it was the first time in CVG history that directors had been nominated by workers, and were workers themselves. CVG includes 15 state-owned primary industry companies in Guayana.

CVG Workers and the government have confronted a range of problems, including corruption, deteriorating machinery, drops in the prices of aluminum and steel, and power shortages. Last year Chavez lent his support to a worker proposed plan for the industries to be directly controlled by workers, called Plan Socialist Guayana, but it has been met by a range of bureaucratic maneuvers to prevent its implementation.

Yesterday, in a ceremony in Alcasa, Chavez was finally able to swear in new directors of some of the companies that make up CVG. They were, Jose China as director of Bauxilum, Jose Mendez for Carbonorca, Elio Sayago for Alcasa, Rada Gamluch for Venalum, Rafael Guerra for Alucasa, Carlos Zzari for Cabelum, Otto Delgado for Alunasa-Costa Rica, and Caros de Oliveira for Sidor.

The new directors swore to completely dedicate themselves against corruption and inefficiency and to productivity and sustainability of each of the companies that form the corporation as well as loyalty to the national government.

A range of ministers and around 600 workers of CVG attended the act.

Workers chose the new directors in working groups that they formed with some of the ministers and sent this list to Chavez, which he approved in its entirety on Thursday.

The executive will take a new approach to the industry, which includes a range of decisions that Chavez announced at the swearing in ceremony.

CVG will reduce the high levels of exportation of primary materials like steel and aluminum, and divert them instead towards local and national projects. Chavez said there needs to be a plan to create companies to process such material in the country.

“The primary material companies in Venezuela were designed just to produce the primary material and hand it over to the international and national private sector so that they could process it and add value, at each stage of the productive chain they were exploiting the workers and speculating with prices,” Chavez explained.

He also ordered that the transport system of the primary material be nationalised. He said that according to studies done during working groups with the workers, the transport system was “one of the main causes of high costs and losses, and a big business for the private companies.”

Chavez motivated a new system of buying and selling in CVG, where, “everything is transparent and not a single cent is lost, because such wealth belongs to the people.”

Another decision is to reduce the levels of dependence on imports such as lime and caustic soda, as well as to talk with state oil company, PDVSA about it buying and nationalising the Venezuelan company Norpro, to then be able to have a direct supply of the chemical propanol.

Chavez also ordered the nationalisation of Matesi, an iron and steel company, and Comsigua, another iron and steel company. The Argentinean owners of Matesi offered the company to the government at a price five times its worth, according to Chavez, and after spending nearly a year negotiating with the two companies, among others, over prices, the government has decided it has no “other alternative but to nationalise them”.

And, as some managers and administrators have been reluctant to provide information required to take some of these decisions, Chavez said, “If some manager or administrator hides information, this is suspicious and should be cause for immediate removal from their position. It’s necessary to defeat such resistance to change.” He warned that some positions are occupied by “enemies of the revolutionary process”.

Chavez also denounced the levels of outsourcing within CVG, where companies like Sidor, paid BsF 423 million ($US 98 million) in 2009 to outsourcing companies, and only 41.34% of this went to the workers’ wages. He said such activity was a way of delivering profits to the bourgeoisie and “leaving us with the losses” and demanded “an end to such a perverse mechanism”.

He called for the creation of a plan that will allow, in the medium term, for the eradication of outsourcing in the area.

Finally, Chavez announced an investment of BsF 432.4 million as well as $125.9 million into modernising a lot of the sector’s machinery. He said this would include renovating and extension of a hospital in the area and improving technology related to electricity supply. He also said the government would pay off BsF 25 million ($US 5.8 million) owed to workers of Ferrominera Orinoco, using a fund created from dividends of the state owned communication company CANTV.

A worker at Alcasa, Alberto Parra, told ABN, “A lot of the managers ...associated with corrupt practices, refused to accept our presence because they know that we bring transparency to the finances, but thanks to President Chavez and the organised working class, our participation in decision making will be stronger and stronger every day.”

“We’re going to construct a great socialist zone here,” Chavez said.

In July last year workers proposed a new model of production based on workers control, which president Chavez supported. He then presented a new plan, “Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019” which involved transforming the state owned CVG and its companies into socialist companies. The plan was a result of weeks of discussion among CVG workers and included direct worker control over production, improved working conditions, and public auditing.

Tamara Pearson - venezuelanalysis.com

Denmark: Protest in front of the US embassy

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:35:38 +0100

More than 100 protestors on Tuesday took part in a picket in Copenhagen to commemorate the defeat of the CIA-backed coup in Venezuela on the 13 April eight years ago. The event was also a protest against the continued aggressions and coups on part of Imperialism in Latin America.

The initiative to the manifestation was taken by the Danish branch of the Hands Off Venezuela campaign. The picket was arranged in cooperation with other solidarity and left wing organisations (see list in the bottom of the article).

Frederik Ohsten, HOV activist and editor of the Marxist journal Socialistisk Standpunkt, welcomed the participants:

“In the last period we have witnessed a revolutionary process in Latin America. This has meant progress for ordinary people. But in the last year, we have seen that the revolution is under threat. One of the main events marking a new offensive of Imperialism was the military coup in Honduras last summer,” he said.

He explained that the US has used the eathquake catastrophe in Haiti to occupy the country. While Cuba has sent 500 doctors, who are working around the clock, US Imperialism has sent 16,000 troops. This criminal occupation has already been condemned by most countries in Latin America.

The national organiser of HOV Denmark, Niklas Zenius Jespersen, then spoke:

“20 years ago, the bourgeois commentators declared the end of history, and that Capitalism was the only possible system. But the events in the last 10 years in Latin America have proven this to be false. The development in Venezuela has shown that another world is not only necessary, but also possible. A world where wars, hunger, poverty, dictatorship, unemployment and environmental disasters are banished to the graveyard of history.”

He also condemned the campaign in the mainstream media, who tries to slander the Venezuelan revolution and distort the conflict between the “democratic” Colombia and the “authoritarian” Venezuela. He said that this is a vicious lie from the private-owned media corporations.

“Colombia is a country where three million people are internally displaced, where the army and paramilitary death squads are killing thousands of trade unionists, journalists, human rights activists, peasant and student leaders and members of the political opposition. It is not a democracy when people are voting with a gun barrel to their head.”

He ended his speech by saying that the fight for Socialism is not just about completing the revolution in Venezuela, but it is a struggle about the future of the whole world:

“The world economic crisis has shown that Capitalism with a human face is impossible – also in the West and in Denmark. (...) In Denmark the banking gangsters are handed billions in rescue packages – in Venezuela they are put in prison for their crimes. The crisis shows that Capitalism has failed. The labour movement in Denmark must learn from Latin America. Only by putting Socialism on the agenda, is it possible to maintain and expand the welfare society. By uniting the labour movement and mobilising an offensive struggle against the bourgeoisie and for Socialism, we can end cuts, wars and create a better society for all.”

The revolutionary rap musician Tempo Bang gave a show, which was warmly applauded by the participants.

The leader of the Danish-Cuban Association, Helene Caprani, then gave a speech:

“This Saturday marks the anniversary of the defeat of another US-backed coup. A group of CIA-trained Cubans, who had left the country after the revolution, tried to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. They were defeated by a massive mobilisation on the part of the Cuban people. They were defeated in almost the same amount of time it took the Venezuelan people to defeat the coup against Chávez in Venezuela,” she said.

She condemned the US blockade against Cuba and noted that even the UN has characterized the criminal blockade as “genocide”. She underlined that the real reason for the imperialists’ hatred towards Cuba is, that this poor country, through a different type of system, has managed to build an excellent health care system and that the Cuban revolution is an inspiration for poor people all over the world.

At the picket, a message of solidarity from the Bolivian student front FERDE (Frente Estudiantil Revolucionario por el Derecho al Estudio) was read out. This message from Bolivia was warmly greeted and received a big applause.

At the end of the picket, the organisers thanked the participants and expressed their hopes that this picket will serve to help the future work in Denmark in solidarity with the revolution in Latin America. The rap artist Tempo Bang – one of the finest rappers in the art of free style in Denmark – gave a marvellous show to end the event.

HOV Denmark wants to thank our friends who helped to organise and fund this event, namely BUPL (Trade union for nursery workers), The Danish-Cuban Association, The Marxist journal Socialistisk Standpunkt, The No to War coalition, The Communist Party, The Communist Party in Denmark, The Danish Communist Party, The International Socialists, The Communist Platform, Marxist Students and the Salvador Allende Group.

INTERNET REVOLUTION

Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:38:18 +0100

Despite critics’ exaggerated outcries and accusations in the international media alleging Internet censorship, President Chavez announced a new government-sponsored program to promote Internet usage and cyber communication throughout Venezuela.

By Eva Golinger
Correo del Orinoco International

Venezuela has made headlines recently in international media for alleged threats to freedom of expression, this time directed at the Internet. But as in the past, many of these accusations against the Chavez administration that spread contagiously throughout mass media outlets and are tweeted and blogged in cyberspace at the speed of light, are just not true.

Press agencies and major world newspapers, such as the New York Times, El País and The Guardian, were quick to react to statements made by President Hugo Chavez two weeks ago regarding a website that had maliciously reported the murders of two prominent government figures. “Venezuela’s Chavez calls for internet controls”, headlined a Reuters release, which went on to claim that “Chavez is angry with Venezuelan political opinion and gossip website NoticieroDigital, which he said had falsely written that Diosdado Cabello, a senior minister and close aide, had been assassinated”.

By referring to Chavez’s reaction to the website’s dangerous and false reporting as a personal issue, i.e. “Chavez is angry”, Reuters downplayed and ridiculed very serious crimes: inciting violence and knowingly and maliciously reporting false information to further criminal acts. Additionally, contrary to Reuters’ brushing aside the content of the posts as something that President Chavez “said”, and therefore questioning the veracity of the charge, the Venezuelan website NoticieroDigital actually had posted false reports on Diosdado Cabello’s assassination by armed attackers, alongside another post claiming that pro-Chavez television host Mario Silva had been “gunned down” the following day. Both stories remained on the website for at least two days, and were only taken down after government supporters publicly denounced the website for the malicious posts.

THE INTERNET IS NOT A FREE-FOR-ALL
President Chavez did state that “the Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done”, a notion shared by governments and societies around the world. In the United States, controls on Internet content are frequent. Content such as pornography is strictly regulated, and criminal acts or incitement to commit such acts is outright prohibited, even on blogs, chats and informal, anonymous forums. In early 2009, Steven Joseph Cristopher, a 42 year-old resident of Wisconsin, was arrested by the US Secret Service for threatening to assassinate President Obama in a chat forum on a website about UFOs and aliens. Christopher was charged with violating a US law that prohibits threatening to kill a president or president-elect of the United States, carrying a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 USD fine.

In late December 2009, President Obama named Howard Schmidt, a former White House security advisor to George W. Bush, as Cybersecurity Chief, to oversee Washington’s Internet policies and regulations, as well as aid in the protection of US cyber assets. The US Congress has also debated a law that would give the US President emergency control over the Internet and permit a seizure of “private-sector networks” during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

That type of regulation goes well beyond what is presently being discussed in Venezuela. At most, the Venezuelan government – legislative and executive branches alike – are debating extending current penal codes to cyberspace. Rumors spread internationally, probably via twitter, which is used by more than 160,000 Venezuelan residents, that Venezuela’s National Assembly was debating a law to regulate Internet content. But members of the Venezuelan legislature were quick to deny those rumors and clarify that current laws should merely be applied to crimes committed over the Internet, as is common in most countries.

Germany has also been considering creating a government agency to specifically regulate and create policy regarding cyberspace, one of the most rapidly growing industries and business fields around the world.

FREE, UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO INTERNET
Dispelling critics and so-called international defenders of freedom of expression who claimed President Chavez was shutting down Venezuelans’ access to Internet, the Venezuelan head of state declared on television Sunday, “A false rumor is spreading, and it’s wrong, saying that we are going to limit Internet access, that we are going to control it. It’s false. We have a central strategy and it’s none other than transferring power to the people, and the first and most important power is knowledge”.

In that context, President Chavez inaugurated twenty-four new Infocenters last Sunday during his program, Alo Presidente, bringing the total to 668 nationwide. He also approved more than $10 million USD for the creation of 200 more of these community-based free cybercenters to be built during 2010. Infocenters are a project of the Ministry of Science and Technology, and are government-sponsored and funded computer centers built in communities throughout the nation that provide free Internet and technological access and services to all Venezuelans. Twenty-seven mobile Infocenters were also launched this week, which will travel across the nation to remote areas in the Amazon, Andean and rural regions, guaranteeing free Internet services and computer training to citizens with little or no access to technology.

At present, the Infocenters have the capacity to provide Internet and computer services to more than 2.5 million permanent users and up to 10 million visitors annually. The government’s goal is to transfer the operations and administration of the Infocenters to organized community groups, such as Community Councils, that can collectively determine the use and technological needs of their residents, neighborhoods and regions. “The transfer of the management and administration of the Infocenters and technological spaces built by the Revolution will permit organized communities to collectively make decisions regarding the use of these spaces. Our strategic objective is to advance the technological growth and communications access to aid in the creation of the Communal State”, explained President Chavez.

“Technology will be assumed as a form of communication of the People’s Power, to capacitate and articulate communities”, added Chavez. “The people should have the responsibility to maintain and operate the Infocenters and to conserve their equipment, as well as guarantee the functioning of each center” said the Venezuelan President, emphasizing that the Internet is a “tool of the Revolution” and should aid in the creation and expansion of Venezuela’s alternative press.

“Each community can create a network and we can communicate with one another to inform each other of developments”, exclaimed Chavez, also announcing the creation of his own blog. “I am starting my own battleground in the Internet with a blog. It’s going to be full of different information, and we will be ready for the bombardment of responses we will surely receive. Even from the enemy, they will attack me with fire and I will respond. Battle is battle, assault is assault”, he warned.

TECHNOLOGY FOR THE PEOPLE
President Chavez also announced that in Venezuela, only 273,537 Internet subscribers existed in the year 2000. But by the first trimester of 2009, more than 1,585,497 Internet subscribers were registered, an increase of 600%. “And the number of Internet users in 2000 was only 820,000 in Venezuela. Nine years later, that number has risen to 7,552,570 users, an increase of more than 900%”, indicated President Chavez.

In the year 2000, only 3.4% of the Venezuelan population had access to Internet, while statistics show that by the end of 2009, 30% of Venezuelans had Internet access, a huge increase in large part made possible by government programs. The Infocenter project not only provides computers and Internet access to communities nationwide, but also trains users in computer literacy. Brigades of computer and Internet educators, sponsored by the Science and Technology Ministry, have trained thousands of Venezuelans in the basics of computer usage, ranging from simply how to use a computer to advanced Internet searches and blogging.

MEDIA BATTLEGROUND – INTERNET AS A WEAPON
While the Venezuelan state has been empowering its own citizens to enter the world of cyberspace in a conscienciouss and responsible way, another government has been training and funding a select group of Venezuelans to destabilize their nation and promote regime change using the Internet as a weapon.

During the last few years, more than $7 million USD have been channeled from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to anti-Chavez youth and student groups in Venezuela to “strengthen new media tools that can improve access to information and allow open and productive debate on the Internet”. Since 2002, USAID has funded hundreds of opposition organizations and political parties in Venezuela with over $50 million USD in an ongoing effort to promote the overthrow of the Chavez administration.

TWITTER REVOLUTION
The millions invested in Internet “strengthening” for opposition youth groups have accounted for the proliferation of anti-Chavez websites, blogs and propaganda online, aiding in the mass media offensive against the Venezuelan government. New media tools such as Twitter and Facebook are also overridden with anti-Chavez users. And it’s no surprise. In October 2009, the US State Department sponsored the 2nd Annual Summit of the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM) in Mexico City, bringing together the founders and representatives of new media companies, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Myspace, Google, Meetup and others, along with a selection of handpicked student and youth leaders from around the world. Representatives from US government agencies, including the State Department, USAID, Freedom House, International Republican Institute (IRI), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), Cato Institute, Cuba Development Initiative, and others, were also present at the event, which included a welcome speech from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Forty-three young political activists funded by the State Department were brought to the AYM Summit from nations such as Sri Lanka, Colombia, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Lebannon, Turkey, Moldovia, Malaysia, Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela. The Venezuelan attendees were Yon Goicochea, current leader of the ultra-conservative Primero Justicia party, and winner of Cato Institute’s Milton Friedman Award for promoting neoliberal politics; Geraldine Alvarez, member of Goichochea’s foundation Futuro Presente, created with funding from US agencies; and Rafael Delgado, another former student leader associated with the opposition.

The goal of the State Department event was to capacitate selected youth with the knowledge, technology and funding to promote “Twitter Revolutions” in their countries, citing the examples of Iran, Moldovia and the anti-FARC and anti-Chavez marches promoted in Colombia via Facebook and Twitter.

BALANCING THE BATTLEGROUND
Nevertheless, pro-Chavez groups and activists in Venezuela are now flooding those same new media technologies used by Washington to promote the imperial agenda. Facebook and Twitter accounts have recently been opened by prominent figures connected to the Bolivarian Revolution, and new blogs, websites and email lists are growing fast, in an attempt to gain ground in the information battlefield in cyberspace.

While the Internet is still dominated by those forces working to destabilize and discredit the Chavez administration and the Bolivarian Revolution, chavistas are catching up fast. The hundreds of new Infocenters throughout the nation, guaranteeing free access to all Venezuelans, will enable millions to share their stories and voices – previously ignored and invisible – with the international community. A blog written by President Hugo Chavez himself will surely serve as major ammunition for the Bolivarian Revolution and counteract many of the lies and myths spread about him and his government around the world.

The Anti-Venezuela Election Campaign

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 15:11:32 +0100

Venezuela has an election for its national assembly in September, and the campaign has begun in earnest. I am referring to the international campaign. This is carried out largely through the international media, although some will spill over into the Venezuelan media. It involves many public officials, especially in the US. The goal will be to generate as much bad press as possible about Venezuela, to discredit the government, and to delegitimise the September elections – in case the opposition should choose to boycott, as they did in the last legislative elections, or refuse to recognise the results if they lose.

There's no need for conspiracy, since the principal actors all know what to do. Occasionally some will be off-message due to lack of co-ordination. A fascinating example of this occurred last week when Senator John McCain tried to get General Doug Fraser of the US Southern Command to back his accusations that Venezuela supports terrorist activities. Testifying before the Senate armed services committee on March 11, General Fraser contradicted McCain:

"We have continued to watch very closely … We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection."

Oops! Apparently Fraser didn't get the memo that the Obama team, not just McCain, is in full campaign mode against Venezuela. The next day, he issued a statement recanting his testimony:

"Assistant Secretary Valenzuela [the state department's top Latin America official] and I spoke this morning on the topic of linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc. There is zero daylight between our two positions and we are in complete agreement.

"There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc … we are in direct alignment with our partners at the state department and the intelligence community."

Well it's good to know that the United States still has civilian control over the military, at least in the western hemisphere. On the other hand, it would be even better if the truth counted for anything in these Congressional hearings or in Washington foreign policy circles generally. The general's awkward and seemingly forced reversal went unnoticed by the media.

The "documented and historical and ongoing evidence" mentioned by General Fraser refers to material alleged to come from laptops and hard drives allegedly found by the Colombian military in a cross-border raid into Ecuador in 2008. Never mind that this is the same military that has been found to have killed hundreds of innocent teenagers and dressed them up in guerrilla clothing. These laptops and hard drives will continue to be tapped for previously undisclosed "evidence", which will then be deployed in the campaign against the Venezuelan government. We will be asked to assume that the "captured documents" are authentic, and most of the media will do so.

US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's attacks on Venezuela during her trip to South America were one of the opening salvos of this campaign. Most of what will follow is predictable. There will be hate-filled editorials in the major newspapers, led by the neocon editorial board of the Washington Post (aka Fox on 15th Street). Chávez will be accused of repressing the media, even though most of the Venezuelan media – as measured by audience – is still controlled by the opposition. In fact, the media in Venezuela is still far more in opposition to the government than is our own media in the United States, or for that matter in most of the world. But the international press will be trying to convey the image that Venezuela is Burma or North Korea.

In Washington DC, if I try to broadcast on an FM radio frequency without a legal broadcast licence, I will be shut down. When this happens in Venezuela, it is reported as censorship. No one here will bother to look at the legalities or the details, least of all the pundits and editorial writers, or even many of the reporters.

The Venezuelan economy was in recession in 2009, but will likely begin to grow again this year. The business press will ignore the economic growth and hype the inflation, as they have done for the past six years, when the country's record economic growth cut the poverty rate by half and extreme poverty by 70% (which was also ignored). Resolutions will be introduced into the US Congress condemning Venezuela for whatever.

The US government will continue to pour millions of dollars into Venezuela through USAid, and will refuse to disclose the recipients. This is the non-covert part of their funding for the campaign inside Venezuela.

The only part of this story that is not predictable is what the ultimate result of the international campaign will be. In Venezuela's last legislative elections of 2005, the opposition boycotted the national elections, with at least tacit support from the Bush administration. In an attempt to delegitimise the government, they gave up winning probably at least 30% of the legislature.

At the time, most of the media – and also the Organisation of American States – rejected the idea that the election was illegitimate simply because the opposition boycotted. But that was under the Bush administration, which had lost some credibility on Venezuela due to its support for the 2002 coup, and for other reasons. It could be different under an Obama administration.

That is why it is so ominous to see this administration mounting an unprovoked, transparently obvious campaign to delegitimise the Venezuelan government prior to a national election. This looks like a signal to the opposition: "We will support you if you decide to return to an insurrectionary strategy," either before or after the election.

The US state department is playing an ugly and dangerous game.

Mark Weisbrot - The Guardian
18 March 2010

Venezuela’s Chavez Announces Expansion of Government Subsidised Food System

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 12:03:27 +0100

Caracas, March 19, 2010 (venezuelanalysis.com) – In a nationally televised address Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced a massive expansion of the government’s subsidised food system, Mercal, on Thursday. He also argued that it is necessary to establish a socialist system of distribution and consumption of products, to replace the capitalist market.

In order to strengthen the program, which currently benefits 10.7 million Venezuelans, a total of 1.4 billion bolivares will be invested through the food ministry. With the expansion the program will immediately reach 11.5 million beneficiaries, and up to 12 million in the near future the president told residents of San Francisco municipality, El Silencio, in Zulia state where he inaugurated the El Silencio Communal Mercalito.

Mercal will increase its total monthly quantity of food distributed from 100 thousand tonnes, to 110 thousand tonnes – a seven percent increase.

To achieve this goal Chavez said a further 1,221 Mercal establishments would be opened around the country, 94 of which were inaugurated on Thursday. The new Mercal establishments will include increased storage facilities as well as new stores and “Communal Mercals.”

"The cold storage capacity, that is, refrigerators, will go from 5,000 to 7,000 tons, while the dry storage capacity will increase from 66,700 to 70,400 tonnes," he said.

Chavez also insisted in community participation to ensure accountability and transparency. "We must create a different system to the market, a humane distribution and consumption system, because the market will always be capitalist," he explained.

He emphasised that the country is going through a transition stage, "The Mission Mercal is being transformed, we are creating a socialist system of distribution and consumption to satisfy the nutritional needs of the people," he said.

Chavez stressed that the capitalist market is “the cause of inflation and hunger ", and argued that this reality must be changed saying that the people should be the owners of the land and the produce.

"This is the solution, there is no piecemeal solution. If it’s not integral, it’s not a solution. We must have solutions to all parts of the production chain," he added.

According to figures of the United Nations Organization for Food and Agriculture more than 1 billion people around the world are hungry, and world hunger increased by more than fifty million people in 2009 as a result of the global capitalist crisis he pointed out.

"While hunger increases in the world, it is almost nonexistent in Venezuela," he said.

“This is called social justice. Here up to 15 years ago people died of hunger…that no longer happens here," he said.

PUBLISHED ON MAR 20TH 2010 AT 10.05AM
By Kiraz Janicke - venezuelaanalysis.com

The Accusation that Links Chávez with ETA and the FARC is Fraudulent

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 19:38:29 +0100

In an impressive and well coordinated smear campaign, the Spanish corporate media has launched a preemptive strike against President Hugo Chávez. The print media included Público, El País, ABC, El Mundo, La Razón, Cadena Ser, COPE, Libertad Digital as well as the TV Channels.

The media campaign then spread world-wide to the BBC, CNN, Fox News and of course the internet was flooded with this explosive story. As usual, the finger of guilt was pointed at Venezuela and President Chávez in particular.

The devil is in the details and the following text shows how the media as well as the Spanish Judge concerned, have worked up yet another attack on the Bolivarian revolution with virtually no real evidence to support such accusations.

The first question one must ask is that if the judge indicted 13 members of ETA and FARC in absentia and Venezuela was involved in a criminal conspiracy, why are there no members of the Venezuelan government named or indicted? Read the following text and you will discover why this is the case.

Acting like a well-oiled machine the media published information in unison cut from the same cloth which formed the basis of the indictment of the judge of the Spanish Supreme Court, Eloy Velasco. Without any credible proof, Velasco accuses the Venezuelan government of cooperating in alleged joint actions of the FARC and ETA. The “evidence” comes from the computer of FARC leader, Raúl Reyes, who was assassinated during the violent Colombian incursion into Ecuador almost two years ago.

The computer in the hands of the Colombian authorities survived a missile attack which killed several people in the encampment and, by chance, confirmed all the arguments of President Alvaro Uribe to enable him to increase his bellicose internal campaign. Strange as it may sound, the “magic bomb resistant” computer has never been shown in public.

In July 2006 IT experts from Ecuador’s Polytechnic University determined that the computer had been manipulatedwhen the Colombian military stole it from Ecuadorian territory. “When accessing the information in the computer between March 1 -3 2008, the legal procedures were not adhered to”. In addition, and according to a statement by the National IT Director of the Ecuadorean Attorney General’s Office, Santiago Acuario, “from a legal and technical standpoint the information contained in the computer of “Raúl Reyes” does not have any judicial weight since it was obtained in violation of legal norms applicable in Ecuador”.

The possibility that the computer in the hands of the Colombians did not belong to the assassinated guerrilla commander is great since not even Interpol could confirm to whom the computer belonged.

Following this line of “proof” the Supreme Court Judge tries to tie the Venezuelan government with the alleged collaboration between the two armed groups. The result has been that the media, en masse, have used the situation to point at Chávez as a protector of ETA and a supporter of the FARC.

Velasco speaks about cooperation between the parties’ names but is incapable of demonstrating it or proving it in the entire 26 page document. He only manages to point at the Basque, Arturo Cubillas Fontán, a presumed member of ETA, as having links with the Venezuelan government and with the FARC based on Raúl Reyes emails. In December 2008 the Colombian Scientific Police confirmed that there were no emails in the alleged computer of Reyes.

Cubillas Fontán has lived in Venezuela since 1989 when an agreement signed between then Venezuelan President Carlos Andrés Pérez and ex President of Spain, Felipe González asked Venezuela to take in various ETA members. The agreement also specified that none of the Spanish deportees to Venezuela could be extradited if the alleged crimes committed had exceeded the statute of limitations of either country.

According to the Venezuelan Foreign Minister all the Basques related with ETA who live in Venezuela on the basis of this agreement. In the case of Venezuelan justice such people are not handed over to Spain due to the bilateral agreement but in some cases ETA members are extradited to Spain if they are wanted by the Spanish authorities and the statute of limitations has not been exceeded.

A year after arriving in Venezuela as a guest under surveillance, Arturo Cubillas married the Venezuelan Goizeder Odriozola Lataillade. This was permitted since Cubillas did not have a criminal record in Venezuela and was not wanted by the Spanish Supreme Court. On this basis was he was able to obtain Venezuelan nationality before Chávez came to power in 1999. This general right was suspended by Venezuelan authorities in 2006 at the request of the Spanish government. At that time all the mass media pointed at Chávez as a protector of presumed terrorists. The Venezuelan President has expressed on several occasions his repudiation of ETA and has called it a terrorist organization.

Cubillas Fontán, as a Venezuelan with no criminal record or arrest warrants outstanding against him worked in the Venezuelan government in the Ministry of Land and Agriculture, according to Judge Velasco.

This argument could indeed implicate several private companies in Venezuela where tens of Basques related to ETA now work. These people are resident in Venezuela due to Spain’s request at the end of the 1980’s and it is in this way that the judge has tried to establish a relationship between the Venezuelan government, ETA and the FARC.

The fact that Cubillas Fontán worked in Venezuela’s public administration 16 years after having arrived in the country and 15 years after marrying a Venezuelan citizen, having no criminal record and no arrest warrant issued against him by the Spanish Supreme Court is just a result of the agreement signed between Venezuela and Spain in 1989.

The judge has not been able to demonstrate any proof except for a manipulated and possibly false computer which in no way shows that the Venezuelan government was implicated in alleged FARC-ETA operations.

The fact that Arturo Cubillas works for a Venezuelan Ministry just means that the Venezuelan government is respecting the agreement signed with Spain in 1989 by Carlos Andrés Pérez and Felipe González. At the same time this is living proof that nationalized Venezuelan also have their rights guaranteed according to the 1999 Bolivarian Constitution.

Gonzalo Sánchez - Tercera Información
Madrid, 2 Mar 2010

Axis of Logic Comment: The above article was translated and expanded for Axis of Logic from Aporrea, a Spanish language newspaper by Arturo Rosales, an Axis columnist. The news broke in English in a somewhat obscure periodical on March 1st, followed by a corporate media barrage around the world on March 2nd. We investigated the corporate media this morning and found the news in various forms with various titles in 16 different major US and European websites, powered by the engines of Associated Press and Reuters news agencies. The Aporrea writer provides a fine analysis and debunking of these spurious claims by the Spanish judge. We only wish to add something about the motivation behind this new onslaught against Venezuela and President Chávez himself. For several years, the United States, Spain and other European countries have been pushing to implicate President Chávez with terrorism and to charge Venezuela with "state-sponsored terrorism". One thing can be said about them - they lay foundations for their plans, years in advance. In this case, they are attempting to create cause for future sanctions against Venezuela and possible military action in the future. These charges also come at a time when the U.S. is ramping up its aggressive campaign to discredit the Chávez administration as we approach the national elections in September.

Source: Axis of Logic

Canada accuses Venezuela of stifling democracy while Parliament remains prorogued

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:07:36 +0100

The Canadian minister responsible for the Americas recently made a short stop in Venezuela. While there, Peter Kent took the opportunity to express the Canadian government’s concerns over the “shrinking democratic space” in Venezuela.

The Venezuelan government recently sanctioned three TV stations including RCTV, the network that played a key role in organizing the coup that briefly overthrew the Venezuelan government in 2002. The three TV stations refused to comply with Venezuela’s broadcasting laws and had their licenses temporarily suspended. The broadcasting laws in Venezuela are similar in scope to CRTC regulations in Canada; they establish standards for child and adult programming, prohibit racist, sexist or inflammatory content and incitement to violence, place limits on commercial advertising, and require stations to broadcast important government announcements. As recently as three weeks ago, RCTV had aired an interview with Noel Álavarez, the president of the bosses’ union FEDECAMARAS where Álvarez had called for another “military solution” to the political situation in Venezuela. Surely, the CRTC would have suspended any TV or radio station that sanctioned a “military solution” to the Stephen Harper government!

While passing through Venezuela Kent said, “Canada is concerned over the Venezuelan government's recent suspension of broadcasting of [three] television stations and the death of two students in protests related to this action. These events are further evidence of a shrinking democratic space in Venezuela.”

Kent’s concerns could be laughable if it were not for the real threat that countries like the US and Canada pose to Venezuela. Many will remember that it was the same Peter Kent that was the most vocal supporter of the military coup d’etat that overthrew democratically-elected Mel Zelaya in Honduras this past June. The dictatorship that was installed in Honduras has killed scores of people. However, the Canadian government did not even cut off military aid to the Honduran dictatorship!

Kent made further accusations, claiming that President Hugo Chávez “has a history of concentrating power in the executive.” Kent’s hypocrisy knows no bounds! At the same time as he made this claim, Kent’s Conservative government has prorogued Parliament for the third time in as many years. Last year, the Conservatives suspended Parliament to prevent a Liberal-NDP coalition from coming to power. This year, the Tory government needed to suspend Parliament to prevent further details from coming out on how the Canadian mission in Afghanistan was responsible in the torture of innocent people there. In the past couple of weeks, tens of thousands of ordinary Canadians have come out to protest the shrinking democratic space in Canada.

In terms of the media, where has the Tories’ indignation been in the selective barring of certain channels in Canada? The Canadian government has played a proactive role in preventing Al-Jazeera from gaining a license to broadcast in Canada. The current government is known for rarely giving open press conferences and for pre-selecting what questions can be asked by reporters.

Kent’s foray into Venezuela is yet another attempt by Canadian governments (both Liberal and Conservative) to undermine the Venezuelan Revolution and to demonize it internationally. The Canadian embassy in Caracas has been caught twice in recent years funnelling money to the Venezuelan opposition. Large Canadian corporations (such as Barrick Gold) have made it very clear that they are not pleased with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and are worried about the safety of their economic interests. As we detailed earlier, Canada played a very important role in the overthrow of President Zelaya in Honduras over the summer.

The revolutionary movements in Latin America, especially that in Venezuela, pose a serious threat to the interests of imperialism in the hemisphere. They also pose a threat to the interests of capitalists at home, too. The successes that are being won by ordinary workers and poor people in countries like Venezuela or Bolivia can serve as a real inspiration for Canadian and US workers. We know that the successful occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors factory in Chicago was a direct result of successful workers’ occupations in Venezuela. For the bosses and their representatives in government, it is more important than ever to discredit and destroy the popular governments in Latin America.

It needs to be the duty of the workers’ movement in Canada to speak out against the lies of the Tory government and to point out the hypocrisy of people like Peter Kent. The struggles of the workers and poor in Latin America coincides with our own struggles in the North. The workers’ movement at home needs to join in the defence of the revolutionary struggles in Latin America, to ensure our own victories.

Camilo Cahis - Hands Off Venezuela
Toronto, 8 February 2010

Marxists Must Stand Firm Against Ahmadinejad (Maziar Razi)

Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:01:01 +0100

Open letter to the workers of Venezuela on Hugo Chávez’s support for Ahmadinejad

Honourable workers of Venezuela,

The Revolutionary Marxists of Iran are aware of your achievements as part of the Bolivarian Movement and have always supported this movement against the widespread lies and the open and covert interference of imperialism. In order to defend your invaluable movement and to confront the attacks and interference of US imperialism in Venezuela, labour and student activists in Iran have set up the ‘Hands Off Venezuela’ campaign in Iran and during the past few years have stood together with you in confronting the imperialist attacks. It is obvious that your achievements were gained under the leadership of Hugo Chávez and, for this reason, you reserve deep respect for him.

In terms of his foreign policy, however, Chávez has made a mistake. With his support for Ahmadinejad he has ignored the solidarity of the workers and students of Iran with your revolution, and in a word, made it look worthless. Most are aware that two weeks ago Ahmadinejad, with the direct support of Khamenei, committed the biggest fraud in the history of presidential elections in Iran and then, with great ferocity, spilt the blood of those protesting against this fraud. You just have to take notice of the international media reports to be aware of the depths of this tragedy. All over the world millions of workers and students, and also those of Marxist and revolutionary tendencies (which mostly are the supporters of the Bolivarian revolution), protested against these attacks.

In of spite this, Chávez was one of the first people to support Ahmadinejad. In his weekly TV speech he said: “Ahmadinejad’s triumph is a total victory. They’re trying to stain Ahmadinejad’s victory, and by doing so they aim to weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they won’t be able to do it.” And that “We ask the world for respect.” These rash and baseless remarks from your President are a great and direct insult to the millions of youth who in recent days rose up against tyranny. Some of them even lost their lives. Many of these youths came out on the streets spontaneously and without becoming infected with the regime’s internal disputes, or becoming aligned with the policy that US imperialism is following for taking over the movement. In addition, the remarks of your President are an insult to millions of workers in Iran. Workers whose leaders are today being tortured in the prisons of the Ahmadinejad government and some of them are even believed to be being punished with flogging. Workers who were brutally repressed by the mercenaries of the Ahmadinejad government for commemorating May Day in Tehran this year are still in prison.

So far Chávez has travelled to Iran seven times and each time he has hugged one of the most hated people in this country and called him his “brother”. He does not realise that the economic, social and political situations of Venezuela and Iran are going in opposite directions. Although both countries have seen a similarly significant boost to their oil (and gas) revenues the contrast between the ways in which this extra money has been used by the two governments could not be more marked. In Venezuela this income is used for building hospitals, schools, universities and other infrastructure of the country, but in Iran it is used for lining the pockets of just a few parasitic capitalists.

On the one hand, in Venezuela, we have seen the nationalisation of an increasing number of companies and factories, the free provision of healthcare, education, civil liberties and so on. By contrast in Iran privatisation is on the government’s agenda, even at the cost of trampling on Article 44 of the Constitution of the country and using the excuse of inefficiency and low productivity of state companies and factories. All these advances of the workers and the poor in Venezuela have given them greater control over the way they work and the way they live. Most importantly, the expropriation of factories and the encouragement of workers’ control and participation have transformed the character of the workers’ movement in Venezuela, advancing it by many stages. The Bolivarian movement and the policies of the government have brought about a huge shift in the balance of class forces in Venezuela in favour of the working class. Not only has the government encouraged the Venezuelan workers to build the Unión Nacional de los Trabajadores as an alternative to the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela (CTV), but the workers have become involved in running and managing factories and other enterprises. The whole world knows that your government has even drawn up a list of 1,149 closed-down factories and given their owners an ultimatum: re-open them under workers’ control or the government will expropriate them.

In Iran, on the other hand, on top of the lack of many basic democratic rights, the workers are also without any independent trade union rights. Today the workers of Iran do not even have a confederation like the Confederación de Trabajadores de Venezuela. All they have are the Labour House, the Islamic Labour Councils and other anti-working class bodies tied to the state.

But this has not always been so: the overthrow of the Shah brought about many freedoms for workers including, in some cases, control over production and even distribution. Then, however, through repression the Islamic hierarchy managed to take back all the workers’ gains. The leaders that your President hugs killed thousands of workers, destroyed the workers’ movement and pushed it back by several decades. In Iranian society even the ‘yellow’ pro-boss unions - that the Shah had tolerated - became and remain illegal. Even a CTV-style trade union confederation is illegal in Iran.

In Iran the official (and underestimated) unemployment rate stands at 10.85 per cent, with unemployment among the youth (15-24 year-olds) standing at 22.35 per cent. Even when workers are employed they are often not paid - in many cases for more than a year. Even those who get their wages face an impossible task in paying for the basic necessities of life, because their wage is not enough for living costs. For example, with the rent for a two-bedroom flat at $422 a month, a civil servant on $120 wages, or a teacher on $180, or even a doctor on $600 a month struggle to survive. It is no wonder that some 90 per cent of the population live below the poverty line.

The capitalist government of Iran has no fundamental disagreements or contradictions with US imperialism. It is in a ‘cold war’ with America and when it receives enough concessions, it will quickly enter into political dealings with the US and will turn its back on you. Indeed, the Iran regime has already helped the Americans in their military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq - and installing the puppet regimes of Karzai and Maliki through significant trade, security and other deals. The capitalist government of Iran, despite the current apparent differences, is busy in close negotiations with the Obama government on resolving the problems of Afghanistan. This government, despite the “anti-imperialist” rhetoric, is heading towards re-establishing old links with the US. Ahmadinejad’s selection demonstrates the final turn of the regime towards resolving its problems with imperialism. Despite all the “enmity” and “anti-imperialist” gestures the regime is ready to resolve all its differences with America. The government of Iran wants to turn Iran into a society like Colombia (in Colombia thousands of trade unionists have been killed so that multinational companies can exploit workers and plunder the country’s natural resources without any obstacles). It is not without reason that the Iranian government has been implementing the bankrupt neo-liberal prescriptions of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund and counting the minutes until it joins the World Trade Organisation.

The close and regular links of your leader, Chávez, with the leaders of this regime will eventually make the Iranian masses turn their back on the great lessons of the revolutionary process in Venezuela. Winning the hearts and minds of the masses in Iran and similar countries is the best long-term solution to breaking Washington’s stranglehold on Latin America. Your leader’s closeness with the capitalist government of Iran, a government that has the blood of thousands of workers and youth on its hands, shows that his anti-imperialist foreign policy has a major flaw. Being close to reactionary regimes will never be able to bring the anti-imperialist foreign policy to a successful conclusion. Only the unity of the real representatives of the workers and toilers can confront imperialism.

Stand together with the Iranian workers and condemn the foreign policy of your leaders. Support for Ahmadinejad means support for the repression of Iranian workers and youth. Challenge the flawed positions of Chávez and reject them. Support for the government of Ahmadinejad, especially after the recent events, is at worst an open betrayal of the toilers of Iran and at best a political blunder in foreign policy.

Mariar Razi - Iranian Revolutionary Marxists' Tendency
4 February 2010

US Intelligence Report Classifies Venezuela as “Anti-US Leader” (Eva Golinger)

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:07:08 +0100

Eva Golinger breaks down the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community to show how President Obama's administration now formally views Venezuela as a threat in the same class as Al Qa’ida.

As is custom at the beginning of each year, the different US agencies publish their famous annual reports on topics ranging from human rights, trafficking in persons, terrorism, threats, drug-trafficking, and other issues that indicate who will be this year’s target of US agression. Yesterday, it was the intelligence community’s turn. Admiral Dennis Blair, National Director of Intelligence, presented the Annual Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The report details the principle threats to the interests and security of the US worldwide. This year, in addition to mentioning the usual suspects – Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, Al Qa’ida and Iraq – the report dedicates significant space to Venezuela.

In the section referring to threats in Latin America, which carries the title “Latin America Stable, but Challenged by Crime and Populism”, a large portion is dedicated to Venezuela. “In…countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua, elected populist leaders are moving toward a more authoritarian and statist political and economic model, and they have banded together to oppose US influence and policies in the region. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has established himself as one of the US’s foremost international detractors, denouncing liberal democracy and market capitalism and opposing US policies and interests in the region.”

Classifying President Chavez as “one of the US’s foremost international detractors” already gives indication that the US intelligence community considers the Venezuelan president as an enemy. But following that paragraph, further down, a section titled “Venezuela: Leading Anti-US Regional Force”, further confirms the official US vision of Venezuela as a major adversary. “President Chavez continues to impose an authoritarian populist political model in Venezuela that undermines democratic institutions. Since winning a constitutional referendum in early 2009 that removed term limits and will permit his reelection, Chavez has taken further steps to consolidate his political power and weaken the opposition in the run up to the 2010 legislative elections.”

The mention of the congressional elections in Venezuela this year evidences how deeply involved US intelligence agencies are in internal Venezuelan affairs. The US is not always interested in legislative elections in a foreign nation. Such a focus only occurs when the US has some kind of investment in the outcome of the electoral process, as in this case. There is no question that the flow of US dollars will increase this year to fund campaigns of opposition candidates and aid in the execution of strategies to undermine the Chavez government.

In the following paragraph, the intelligence assessment utilizes every claim made by opposition groups and media in Venezuela against Chavez, “The National Assembly passed a law that shifted control of state infrastructure, goods, and services to Caracas in order to deprive opposition states and municipalities of funds. Chavez has curtailed free expression and opposition activities by shutting down independent news outlets, harassing and detaining protestors, and threatening opposition leaders with criminal charges for corruption. Chavez’s popularity has dropped significantly in recent polls as a result of his repressive measures, continued high crime, rising inflation, water and power shortages, and a major currency devaluation, raising questions about his longer term political future.”

Not only is the US intelligence community demonstrating poor intelligence collecting and analyses here, but also evidencing its clear dependency on opposition sources inside and outside Venezuela. No news outlets have been shut down in Venezuela. Some have been fined and sanctioned for not following legal regulations, but that happens frequently in the US as well. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposes sanctions on hundreds of media outlets in the US each year. No one classifies those actions as violating freedom of expression, but rather merely enforcing the law.

Furthermore, not only has the Chavez administration not detained protestors that regularly violate all kinds of laws by blocking highways and vital roads throughout the nation, marching without permission from local authorities, calling publicly for the overthrow of the government, throwing molotov cocktails and other deadly objects at state security forces, but President Chavez himself has actually ordered police to refrain from carrying deadly weapons when dealing with public protests and to respect demonstrators’ human rights. In the US, protestors are regularly detained and violently repressed by police forces – almost at every demonstration – and constantly denied permission to march or protest near any government building.

Also, Chavez’s popularity has not “dropped significantly”. It remains well above 60%, as it has been during the past several years.

But the report goes on to accuse Chavez of forming an “anti-US alliance” in Latin America. “On foreign policy, Chavez’s regional influence may have peaked, but he is likely to continue to support likeminded political allies and movements in neighboring countries and seek to undermine moderate, pro-US governments. He has formed an alliance of radical leaders in Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, an until recently, Honduras.” (Note: Honduras was part of the Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas “ALBA”, until the recent Washington-backed coup d’etat. This statement in the intelligence report evidences the US’s clear satisfaction with Honduras’ withdrawal from the alliance).

In the following phrase, the US intelligence report also relates Chavez and ALBA nations to drug-trafficking and terrorism, “He and his allies are likely to oppose nearly every US policy initiative in the region, including the expansion of free trade, counter drug and counterterrorism cooperation, military training and security initiatives, and even US assistance programs.”

“Chavez’s relationship with Colombia’s President Uribe is particularly troubled. His outspoken opposition to Colombia’s Defense Cooperation Agreement with the US has led to an increase in border tensions. Chavez has called the agreement a declaration of war against Venezuela. He has restricted Colombian imports, warned of a potential military conflict and continued his covert support to the terrorist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).”

In the above statement, the US again accuses the Chavez government of supporting the FARC, yet has never presented any solid evidence to back this claim, which has been repeatedly denied by the Venezuelan government. Cynically, the US is also accusing Chavez of somehow “increasing tensions” with Colombia because he opposes the establishment of seven US military bases in Colombia right across the Venezuelan border. A May 2009 US Air Force official document detailed how one of the Colombian military bases in Palanquero would be used by US armed forces to “combat the constant threat of anti-US governments in the region” and would improve the US’s capacity to execute “Expedentiary Warfare”.

Clearly, as the report classifies Venezuela as the “anti-US leader” in the region, that would indicate, as outlined in the US Air Force document, that the increased US military presence in Colombia is precisely to threaten and/or attack Venezuela.

Finally, the US intelligence report discusses the perceived threat surrounding Chavez’s relationship with Iran, Russia and China. “Chavez will continue to cultivate closer political, economic and security ties with Iran, Russia and China. He has developed a close personal relationship with Iranian President Ahmadinejad and they have signed numerous agreements…Most of the agreements Moscow has signed with Chavez relate to arms sales and investments in the Venezuelan energy sector…On paper, Venezuela’s acquisitions are impressive, but their armed forces lack the training and logistics capacity to use these to their full capability. Yet, the scale of the purchases has caused concern in neighboring countries, particularly Colombia, and risks fueling a regional arms race.”

The report ends by mentioning Venezuela in the section on “Significant State and Non-State Intelligence Threats”, claiming that “North Korea and Venezuela posess more limited intelligence capabilities focused primarily on regional threats and supporting the ruling regime…Venezuela’s services are working to counter US influence in Latin America by supporting leftist governments and insurgent groups.” The other countries mentioned in this section are China, Russia and Cuba, along with non-state actors Al Qa’ida and Hizballah.

Apparently, now the US formally views Venezuela as a threat in the same class as Al Qa’ida.

What this intelligence report really means is that operations against the Chavez government will substantially increase this year. The report will be used to justify a larger budget allocation to intelligence missions against Venezuela. But even more dangerously, the focus in the report on Hugo Chavez, the man, evidences that he has become the principal target of US agression. Placing such an emphasis on one individual as the cause of major threats to US interests raises the possibilities of an assassination attempt or other tactic to rid Empire of an individual perceived as an “anti-US leader”.

Eva Golinger
3 February 2010

No fare deal for London or Venezuela (Alex Holland)

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:56:17 +0100

Not many Londoners can be happy as they grope through the frozen murkiness of the commute to their first days back at work after the winter break. Adding to their misery is London's mayor, Boris Johnson, who has made their journey much more expensive with huge fare rises.

Critics of Johnson's transport policies have highlighted how these massive increases - 20 percent for single bus fares alone - would not have been so high if Johnson hadn't trashed other sources of funding for London's transport.

Scrapping policies such as the extension of the congestion charge into West London or the £25 charge for gas guzzling cars have rightly been identified as stopping millions of pounds coming into the Transport for London (TfL) budget.

The impact of Johnson's cancellation of London’s Venezuelan oil deal has not received as much attention, however. Though not as lucrative as the estimated £70 million congestion charge extension, the Venezuelan oil deal would have meant an extra £18 million for cash strapped TfL. Perhaps even more importantly, it was a genuinely great deal for Venezuelans.

The deal was brokered by former London mayor Ken Livingstone and Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez as an exchange of London's urban expertise – city-planning, transport and environmental protection – in return for cut-price fuel for London's buses. This oil subsidy meant that Londoners on income support could travel half price, and was warmly welcomed by a wide range of poverty activists.

Both during his election campaign and after becoming mayor, Johnson said he wanted to cancel the deal because it was "morally bankrupt" for a rich city like London to take oil money from a “very poor country" like Venezuela. He cancelled the Venezuelan deal but kept cut-price travel for those on income support, landing TFL with the bill, which ran into millions of pounds in unfunded costs.

Johnson tried to imply Venezuela was not getting a good return from the deal. This was completely untrue. Venezuela is a country that has suffered from decades of lopsided development fuelled by the country’s main export, oil. Its capital Caracas is a combination of skyscrapers and ramshackle housing, with chaotic and often gridlocked traffic.

The almost total lack of urban planning is painfully evident and makes a huge difference to all Caracas residents. Despite having a superb underground system, this and the city’s public buses are severely limited, placing a heavy emphasis on the car.

Venezuela does not lack oil or oil money. It is the fifth largest producer in the world. What it does lack is reliable and good value access to exactly the type of skills and experience that the London-Venezuela deal offered.

Johnson might have had an excuse for his comments if the Venezuelan government wasn't spending money on its own country’s poor. But the opposite is true, with unprecedented amounts of oil money being used to establish successful health, education and employment programmes that have made real progress in reducing inequality.

Livingstone got it right when he said that this made Johnson's termination of the deal a "piece of mindless vandalism". Now that Johnson has bumped up fares by this extreme level, while throwing away an estimated £18 million for London and simultaneously harming the people of Venezuela, it seems even more mindless.

If Johnson's handling of London's transport budget is a taste of what people can expect from a Conservative government, then the prospect of that party taking charge nationally is far more chilling and murky than any overpriced January commute.

Alex Holland is an Associate Editor of The Samosa and a Labour council candidate for Brixton Hill, Lambeth. He was an Associate Editor of Venezuelanalysis.com from 2005-2006 during which time he lived and worked in Caracas.

Venezuela: Interview with Comrade Katy Jaimes, delegate to the Extraordinary Congress of the PSUV

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:09:04 +0100

At the First Extraordinary Congress of the PSUV, which began in November last year and finishes this April, one can clearly sense a growing anger of the delegates and members against the reformists and bureaucrats in the party, as well as a thirst for the ideas of marxism. We publish here an interview with comrade Katy Jaimes, delegate to the Congress for the Chacao municipality of Miranda State, who lays heavy stress upon the need to organise a left in the party.

IMT: Comrade, tell us a little about the political mood that prevails in the Extraordinary Congress of the PSUV, compared to the Founding Congress.

Katy Jaimes: Well, unlike the previous Congress, this Congress has a higher level of political maturity and revolutionary consciousness on the part of delegates. The level of criticism on the part of the majority of delegates against the reformist and bureaucratic sections of the party are much higher than during the previous congress, also the interest of the delegates in the ideas of Marxism is much greater than what was observed during the previous congress.

Delegates from different states are networking and establishing political links in order to work together to defend revolutionary ideas within the congress, and also to fight against bureaucracy and reformism. There is a lot of work ahead to achieve the objective, in fact, I can tell you that at the Founding Congress of the Party, the debates on the issues on the agenda took place in workshops, where delegates from around the country could participate. But, some bureaucratic sectors of the party leadership have seen that the militancy and criticism on the part of the delegates is much greater than the last Congress, so now the committee responsible for developing methodology for discussion at the congress decided to hold political discussions by state, meaning that workshops are not open to all delegates of the country like last time, but delegates from each of the 23 states are part of a panel discussion by each state. Obviously, this method limits the possibility for various currents and groups of left wing delegates in the party to coordinate with each other at a national level, although we were told that maybe in the coming months discussions will be conducted by regions of the country, which would enable delegates from different states to be in the same workshop for discussion.

I can tell you comrade that the level of political turmoil is much greater, not only among the delegates, but among the members in general. The political conditions are given in the Congress for many victories for the left and for it to be greatly strengthened and consolidated within the PSUV, but that requires a great effort from all comrades who in the Extraordinary Ideological Congress advocate left-wing revolutionary ideas.

IMT: Comrade, please tell us a little more of the methodology of debate within the congress.

Katy Jaimes: Well, discussions are underway by state as I told you earlier, and these debates are conducted on weekends, i.e. Saturdays and Sundays, of each week. At first the conference was supposed to have lasted from 21 November to December, but during those first weeks of debate Commander President Chavez decided to extend the conference until April 19. This is positive for the delegates who defend left-wing ideas within the party because it gives us more time to learn, articulate, build relationships and work together to build a truly revolutionary party that can be used as a tool to bring the Bolivarian revolution to victory.

Going back to the methodology of discussion, I commented that the conference meets over the weekend, after these meetings, it is for delegates to meet during the days Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday with the leaders of each platoon, which is a fundamental basic structure of the party and in turn those responsible for platoons must bring points and issues discussed at the conference to each patrol, so that each platoon develops political discussions on the issues discussed in the congress. The conclusions of these discussion are then put together by all the platoons in each locality and municipality and these conclusions and contributions are then defended by their respective delegates from the town or city in Congress.

IMT: What issues have been discussed so far in Congress and what are the key issues to be discussed soon?

Katy Jaimes: The meetings of the Extraordinary Congress have discussed mainly subjects of the political, economic and social development, such as the bank fraud scandal which occurred last month in the country, by some private banks, the issue of the energy saving plan, the water-saving plan, the creation of the National Police and the call of President Chavez to form the V International among others. But we have also begun discussing the basic documents of the Party, which in fact are the reason this Congress was called. During the penultimate session of Congress in the month of December, a Declaration of Principles and Programme for the party was presented to the delegates, and the possibility was also raised of putting these two proposals to a vote the next day in a plenary meeting with all the delegates to decide whether to approve such proposals as the draft declaration of principles and program for the party. But that proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by the vast majority of delegates, which is a strong signal of the political ferment that exists within the extraordinary congress of the party.

IMT: What are your perspectives for Congress in the coming months?

Katy Jaimes: Look, the Ideological Extraordinary Congress of the PSUV is an historical milestone in our country, is a great opportunity for the left wing to take the reigns of the revolution. As I said earlier, I believe that the historical conditions are given for the construction of socialism and for the revolution to be finally consolidated, but it is essential that the revolutionaries in the party organize and work together. In the questions you asked me I said that I have seen a greater revolutionary ferment within the congress, what happens is that still a lot needs to be done in terms of the organization of the left within the Congress of the PSUV. To a large extent, future developments within the congress depend on whether the left is organized properly. If the left is not organized to struggle for truly revolutionary and socialist statutes, a declaration of principles and a programme, then Congress will developed without a strong battle of ideas and without many surprises. In that case the party's bureaucratic sectors stand to gain and most likely will manage to get basic documents of the party passed which will be mostly reformist ideas. But if the delegates from the rank and file, who really defend people's interests and truly revolutionary ideas are organised around the defense of a declaration of revolutionary socialist principles and a programme, then we can achieve many victories at the Congress and within the party. I can tell you that if things develop in this way, the conference will mark an important milestone in our ten years of Bolivarian Revolution and possibly will leave a positive mark on the course of our revolution. But in order to achieve that we need to struggle, to fight and work hard. Like I said before, the conditions are ripe.

International Marxist Tendency
22 January 2010

Venezuela's Chavez forgives Haiti's debt

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:57:48 +0100

President Hugo Chavez on Monday said that Petrocaribe, Venezuela's cut-rate regional energy alliance, will forgive quake-stricken Haiti's debt, AFP reported. Haiti's debt with Venezuela is USD 295 million, about one-third of its global foreign debt of USD 1 billion, according to International Monetary Fund figures.

"Haiti has no debt with Venezuela -- on the contrary, it is Venezuela that has a historic debt with Haiti," Chavez said as he made the announcement. Chavez was referring to the support that Haiti -- which obtained its independence from France in 1804 -- gave Venezuelan independence leader Simon Bolivar in 1815 and 1816 in his quest to free his country from Spanish colonial rule. Chavez made the announcement at the closing ceremony of a meeting of foreign ministers from leftist countries with the ALBA trade alliance, a Cuba and Venezuela-supported regional common market founded in 2004.

Petrocaribe provides preferential oil pricing for its Caribbean members, with Venezuela picking up 40% of the cost if oil is selling over USD 50 a barrel. When oil prices are above USD 50, member states will have up to 25 years to pay the bulk of the debt at a one percent interest rate, with two years grace. Haiti, struggling to recover from the January 12 devastating 7.0 earthquake, received in the past days 225,000 barrels of Petrocaribe oil sent through the neighboring Dominican Republic.

Both Haiti and the Dominican Republic are Petrocaribe members. Other Petrocaribe members include Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bahamas, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, St Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago, as well as founding member Venezuela.

Separately, ALBA foreign ministers approved an aid package for Haiti that includes sanitary, energy, financial and educational assistance. The ministers also expressed their concern over the "excessive foreign military presence" in the Caribbean nation, with no clear parameters over its "authority, purpose, role and length of stay." Their presence "threatens to further complicate conditions on the ground and... international cooperation" for Haitian reconstruction, the ministers said. They called on United Nations to take a central role in coordinating emergency efforts, and emphasized that the Haitians must take the lead in their country's reconstruction.

FOCUS News Agency
Caracas, 26 January 2010

Venezuela: Expropriations of banks, PSUV congress and revival of the workers' movement (Patrick ...

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:37:32 +0100

Recently we saw many important events happening in Venezuela, like the devaluation of the bolívar or the nationalisations in the banking sector, which needs to be analysed carefully. The movement of occupied factories made important steps forward last year, but still faces sabotage by counter-revolutionary managers and workers are still struggling for nationalisation under workers' control. In order to defend the conquests already made, the revolution must put the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy on the agenda. Only this can destroy capitalism and provide the necessary prerequisites for a socialist planned economy.

The Venezuelan revolution remains key to the understanding of developments in Latin America and indeed throughout the world. President Chávez recently visited Copenhagen, Denmark, where he was the only one – apart from Evo Morales – to point out that capitalism is the main root-cause behind the global climate crisis. In the words of Chávez; “If the climate had been a bank, they would already saved it.” The speeches of Chávez and Morales on the need to destroy capitalism and to build socialism on a world scale found an enthusiastic echo among thousands of workers and youth in Europe and also throughout Latin America where the speeches were broadcast on the continent-wide TeleSur.

From the very beginning of the Venezuelan revolution, the Marxists of the IMT have defended the revolution and highlighted its significance for revolutionaries throughout the world. This occurred, while many so-called leftists denied that a revolution was taking place and categorically wrote off the possibility of a turn towards a socialist path. Eleven years after the beginning of the revolution we can understand the extreme miscalculation of these people. Even though the revolution has not taken the decisive step towards socialism, it is clear that the idea of socialism has gained the ear of the masses who are fighting to achieve exactly this aim.

While defending the revolution against the attacks of imperialism and the national oligarchy, at the same time we defended the idea, that the revolution has not been carried to its conclusion and that this cannot take place while the bourgeois state of the 4th Republic is still in place and while the commanding heights of the economy are still in the hands of the oligarchy. As we shall see, this remains the main contradiction of the Venezuelan revolution to this day.

Venezuela's economy in recession

In his new year's speech of December 30, president Chávez had to admit that 2009 was a difficult year for his government. The world crisis of capitalism had a big impact on the Venezuelan economy which ended 2009 with a contraction by 2.9% in the GDP, compared to a 4.8% growth in 2008. The years 2003 to 2008 had seen a big upswing with one of the highest growth rates in Latin America. All figures point to a sharp downfall in production: manufacturing (which represents 16% of the GDP) fell by 7.2% in 2009[i] and production of cars fell by 17.39%[ii].

According to statistics from the Banco Nacional de Venezuela, the country's exports have fallen by an average of 5.1% per year over the last four years. Exports of non-traditional Venezuelan goods fell by an abrupt 60%. The same source indicated that overall oil export revenues dropped 35.3%, from US$ 89.1 billion in 2008 to US$ 57.61 billion in 2009[iii].

This obviously created major problems for the government. Chávez has stayed firm on the line of no cuts in social spending or in the welfare reforms and projects financed by oil revenues. But with the fall of the price oil per barrel on the world market, the state budget has come under threat. To maintain public spending, Chávez had to take new measures. On January 8 he announced a devaluation of the Venezuelan currency, on two levels; the “normal” exchange will be 2.60 bolívares to the dollar and the “oil” exchange will be 4.60. This measure is aimed at giving the state much wider room for social spending, as the dollars obtained through oil sales can now be exchanged at 4.6 Bs.F compared to only 2 or 3 in the past.

The problem is that this measure will not help in the long run. On the contrary it will boost inflation, which has tormented Venezuelans during the last couple of years with rates of 30.9% for 2008 and 25.1% for 2009, the highest in Latin America. Just a couple of days after the devaluation, prices began to soar on all kinds of products; the cost of flights doubled and so did that of many electronic devices, such as computers and laptops, etc. The government has promised to fight against inflation, by sending out Eduardo Samán, the Minister of Trade, to all shops that speculate and raise prices artificially.

This has already taken place in a number of shops, where the government is threatening with closure, suspension of the enterprise or even with expropriation. In his weekly “Aló Presidente” of Sunday, January 18, Chávez announced the expropriation of the supermarket chain Éxito. He argued that this company had systematically speculated with its products and that this constituted a “robbery of the people”. He added more general threats against the capitalists; “Remember that they, the employers, are robbing the people […] It is robbery and I don't want to continue with that. This situation will end with the expropriation.”[iv] In the same programme he ordered the expropriation of Sambil in Candelaria, a shopping centre in a Central Caracas neighbourhood.

The economic policies of the government are still very much contradictory. While nationalisations of small and medium size enterprises have continued, the commanding heights of the economy remain untouched. While the measure of devaluation is supposed to give an impulse to national production and to Venezuelan exports, the capitalists remain unwilling to make major investments. The Venezuelan oligarchy has always been completely parasitic and preferred to import all consumer goods instead of starting a national production. But with the Bolivarian revolution, they feel even more insecure, because they fear government regulations and the threat of expropriation. This dilemma was expressed very well in a recent editorial of the right-wing financial daily “Reporte diario de la economia”:

“Chávez is sending mixed signs to the private sector: he threatens with expropriating enterprises which raise prices without a good reason, but he offers 1 billion U.S. Dollars in credit and subsidies as incentives and calls for dialogue with the employers.

The weakening of the Bolívar makes the Venezuelan products relatively cheaper, but the employers are doubting whether to invest during a recession. Furthermore they have been through years of intimidations from the president, who has nationalised wide-ranging industrial sectors.”[v]

The recent figures do not point to any increase in domestic production and exports. As we have seen, exports have declined over the last years. What is even worse, is that the idea of “soberania alimentaria” (food sovereignty), where a boost in agriculture was supposed to lower the dependence of imported foodstuffs, has not materialised at all; National agricultural production has seen a fall in most important products; Maize -26%, Coffee -27%, Sugar cane -12%, Potatoes -15% and Oranges -25%.[vi]

The problem is that the task of developing the Venezuelan economy cannot be left to the capitalists. For decades they have shown a complete disinterest in this, preferring to maintain an economy with high oil incomes and very little domestic production. The problem is that the capitalist system remains. This was even admitted by the president of the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, who in a recent interview to El Universal reminded us of the fact that 70% of the GDP is still created by the private sector. “The economy remains capitalist”, he said.[vii]

While capitalism remains in place, the Venezuelan workers and the poor will be haunted by the evils of inflation, unemployment and cuts in social spending. All attempts to manoeuvre within the bounds of the market economy will end up creating new contradictions. The continued existence of the conquests of the revolution, such as Barrio Adentro, the Misiones and the Universidades Bolivarianas, is doubtful if the economic situation continues to worsen. Chávez has refused to implement any cutbacks, but the measures taken are not at all sufficient to guarantee this. To really defend these conquests, the revolution must put the nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy and a state monopoly on foreign trade on the agenda. Only this can destroy capitalism and provide the necessary prerequisites for a socialist planned economy.

Crisis in the banking sector and expropriations

Another remarkable development has been the recent bank crisis which took place from November last year and onwards. When major fraud, speculation and mismanagement was revealed in a number of banks, the government intervened. Of the banks taken over, Canarias Bank, BanPro, Baninvest and Banco Real were liquidated, while Confederado, Banco Bolivar, Banorte, and Central Banco Universal, were nationalised and merged with the state-owned bank Banfoandes to form a new public investment bank called Banco Bicentenario. A further 10 banks were sanctioned in January with fines totalling US$ 5.34 million, for failing to comply to Venezuelan laws, including the law on credit for peasants as an incentive towards agricultural production.

The nationalisation and merging of these banks, has increased state-control of the financial market to around 20-25%.[viii] The interesting thing is that these measures did not just hit the financial bourgeoisie, but even a number of Chávez’s close allies, such as Arné Chacón Escamillo, (the owner of Banco Real and brother of former Science and Technology Minister Jesse Chacón), and Antonio Márquez, (the former president of the National Securities Commission) who were both arrested and charged with bank fraud. Chávez said that he would clean up the mess in the financial sector, “no matter who falls”. The arrest of Arné Chacón provoked the resignation of former Science and Technology Minister Jesse Chacón, who was always part of the endogenous right-wing of the government. According to opinion polls, the measures adopted by the government were approved by 61% of the Venezuelan population, while 39% disapproved.[ix]

The nationalisation of these banks is indeed a step forward, which should be welcomed by all revolutionaries. The capitalists of the financial sector have plundered the economy for years and will now attempt to let the workers pay the crisis. But the nationalisations of these banks are far from enough. A socialist planned economy will never materialise unless we can control credit on a large scale. The major banks must all be nationalised in order to plan investments and benefit the masses of workers, peasant and small shopkeepers with cheap credit. If this is not done, we will see much more speculation and fraud in the future by the capitalists of the financial sector.

Workers fight for trade union unity

The crisis has already been felt by the working class. Although unemployment has grown relatively little (from 7.4 to 8%[x]), there has been an overall attack of the bosses against the working class. In the car industry this was seen both in Valencia with the temporary lay off of the workforce in General Motors and in Barcelona, Anzoátegui state with the continued struggle at Mitsubishi (MMC). In the latter, the employers first tried to sack 250 sub-contracted workers in the month of January, which resulted in a factory occupation starting on January 11, 2009. The bosses wanted to teach the workers a lesson and bribed regional police forces to make an assault on the occupied factory on January 29, which resulted in the death of two workers. While a temporary agreement was reached in early March, the struggle between the trade union and the bosses continued and in August an illegal lockout was attempted on the part of the latter. This was declared illegal by the Venezuelan Minister of Labour and the lockout was defeated towards the end of August. However, the bosses remained hell-bent on crushing the trade union and went on to sack 11 of its main leaders. Unfortunately this action was endorsed by the Ministry of Labour.

The struggle at Mitsubishi acted as a warning for workers throughout Venezuela and pushed them to fight for a renewal of the workers' movement and concretely for the reunification of the UNT (National Workers' Union) which had been paralysed since fractional struggles broke up its 2006 congress. By mid-October 2009 the UNT federation of workers in the car industry held a gathering of more than 200 workers which argued for unity. On November 4, 2009, a successful regional congress of the UNT Anzoátegui was held with representatives of 40 trade unions. Finally on December 5, a national assembly of the UNT was held in Caracas with some 700 workers from all over the country. The preparations have now begun for a national congress to be held in April.

This congress will undoubtedly be very important for the future of the Venezuelan workers' movement. The criminal division of the UNT in 2006 had an extremely negative impact on the class struggle and was a big factor in the defeat of several factory occupations, such as that of Sanitarios Maracay in 2006-7. The pressure from below has now forced the leaders of the different wings to come together and try to unite the UNT. But any lasting unity of the UNT can only be achieved on the basis of a plan of action, linked to the perspective of putting the working class as the vanguard of the revolution. The question of price speculation and food scarcity provides a golden opportunity for the UNT to draw up a plan of factory occupations of all the industries that conduct sabotage against the revolution. A new wave of factory occupation, led by the UNT, in defence of the revolution, could push the government to take decisive action against the bourgeoisie. Such a policy could change the whole course of the revolution.

Occupied factories and struggle for workers' control

Workers in the movement of occupied factories are still struggling for nationalisation under workers' control. On August 31, 2009, a partial victory was won, when president Chávez publicly announced the nationalisation of INAF, a factory located in Maracay, state of Aragua, which produces mechanics for the train industry. Since the owner abandoned the plant in 2006 the workers had continued production under workers' control and set up a factory committee to manage all operations. From the very beginning they demanded nationalisation under workers' control. The declaration of Chávez meant that they now have been provided with more raw material in order to step up production, but apart from this no action has been taken and no decree has been signed. The workers, all of them active PSUV members, are now campaigning for the fulfilment of Chávez’s decision.

The nearby factory Gotcha, which produces t-shirts, is another example of the militancy of Venezuelan workers. The female workers at this factory have fought for several years for different labour demands and since 2008 the factory has been occupied. They are continuing production of t-shirts, which they are selling to national distributors, but they are demanding nationalisation as the only way to produce t-shirts that can benefit the wider population: school-children, public employees, and so on.

The situation in industries that have been nationalised recently is quite critical. This is especially the case in Guayana, where several industries have been nationalised from 2008-2009. In SIDOR, workers complain that sabotage by counter-revolutionary managers who are still in place, is having a disastrous effect on production outcome. A fire broke out in MITREX, one of the smelters of the plant, which caused a sharp fall in production. Mismanagement and corruption seems to have worsened this. Normally SIDOR produces 4.6 million tons of iron per year, but in 2009 only 3 million has been produced. Workers organised in the Revolutionary Front of Steelworkers are fighting for the implementation of workers' control as the only way to open the books, elect managers and put the company on a sound basis. They have denounced that the conscious sabotage on part of a sector of the managers is aimed at lowering production and thus “proving” that the nationalisation of the company in 2008 was a mistake. Similar experiences are being made by the workers in Orinoco Iron and the other four briquette factories that were nationalised by Chávez in May 2009.

The workers' in the newly nationalised companies have thus learned in a very short space of time, that nationalisation in and of itself does not solve everything. Without the democratic control and leadership of the workers, counter-revolutionary elements can infiltrate and conspire to sabotage production. Mismanagement and corruption can only be fought effectively if the workers use their collective strength to impose their will and take over the very running of the factories, linked to a socialist plan of development in the whole of Venezuela.

Internal struggles in the Socialist Party

The First Extraordinary Congress of the PSUV was opened on November 21, at a huge rally in Caracas with Chávez giving a very left-wing speech and calling for the creation of a new Fifth Socialist International. The congress was originally planned to last only towards the end of December, but president Chávez proposed to the delegates that it should be prolonged until the month of April, so that the documents can be discussed thoroughly. This proposal was approved by the delegates.

From the very beginning, it was clear that this congress would be characterised by a struggle between left and right. This was even seen in the process of the election of delegates, when the Caracas PSUV rank and file rioted against irregularities in the electoral committee that was supposed to supervise the process. At a mass assembly towards the end of October, the representatives of the PSUV branches voted to recall this committee and replace it with other people that could be entrusted with this task[xi]. Similar protests against irregularities happened in other places of the country and in the campaign for the delegate elections of November 15 left-wing alliances were formed on a local and regional basis.

In the congress itself the revolutionary mood of a big sector of the delegates has been felt. The top has tried to control this by organising the workshop-discussion on a state by state level rather than in mixed commissions where delegates from different states can discuss together, regardless of their origins. In spite of this, they have failed to prevent the organisation of the embryo of a left-wing among the delegates. The prolongation of the congress has allowed the delegates to travel back from congress sessions (which are held in weekends) in between the week and discuss the proposals with the representatives of each branch who in turn is responsible for discussing with his or her branch.

Up until now, the congress has discussed themes such as the political and economic situation in the country, the bank crisis, the plans for saving energy and water, the creation of a national police force and the conformation of the V International. In the last December session of the congress, the delegates were presented with a new proposal for a draft Programme and draft Declaration of Principles. This ignored all the old documents of the 2008 Founding Congress, where the left was clearly able to leave its mark on the Declaration of Principles. The proposal to ignore the old documents was rejected by a majority of the delegates. The discussion on these documents will now take place in the weeks ahead and will surely be a point of polemic between right and left.

The left must urgently organise around a concrete programme of clear demands, including the expropriation of the commanding heights of the economy. The potential is there for a big left tendency, which organises tens and even hundreds of delegates in the congress and in turn thousands of rank and file activists in their respective regions. The PSUV has 2.5 million members who are registered in branches (“patrullas”). The vast majority have joined to fight for a revolutionary victory. It is the duty of all revolutionary socialists to organise these workers and the poor, beginning with the vanguard, in a Marxist tendency capable of winning the majority in the party and fight against the bureaucratic right-wing. Upon this question will depend the future of the Bolivarian revolution.

The tactics of Imperialism and the counter-revolution

When Chávez spoke to the UN General Assembly in New York last October, he explained that there were two faces of Obama – the smiling and diplomatic Obama on the one hand, and on the other hand the Obama who accepts the legitimacy of the fraudulent Honduran elections and the installation of seven military bases in Colombia. “Who are you, Obama? Obama number one or Obama number two?” Chávez asked. There is indeed a grain of truth in this statement. Obama is and remains the representative of U.S. Imperialism and those who thought that his foreign policies would differ radically from Bush's must now be very disappointed.

Imperialism is hell-bent on putting an end to the revolutionary process that is taking place in Latin America. Venezuela is the undisputed vanguard of this process and the internationalist policies of Chávez and his continued calls for world revolution, even in its limited and confused form, is a beacon of light to all anti-imperialist fighters throughout the world. The Venezuelan revolution represents a mortal danger for the ruling classes throughout the Americas. This explains why U.S. Imperialism has taken new steps to control the situation: the installation of seven military bases in Colombia, the coup d'etat in Honduras and last but not at least the agreement for setting up new military bases in Panama, which will effectively surround Venezuela with U.S. Military presence.

The lackeys of imperialism, i.e. the Venezuelan counter-revolutionary opposition, are trying to take advantage of each and every mistake committed by the government. Unsolved problems such as housing, the growth in crime-rate and recently the blackouts in the energy system, leaving many houses without electricity for long hours, are being used by the opposition to generate apathy among the masses that support the revolution. The same is happening with issues such as inflation and food scarcity. The fact that the opposition was able to win the elections for mayors and governors in poor areas, such as Petare in November 2008, is a clear warning sign. If the government does not take decisive action to solve the needs of the masses, demoralisation can spread and manifest itself in the form of abstention in forthcoming elections.

The next electoral test will be the September parliamentary elections. If no big change in the situation occurs, the opposition stands a fair chance of winning a sizeable number of seats in the new National Assembly. They will then proceed to use these MP's to sabotage the workings of the government, mobilise the middle class and provoke unrest wherever possible. Their ultimate goal is to destabilise the country and create a situation where they can get rid of Chávez, be it by parliamentary or extra-parliamentary means.

The creation of action committees in the factories, poor neighbourhoods, schools and universities is on the order of the day. Their tasks would be to take up the great tradition of dual power from 2002, link up on a local, regional and national level, with elected representatives subject to the right of recall, and make concrete plans to defeat the counter-revolution in all areas of society. In many places such embryos of dual power will stem from the PSUV branches and/or the communal councils.

If the counter-revolutionaries sabotage, say food production, the UNT and local PSUV branches should show the way forward by occupying the plants concerned and running them under workers' and peoples' control. An element of this has already been present with the constant controls of INDEPABIS (the price and quality control commission, led by Eduardo Samán), which in many cases has encouraged workers to take over the processing plants and demand expropriation. The recent nationalisation of the Éxito super market chain found the whole-hearted support of the vast majority of the workers. This example must be followed in every corner of Venezuelan society.

The strengthening of the Marxist tendency inside the ranks of the PSUV, the PSUV Youth and the UNT would be a powerful tool in advancing this process and defeating the counter-revolution once and for all by destroying its economic power and thus completing the Venezuelan Socialist Revolution.

Patrick Larsen - In Defence of Marxism
Caracas, 23 January 2010

[i] El Mundo, 12 de enero, 2010, pag. 3
[ii] Últimas Noticias, 8 de enero, 2010, pag. 14
[iii] Venezuelanalysis.com, December 31, 2009
[iv] Correo de Orinoco, 18 de enero, 2010, pag. 2
[v] Reporte diario de la economía, 13 de enero, 2010, pag. 11
[vi] Últimas Noticias, 18 de diciembre, 2009, pag. 19
[vii] El Universal, 9 de enero de 2010
[viii] Venezuelanalysis.com, December 229 2009
[ix] Ibid.
[x] Venezuelanalysis.com, December 31, 2009
[xi] Aporrea.org, 24 de octubre de 2009

Venezuela Applies Media Social Responsibility Law to Cable Channels

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:30:41 +0100

On Thursday, Venezuela’s National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) released a list of cable television companies that will be subject to the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, marking an expansion of the law’s jurisdiction over television broadcasters.

The law, known by the acronym RESORTE, establishes standards for child and adult programming, prohibits inflammatory content such as incitement riot or assassinate the president, places limits on commercial advertising, and requires stations to broadcast important government announcements.

When the law was passed in 2004, it applied only to companies holding public broadcasting concessions. Last July, CONATEL announced that cable broadcasters would undergo review and be subject to the law if 70% of their content and overall operations could be considered “national,” meaning Venezuelan.

Minister for Public Works and Infrastructure Diosdado Cabello, who is also director of CONATEL, said on Thursday that 105 channels were classified as national, while 164 were classified as international. Over the past month, CONATEL invited all cable broadcasters to present their case for classification as either national or international, but only 24 companies responded, said Cabello.

“Starting today, channels should comply with the technical norms pertaining to their broadcasting schedules, and there will be sanctions for those who do not comply with the law,” said Cabello in the CONATEL head office in Caracas on Thursday.

“With these technical norms for subscription [cable] channels, Venezuelans will be able to watch television that is more pleasant, healthy, and without poison,” Cabello added.

One of Venezuela’s largest cable stations, Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), was among the companies that claimed to be international, but was classified as national on Thursday.

RCTV, owned by media mogul Marcel Granier, supported the coup d’état against President Chavez in April 2002 by broadcasting false and manipulated images, showing Hollywood movies and other unrelated material while the coup was underway, and by welcoming the installment of the coup regime.

RCTV’s twenty-year public broadcasting license expired in May 2007, and the government did not renew the license. RCTV continued to broadcast on cable television, outside of the jurisdiction of the RESORTE law, until now.

On Thursday, RCTV released a statement calling CONATEL’s measure “unconstitutional, because it establishes different, discriminatory, unjust, and arbitrary obligations for the channels whose content is mostly made in Venezuela.”

Also, the legal limit of one cut to commercials during each program threatens to “make the life of the company unsustainable,” RCTV stated. “It obligates us to change the financial, advertising, and programming structure,” the statement continued.

The company also claimed to have vetted its programming over the past month and taken several popular “telenovelas” or soap operas off the air, in order to not be categorized as national.

In response to RCTV’s objections, National Assembly Legislator Manuel Villalba said RCTV “cannot be considered international when the RESORTE Law establishes that if the capital, the artists, the programming, and the technicians are Venezuelan, then the channel is national.”

“Radio Caracas Television wants to provoke the government and disobey the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television,” Villalba said, adding that if RCTV does so, it could face strict penalties of up to five years off the air. “You have some parameters and you have to submit yourself to the norms established by Venezuelan laws,” the legislator said.

The measure announced Thursday was part of an ongoing government effort to limit the concentration of media ownership, increase the ratios of state and community-owned media to privately-owned media, sanction broadcasting companies that violate the terms of their concessions, and favor small-scale independent producers.

James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com
Mérida, 22 January 2010

Haiti: a Deep Human Tragedy Inspires the Same Old Song and Dance from the U.S. ...

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:04:44 +0100

The nation of Haiti was hit with a devastating earthquake. The governments of Cuba and Venezuela responded within hours with medical brigades, firefighters, fuel and supplies, and there has been massive sympathy, generosity and volunteerism from workers around the world. What a difference compared to the response from the the United States. The U.S. government has pledged assistance in the way of one hundred million dollars – less than is spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in just two days.

The nation of Haiti was hit with a devastating earthquake, 7.0 in magnitude on January 12th, 2010 at roughly five o'clock in the afternoon Eastern Standard Time. Due to the depths of infrastructural decay known by the world’s first independent black republic, as many as a quarter of a million people have lost their lives in the rubble of sub-standard dwellings. Media reports from numerous international sources as well as many eyewitnesses have documented that the streets of Port -Au-Prince, the country’s capital, are overflowing with the bodies of tens of thousands of people. The governments of Cuba and Venezuela responded within hours with medical brigades, firefighters, fuel and supplies, and there has been massive sympathy, generosity and volunteerism from workers around the world.

What a difference compared to the response from the the United States. The U.S. government has pledged assistance in the way of one hundred million dollars – less than is spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in just two days. In a clear indication of U.S. imperialism's true intentions, President Barack Obama has also dispatched close to 10,000 troops to “aid and assist” the shattered Haitian government of President René Préval “maintain public order.”

What many observers of this deep tragedy have noted is that the same set of priorities that upset relief efforts during Hurricane Katrina are currently holding sway in Haiti. There have been reports that United States military authorities have taken over the country’s functioning airport, and have actually forced incoming flights with needed medical equipment and food support to Santo Domingo, the capital of the Dominican Republic, which as a neighboring nation shares the island with Haiti. Pacifica’s Democracy Now and the English language Al Jazeera have interviewed Haitians on the ground who have expressed dismay with the current “rescue” effort as overseen by the United States. According to western sources, there have been some rioting and looting incidents in isolated areas, but given the severity of the situation and the delay of needed resource, this is far from a mysterious development.

At present, much mainstream media commentary has displayed the usual indifference to the long historical context of abuse that Haiti has suffered from her more powerful neighbor to the north. In the last two decades alone, the United States, under three different presidents, has:

Supported a classic coup led by creole military officers which resulted in the elected head of state, the former radical priest and leader of the peasant organization Lavalas, Jean Bertrand Aristide, being removed from power;
Ruined the country's agricultural sector by flooding it with cheap rice and other staples and imposed a sweatshop economy which has been a nightmare for the home economy of Haiti, a development which has benefited corporations such as the massive U.S. athletic supply corporation Spalding to the tune of several billion dollars;
Conducted an actual second removal of Aristide from power, one in which Aristide was bodily removed from the country by U.S. forces and taken to Central Africa.

So, from where those of us who are acquainted with Haitian history and culture are standing, the current U.S. government concern for the welfare of Haiti is nothing more than crocodile tears. And (it must be said), the decision by President Barack Obama to appoint the sweatshop baron and NAFTA idea man, Former President Bill Clinton, as well as Former President George W. Bush (accessory to the Aristide kidnapping and overseer of the Katrina disaster) is nothing more but the same old swill on a different day.

The United States and other western governments (most notably the French) have been attempting to reshape the destinies of the Haitian people since this world’s most successful slave rebellion led by Toussaint L’Ouverture and Jacques Dessalines defeated the Napoleonic military machine in 1804. Haiti has been forced to live with prohibitive international debt payments, embargoes, and numerous invasions, occupations, and U.S. sponsored military dictatorships – among which we may include the notorious Duvalier Regime, both father and son – for the simple crime of displacing one of the planet’s most intrusive empires over 200 years ago.

Recent reports indicate that the country has suffered a round of aftershocks that may further impede progress in the recovery effort. It is now of the first order that Marxists be “up” on this long U.S. torment of a resourceful and dynamic people. If the current media blather from U.S. ruling class authorities is any indicator of what is to come, the United States is getting ready to take this deep human tragedy, and try again to fix Haiti in spite of itself. Be very sure that the watchwords for this effort will be the old imperial maxim, “If it ain’t broke, fix it till it is”. It is very true to say that the generous donations of U.S. workers are of immense help to the Haitian people when such donations actually reach them, but that’s a very different kettle of fish than what the old imperial order of the U.S. will offer them.

The only real solution to Haiti’s problem is the revolutionary overthrow of the rotten capitalist system, led by the working class of Haiti and of the entire region, beginning with the Dominican Republic, and it will not be long until they are heard from. The International Marxist Tendency will present an in depth analysis of the current Haitian crisis and the Haitian question throughout history in the coming days.

Michael Hureaux Perez - In Defence of Marxism
Seattle, 21 January 2010

A Quick Response to BBC’s Article, “Venezuela’s economy in further slide”

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:48:58 +0100

There are few things more condescending and arrogant than a journalist who arrives in a foreign country, walks around briefly in its streets, and from a few superficial observations, believes they can make a judgement on the entire economic situation of a country, as well as the social movements and hopes of millions of members of that country. In yesterday’s article “Venezuela’s economy in further slide”, BBC journalist Robert Plummer admits it’s been a long time since he set foot in Venezuela.

His article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8464960.stm) is an un-contextualised, gloomy surface skim of a list of things apparently going wrong right now in Venezuela, creating the impression of a dirty, downtrodden country wrecked by economic crisis and bad governance. Ironically, he writes it at a time when the rest of the world really is suffering such a calamity.

He begins by remembering a honey moon stop over trip of his to Caracas in 2002, and suggests that little has changed since then. Caracas has “bags of rubbish piled up”, pro and anti Chavez graffiti, and shops that are “less well-stocked than before”. Oh horror.

It’s hard to know whether these bags of rubbish are part of the simple rubbish collection system here (where rubbish is put out in the street on certain days of the week to be collected), or if its something else, but it is worth pointing out that the current government has invested in a range of large bins, big containers, and small garbage trucks. And for a bit of balance for the BBC who purports to like the stuff, the UK is the fourth highest producer of industrial waste, whereas Venezuela does not make the list of the 33 highest waste producing countries. The UK also produces 34.85 million tonnes of rubbish per yeah, ranking it 5th in the world, and giving it a per capita production of roughly three times that of Venezuela, with 7.3 million tonnes yearly.

Lots of pro and anti Chavez graffiti. The BBC and most mainstream media always talk about Venezuela in terms of Chavez. It’s true that Chavez is playing a big role here, but he isn’t the only player and there is a lot of grassroots organising that the media tends to condescendingly overlook. Likewise, most graffiti isn’t actually about Chavez, but it is political, interesting, and often very creative and beautiful. Frankly I love it, it makes the streets much more alive and interesting to walk in.

As to the shops having less, well it’s hard to say if that’s true or not. Perhaps some shops do have less. Clearly a sign of a healthy economy that looks after all its citizens is when supermarkets have at least 19 varieties of cereal. Lack thereof is proof that life is rough, and never mind all the advances here in health, education, grassroots democracy, indigenous representation, recuperation of history and culture, and the massive decrease in poverty and extreme poverty.

Plummer’s article intentionally ignores all these things and anything that is positive, preferring to list apparent problem after problem and create the impression that everything is just going wrong and falling apart. He begins his anti-Chavez diatribe by quoting the only person he quotes in the whole article, described as a “former colleague” and therefore probably not Venezuelan. The colleague notices “some deterioration” and so does Plummer, and that’s it, that’s all that has apparently changed about Venezuela since Chavez first became president.

Next, Plummer reads a few of the latest AFP articles about the electricity problems here and the recent devaluation, does a rough summary of them, adds in a quote from “respected survey organisation” Consensus Economics and apart from a few sentences, doesn’t at all bother to examine causes of these issues or propose any possible solutions that the government has some how overlooked.

He concedes that previous administrations are “equally responsible” for the lack of investment in electricity infrastructure, but ignores the other causes of the electricity shortage (such as the draught drying up the main hydropower plant and increased electricity consumption due to higher disposable incomes) and does not mention any of the various projects and agreements that the current government has undertaken in an attempt to deal with the demand. Hence the reader has the impression that the government is doing next to nothing.

Regarding inflation, Plummer’s “research” is selective and plain wrong. He says that inflation was “at least 27% in 2009” when in fact it was 27.6% in 2008 and 25.1% in 2009. He says, “More worrying is Venezuela's apparent inability to get to grips with persistent inflation.” But inflation under Chavez has averaged 22% and under the previous government of Caldera it averaged 57.8%.

Ah, its doomsday for the Venezuelan economy! Chavez’s attempt to “impose price controls….have largely failed to work” and his “heavy-handed measures…have not done anything to promote economic growth…Venezuela is still bogged down in the financial mire.” Venezuela has been one of the countries least affected by the global economic crisis, why single it out when in the United States many people have lost their homes and jobs? Unemployment here increased by 0.6% last year from 7.4% in 2008 to 8%. This is not a good thing, but relative to other countries, is minor.

Venezuela has also had 20 quarters of non stop economic growth, then last year, a 2.9% contraction in the GDP, but has maintained its levels of social spending.

Finally, Plummer refers to the recent nationalisation proceedings initiated against the Exito supermarket chain, saying its “French owners failed to please My Chavez” and that, “As a result [of “failed” price controls, Chavez] has increasingly resorted to the ultimate economic sanction - confiscating the businesses of those who refuse to curb their prices.”

One gets the impression that Chavez is driving around like a dictator, closing shops he doesn’t like and those who don’t charge prices that he has demanded. However, since the recent devaluation of the bolivar, many businesses have increased prices on their current stock, bought at the old exchange rate, thereby earning huge profits at customers’ expense. The majority of workers at Exito support the nationalisation measure, and Exito will now be incorporated into the Corporation of Socialist Markets (COMERSO), a publicly owned network which sells products at subsidised rates.

The BBC’s coverage of Venezuela, in general, is highly biased against the government, but usually includes a few token paragraphs quoting government officials towards the end for “balance”. However, it is clear their main writer in Caracas, Will Grant, sees the country and its processes, changes, mistakes, dreams and problems, from the perspective of a very comfortable first world citizen. He sympathises with the upper class and opposition minority, and complains of petty things like the price of luxury goods, while ignoring all the improvements and the increased voice of the majority poor.

Further, the BBC, like most mainstream press today, targets Venezuela (as well as a short list of other countries like China), constantly highlighting what it perceives to be problems here in a way that it does not do for other countries. The media finds one or two mistakes or problems with the Venezuelan government, and uses it to discredit the Bolivarian revolution, and therefore, the possibility that other ways are possible. On the other hand, the 55% of Mumbai’s population living in slums, and the one billion people in the world living in slums and going without sufficient food, and so on, couldn’t possibly indicate that capitalism is the system that is failing.

Tamara Pearson - Venezuealanalysis.com
January 20, 2010

Horror in Haiti – imperialism to blame (Socialist Appeal)

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:42:37 +0100

There is a manmade element to the catastrophe confronting Haitians. The country doesn’t just happen to be poor; it has been made poor and kept poor. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, with the worst infrastructure and a people most vulnerable to disaster and disease, because of the machinations of imperialism. Although the earthquake could not be avoided, the scale of death and destruction clearly could have been avoided.

You would have to have a heart of stone not to be moved by the scenes of horror from Haiti. But we also need take this opportunity to think, and consider how we can prevent catastrophes having such a disastrous effect upon the lives of human beings now and in the future.

We are told over and over again that the earthquake was a natural disaster, an ‘act of god’. Of course in one sense it was.

We are told that the ‘international community’ is doing its best. And we know that good, brave people from many countries are working to the absolute limit and putting their lives at risk to save lives and bring solace to the survivors.

We know that the would-be rescuers can’t just rush around Haiti bringing emergency relief supplies to those that need it. Apart from the earthquake damage, the infrastructure in Haiti was already hopelessly inadequate. The airport couldn’t cope. The roads are impassable.

Countless thousands are already dead. Thousands more face starvation, thirst and disease. Desperation could cause looting. Isn’t this all just a terrible natural tragedy?

Haiti is indeed a country stalked by earthquakes and hurricanes. The infrastructure before the earthquake had already been shredded by a series of hurricanes. But Cuba next door is prey to the same natural hazards. As a result of the wave of recent disasters just 4 people have died there. Cuba is not a hapless victim of world capitalism. The Cubans make plans to preserve the lives of their citizens against natural disasters.

Haiti hasn’t always been seen as poor. In the eighteenth century it was perceived as a source of immense wealth. As a French colony it produced 60% of all the coffee and 40% of the sugar consumed in Europe. It produced more wealth than all the British-owned West Indian islands. It was the ‘Pearl of the Antilles’.

This wealth came from slavery. The black slaves rose up during the French Revolution. Under the leadership of Toussaint-l’Ouverture they waged the only successful slave rebellion in the world. They expelled all the colonial armies and proclaimed independence in 1804.

Like Cuba more than 150 years later, the Haitians were confronted with a total embargo. In order to break out of the enforced isolation, the Haitian government was forced to promise reparations of 150m gold francs to the French. They were compensating the French for the ‘crime’ of rising up as slaves and thus depriving them of their human property! Repayment of reparations lasted from 1825 to 1947. By 1900 80% of government revenue was going straight out of the country as interest payments. No wonder there was no money left to build up the infrastructure.

What the Haitian government had done in effect was to replace slavery with debt bondage imposed on the whole nation. That is the situation that remains to the present day. A series of compliant rulers administered the country on behalf of imperialism, and helped themselves to a portion of the country’s wealth in return. When they were not subservient enough, imperialism intervened directly. The USA occupied the whole country from 1915-34.

There have been movements against imperialism. Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected on a populist programme in 1990. There was a coup against him the following year. He was elected again in 2000, and doubled the minimum wage to $2 a day. In 2004 he was kidnapped in another coup, backed by the USA and France. This is a remarkably similar sequence of events to those imposed on the left-wing leader Mel Zelaya. Honduras has suffered an identikit coup to the one imposed on Haiti.

Aristide remains in exile. The United Nations Stabilisation Mission has been in the country ever since. They have a monopoly of effective armed force. There is no Haitian army. When somebody asks you ‘Why doesn’t the Haitian government do something?’ remember, the UN, is the real government.

Everybody knows that Haiti is in an earthquake zone. So when you ask: why is Haiti in such a mess? Why aren’t the buildings constructed to earthquake-proof standards? Why has nobody improved the infrastructure? Why were there no effective emergency plans? These questions should be referred to the UN as the representative of world imperialism in Haiti. These are legitimate questions. The answer to them is that, until the grip of imperialism is relinquished, for the common people of Haiti suffering will remain a way of life. The people of Haiti need real aid. They need to be part of a movement to kick out imperialism and join hands with a socialist federation of the Caribbean as part of a socialist Americas.

Socialist Appeal - www.socialist.net
January 20, 2010

Book: Venezuela Speaks! Voices From The Grassroots

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:53:01 +0100

If mainstream media coverage of Venezuela invokes the singular figure of president Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías as the sole decision-maker of a socialist-bound country, Venezuela Speaks! Voices from the Grassroots reveals a politically active populace who says that “with our without Chávez” they will continue spearheading the revolution from below, like they always have.

The book features 17 politically active groups, most of which can trace their beginnings well before 1999, when Chávez first became president. But since then, and with an overhauled constitutionthat calls on the people to be the creators of this revolution (O inventamos o erramos – Either we invent or we err – is their driving mantra), over 300,000 families have the title to their home, 1.5 million hectares of land have been distributed to approximately 130,000 families, and one labor union succeeded in securing salaries and contractual benefits for the months workers had been on strike.

But the revolutionary process has been far from perfect.

Between October 2007 and November 2009, journalists Michael Fox, Carlos Martinez, and JoJo Farrell hit the ground running, conducting interviews of Venezuela’s politically active groups and their most ardent spokespeople, who are constantly defining, redefining, and kick starting the revolution in their respective communities.

ML: On the outset of the book you say, “This book isn’t about Chávez.” And throughout the book various people refer to Chávez as the door, “but on the other side of the door are the people.”

MF: I think that the quote that you just mentioned is the metaphor for pretty much the entire book. [Chávez] is instrumental in bringing together all these different sectors and without the groups he would be nothing. Everyone says if people hadn’t surrounded Miraflores there’s no way he would have come into power [referring to the 2002 coup that temporarily plucked Chávez from office. He was reinstated 47 hours later due to the massive response from Chávez supporters].

CM: The idea was to show the Bolivarian Revolution [Venezuela’s current political process], to show that this thing is actually much bigger than that and includes all of these movements, and we wanted to include that in the discourse, to remind people it’s not just about what Chávez said or did in yesterday’s newspaper.

ML: Just to get into that for a bit. Does Hugo Chávez divert attention away from what’s happening in Venezuela by being such a controversial figure and saying things that many find outlandish?

CM: Sometimes he has played into the hands of the media. There’s always this discourse that he’s using anti-imperialistic rhetoric. Chávez does come off aggressive and then he does end up backtracking, like when he said “the best defense is an offense” [referring toColombia] and then the next day realizing what he said. Every South American president is criticizing heavily the Colombian government and the media only focuses on what [Chávez] is saying, but Michel [Platini] and Lula [da Silva] are consistently challenging the United States foreign policy, but [Chávez]’s words get manipulated and used.

MF: I think this is really important in the U.S. We say in the intro, we need to be ready to question our own versions, our own vision of how we see the world and be willing to open that up. You go to the U.S., this is one reality, and Venezuela has a completely different reality. When Chávez said, “Wow, it smells like sulfur” [a comment he made about President Barack Obama], this is part of the reason [the people] love Chávez, because he says that. No president in the history of the country has ever done that.

ML: One of the stories that stood out for me is that of Iraida Morocima, a member of the 5 de Julio Pioneer Camp, an urban land committee that works around communal land ownership in Caracas. There’s the notion of taking over land in the countryside, but how does it work in an urban context?

MF: Really the city and the countryside run parallel. One of the enabling laws way back in 2001 was the urban land law which allowed people to acquire titles to their homes. The 5 de Julio[pioneer camp] came out a few years after that, and people thought, this is great, we have titles to our homes, which we thought we’d never have, but what about the kids that grew up in the homes and had to move away? What about those that don’t have the opportunity? What about setting up a social community?

These pioneer groups sprouted all over Venezuela, this was late 2004. There was a lot of hope and it took a long time to even acquire land. This brings up some of the contradictions. You have this pioneer camp who does these occupations of land and in one case the police came and kicked people off the land [referring to the occupation of vacant land in the foothills of Mt. Avila in Caracas]. This is one of the most radical groups, it’s about this is all of ours and if we start selling this house and that house we’ll end up in the same capitalist market [They’re working towards collective social property and believe that with private property, market forces enter the home].

ML: Can you talk about the New Generation of Workers Union that organized within the Mitsubishi Motor Corporation? I was amazed to see them make demands on behalf of subcontracted workers and secure pay for the days they went on strike.

CM: The action that they took and the discourse that they have is at the vanguard of what they’re trying to establish. The old generation union that existed prior essentially became this large labor union bureaucracy. It became highly unrepresentative of its workers and they united with the FEDECAMARAS [Federation of Chambers and Association of Commerce and Production of Venezuela, the country’s elite business federation] to support the oil lockout [a 63 day strike led by the management of the state-owned oil company, which shut down the oil industry and was a follow up to the coup]. In that, it was the greatest form of stabbing the workers in the back.

So this is a great story about how the old union was replaced with a new union and new concept of what this was about. We’re supporting subcontracted workers that aren’t part of the union, they said. So this is a remarkable action that they took in making sure these workers didn’t get fired, because again this is something that is established in the constitution [Article 77 of the Organic Labor Law states that subcontracted work is only allowed for a limited amount of time, under certain circumstances. Mitsubishi was in the habit of using outsourced labor].

ML: I noticed a few running themes throughout the political activities of the groups: a strong sense of ideology, of clarity, and collectiveness.

CM: These are things that are constantly coming up and how education will play a fundamental role. They’re saying it’s beyond political and economic transformation; it’s a cultural revolution. They’re the ones that are going to be at the front of providing that cultural transformation.

MF: The government has been important in throwing out concepts and values and morals. In Alo, Presidente [Chávez’s Sunday television program], Chávez is throwing out concepts and emphasizing the importance of theory and practice. You mention that these themes run through, which is why we thought it was important to compile these interviews. I think it even surprised us how much these things came up over and over again. This is really amazing to see that people know the direction they want to run to.

ML: In the U.S. we tend to have this notion of entitlement, of all the things we have a right to. In reading about the different groups in Venezuela, they also carry this strong sense of entitlement, of what belongs to them, but it seems to pan out in a different way.

MF: I would agree with that. [In the U.S.] we have the right to get and demand. [In Venezuela] I think this plays into about inventamos o erramos [we invent or we err]. For them it’s like, if we need to go down this street by going the other way, then we will. It’s definitely a reinvention of entitlement.

CM: This is something that you do hear, this sense of ownership. That’s what the whole process is about. Venezuela es ahora de todos [Venezuela belongs to all of us] you see in government advertisements. That sounds like a really simple thing than what it actually translates to. I’m going to take over the property if the owner leaves and abandons it. This is my factory because I’ve been working here for years. This is all because of Chávez’s discourse. Like what the [5 de Julio] pioneers are saying, we have a right to this land like rich people, but we don’t want to live like rich people. This is our country also.

ML: In the book there’s mention of the middle class driving the revolution. How so?

MF: You have the grassroots and the reformist sector – they call it the revolutionary and reformist sectors – and you have this conflict between grassroots and the middle class. So I think it can be more of an ideological difference. This personifies the contradiction within the Bolivarian Revolution. Everybody that is around [Chávez] wants to keep the status quo, but the revolutionary sector wants to go further. In the government there’s this reformist sector.

The referendum lost because there weren’t many in the government who were interested in seeing reforms passed because they would lose their power [the 2007 Constitutional Reform Referendumwould have redistributed more powers to Venezuela’s 30,000 communal councils and to the president]. These are the subtle contradictions that you really don’t hear about. As much as the opposition exists, these contestations and these conflicts [between reformists and revolutionaries] are even now more conflictive. The reformists say you can have your communal councils [locally organized democratic councils of between 200-400 families], but we don’t want to make them bigger, we don’t want to keep pushing the revolution forward.

ML: What do you hope to achieve during the book tour?

CM: I hope we can transform the discourse on Venezuela so when we talk about Venezuela we talk about the movement and not about Chávez.

MF: Help people break through the media block and the idea that Chávez equals dictator equals bad. I hope the book can shed light on the giant potpourri of this process called the Bolivarian Revolution.

ML: Keeping in mind the huge role foreign media has had in shaping people’s perceptions of Venezuela, what should our role be, as journalists on the outside?

MF: As journalists we need to on a daily level break through the media spin spun by the large mainstream. It’s not just Venezuela. We just need to be very, very careful that we are saying it like it is and that we’re not just pulling copy. What kills me the most is that this happens on a daily basis, and these are the same people that are riling about Venezuela and they’ve never gone. So how can we talk about Venezuela without going and seeing it firsthand, and talking to people and going to their homes? We need to make sure we know what we’re talking about.

This is an edited transcript originally published on Mission Local.

The coups d'état in Latin America and the dangers facing Venezuela (Alejandro Torres Rivera)

Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:38:00 +0100

Venezuelan Vice President and Defense Minister Ramón Alonso Carrizales stated that his nation's government held objective proof of the violation by a U.S. military aircraft of Venezuelan air space.

He said the following: “On May 17, 2009, an American war plane took off from Curaçao, violated our air space and a flight-exclusion zone, the Orchilla Air Base. We have a record of the dialogue between the control tower and the aircraft, in which the pilot was asked if he had authorization to overfly the area and what the motive for his incursion was.”

More recently, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez Frías also denounced the entry into Venezuelan territory of a P-3 aircraft for about 15 minutes. The plane was escorted out of Venezuelan air space by F-16 aircraft of the Venezuelan Air Force.

The same plane that afternoon returned to pierce the Venezuelan air space for about 19 minutes and was again escorted out of Venezuelan air space by F-16 fighters of the Venezuelan Air Force.

The denunciation made by the Venezuelan minister and the one made by President Chávez again bring to public discussion the topic of the coups d'état in Latin American countries, particularly at a time when the government of Venezuela is denouncing Colombia's plans, encouraged by the United States, to create the conditions “to justify an aggression against our nation on the basis of false-positives or simulations of punishable deeds.”

Modesto Emilio Guerrero's essay “Memoirs of Coups d'État in Latin America During the 20th Century” quotes Cursio Malaparte, author of “The Technique of the Coup d'État,” as saying that the coup d'état is nothing more than a “recourse to power when there is a risk of losing power.”

The author says that, in 1968, 62 percent of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Southwest Asia were governed by military dictatorships. He also says that a study of 25 countries between 1902 and the 2002 coup against Venezuela's constitutional president, Hugo Chávez Frías, revealed that “327 coups d'état took place, counting those that stabilized as dictatorships for months or years and those that lasted a few days, like the repeated coups in Bolivia.”

In his list of coups during the 20th Century, he ranks Bolivia first, with 56; Guatemala, 36; Peru, 31; Panama, 24; Ecuador, 23; Cuba, 17; Haiti, 16 until 1995; the Dominican Republic, 16; Venezuela, 12; Brazil, 10; Chile, 9; Colombia and Argentina, 8, and Uruguay, 5.

Little more than 10 coups were staged on the Caribbean islands. In countries like Paraguay, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, the military dictatorships that usurped the political power held control of the nation for decades.

According to Guerrero, “in almost 30 percent of the cases, the coups and the dictatorships resulted from the direct intervention of United States troops, at least from the end of the Spanish-American War. If we look only at the Caribbean and Central America down to Panama, the rate would approach 70 percent.”

In an essay titled “Making Coups d'État Invisible: What the Hegemonic Theory of Political Science Refuses To See,” Atilio Borón denounced on Jan. 5 a theory about Honduras, propounded by a report by the Latinobarómetro Corporation in Santiago, Chile, that says:

“In the year 2009, Latin America suffered for the first time a coup d'état after 31 years since democracy was inaugurated in the so-called ‘third wave of democracy.’”

According to Borón, such assertion “is not only a notable error of history but also a symptom of something a lot deeper. It reveals the incurable limitations of the hegemonic concept of theory and methodology in social sciences that date back to our Anglo-Saxon inspiration.”

To document the falsity of the information provided by the Latinobarómetro Corp., Borón recreates what happened during the coups d'état in Venezuela on April 11, 2002, and establishes the participation of the United States and Spain, as well as the complicity of functionaries in the European Union and the then-existing governments of Colombia and El Salvador.

Borón also reminds us of the coups in El Salvador in 1979; Bolivia in 1978, 1979 and 1980; Paraguay in 1989; Haiti in 1988, 1990, 1991 and 2004.

To these coups, we could add those promoted by the United States in the second half of the 20th Century, to wit:

• the coup d'état in Cuba by Fulgencio Batista in 1952;

• the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954;

• the armed invasion promoted against the Cuban Revolution on Bay of Pigs in 1961;

• the coup against José María Velasco Ibarra in Ecuador in 1961;

• the coup against Brazilian President João Goulart in 1964;

• the invasion of the Dominican Republic on April 28, 1965;

• the deployment in Guatemala and Bolivia of Green Beret military advisers in 1966-67;

• the coups in Uruguay and Chile in 1973;

• the military dictatorship in Argentina, beginning in 1976;

• the intervention in the Salvadoran conflict in 1980;

• the support from Honduras of the Dirty War against the Sandinista revolution, beginning in 1980;

• the invasion of Grenada in 1983;

• the invasion of Panama in 1989;

• the intervention in Nicaragua's electoral process in the 1990 elections;

• the Plan Colombia, beginning in 2000;

• the coup d'état in Venezuela in 2002, and

• the coup d'état in Honduras in 2009.

For these events, Borón points out, palliatives are used to describe bloody and illegal deeds that lead to the overthrow of governments that were installed legitimately by the people. Thus, the Newspeak creates terminology that justifies the theory of the coup, such as “liberating revolution,” “process of national reorganization,” “government of national reconciliation,” “government of national salvation,” “solution to a power vacuum,” “transition government,” “interim government,” etc.

The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is right when it denounces its concern over the increasingly open threats posed against it by the U.S. and Colombian policies. One need only read the essay written by Wayne Madsen and Richard Bennett on April 19, 2002, titled “U.S. Returns to Bad Old Ways in Venezuela.”

“Under the cover of training exercises in the Caribbean, the U.S. Navy provided signals intelligence and communications-jamming support to the Venezuelan military,” the document says.

“For its part, the CIA provided Special Operations Group personnel under the command of a lieutenant colonel assigned by the Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, N.C. They had been in Venezuela since 2001 and belonged to the U.S. Special Operations Intelligence Support Activity. They reportedly made contact with high-ranking officers in the Venezuelan Armed Forces, including Gen. Lucas Rincón, Vice Minister of Security; Gen. Luis Camacho Kairuz; businessmen and labor union leaders from the Venezuelan Workers Federation, among others.

“The coup was also supported by Special Operations psychological warfare (PSYOPs) personnel deployed from Fort Bragg, North Carolina. They put together Spanish-language television announcements, purportedly from Venezuelan political and business leaders and aired by Venezuelan television and radio stations, saying Chavez "provoked" the crisis by ordering his supporters to fire on peaceful protesters in Caracas. U.S. electronic warfare technicians also helped to jam cell phone and radio frequencies in Caracas and other major cities in co-operation with the Intelligence Battalion Brig. Gen. Andrés Ibarra of the Venezuelan Army's high command.”

The threat against Venezuela is certainly not a bizarre idea. It is up to all of us, as this year begins, to redouble our solidarity with the Venezuelan people and the defense of their Revolution

(This article is an excerpt from an article written by Puerto Rican attorney Alejandro Torres Rivera. Originally published at Progreso Weekly)

Venezuelan Humanitarian Team Arrives in Haiti after Earthquake

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 23:41:46 +0100

Venezuela sent its first aid airplane to Haiti, a Bolivarian National Armed Force's Hercules C-130, with a fifty-strong advance humanitarian aid team on board, on Wednesday morning, after a 7.3 magnitude earthquake leveled the country’s capital Port-au-Prince, late Tuesday.

The quake, which produced at least 30 aftershocks, including one of 5.9 and one of 5.5 on the Richter scale, may have affected up to 3 million people according to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Federation. The death toll is unknown, but Haiti President René Préval said thousands of people had died, while many thousands are injured and many Haitian’s lie trapped under rubble. Haitian Prime Minister, Jean Max Bellerive estimated the death toll at more than one hundred thousand.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez ordered the immediate deployment of the aid team on Tuesday comprised of doctors, engineers, search and rescue specialists, and civil protection officers, as well as urgently needed food, water, medical supplies, and rescue equipment. Chavez said Venezuela would send further aid and supplies.

Aid is also beginning to flow from other countries, with Latin American countries being among the first to react. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega sent a team of electricians to help with the repair of power lines as much of the country’s electricity and telecommunications systems were destroyed in the quake. Cuba is sending medical supplies and doctors, while Mexico is sending a team of doctors and rescue workers.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon released $10 million from the UN’s emergency relief fund to assist aid efforts and called for member countries to do likewise.

Spain has pledged $4.3 million (3 million Euros) and 150 tonnes of humanitarian aid. France is also sending aid and rescue workers. Germany has pledged $2.18 million (1.5 million Euros), the Netherlands $2.9 million (2 million Euros) and Belgium, Sweden and Luxembourg are offering water purification equipment, tents, medical help, and search-and-rescue teams. The United States said it would send a team of 61 rescue workers.

Brazil, which heads the United Nations mission in Haiti has also announced its intention to assist those affected. In a statement issued Wednesday, Brazil’s defence minister, Nelson Jobim, urged his country's military stationed in Haiti to “make every possible effort” to reduce the suffering of the population.

The UN mission in Haiti is comprised of 7,000 troops and 2,000 police officers, as well as 2,000 civilian employees from 17 countries.

The UN mission was established in 2004 by the UN Security Council after the kidnapping and deportation of the democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide by the United States.

Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Canada, the USA, Spain, France, Italy and Jordan are among the countries contributing military or police forces to the mission.

Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere and is still recovering from the devastating effects of a hurricane that destroyed thousands of homes killed more than 700 people in 2008. Seventy percent of Haitians lives on less than two dollars per day, and half of the country’s 8.5 million people are unemployed.

The youth wing of Chavez’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) has set up a collection point in central Caracas, for donations of food, medicine, clothing and shoes to send to the people of Haiti.

Heryck Rangel from the PSUV youth said, “We young people want to deepen the internationalist character of the Bolivarian Revolution and highlight solidarity as a socialist value. The Venezuelans have to understand that Haiti is a country that has suffered much and now needs our urgent support.”

Kiraz Janicke - Venezuelanalysis.com
Caracas January 13, 2010

Venezuela and the Netherlands

Wed, 13 Jan 2010 20:50:48 +0100

The government of the Netherlands recently granted the US military use of its islands in the Caribbean, with the excuse that this is to help in the “war against drugs”. In reality, this is a direct threat to the Chavez government in Venezuela.

In the Dutch media articles have appeared about the “war-mongering” president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, who is “preparing a war against Colombia”. Now Chávez has accused the Netherlands of supporting aggression against Venezuela, because the Netherlands has given permission to the American armed forces to use the military bases on the Dutch Caribbean islands of Aruba and Curaçao[1].

In the media Hugo Chávez, as always, has been presented like some “crazy populist”, and of course the “civilised Netherlands” are presented as being totally innocent.

Later Maxime Verhagen, the Dutch minister of foreign affairs, said the American military were on Aruba and Curaçao, as part of the “war against drugs”. He remains silent about what is really happening on Aruba and Curaçao.

Authors such as Noam Chomsky and Eva Golinger have pointed out in different articles that the so-called “war against drugs” has nothing to do with any battle against drug smuggling, but has been used for other causes such as fighting against guerrilla movements and the spying of other countries. Since the start of the “war against drugs” there has only been more smuggling and consumption of drugs.

The fact that the Netherlands are participating in this is quite normal, because the Dutch government has a tradition of supporting American imperialism. After Britain the Netherlands are the biggest ally of the U.S. in Western Europe. The cabinet of Prime Minister Balkenende gave political support to the invasion of Iraq that was based completely on lies. Now the Netherlands have troops in Afghanistan, officially to rebuild the country, but in practice to prop up the corrupt regime of Karzai.

The bases on Aruba and Curaçao

In 1999 the Netherlands and the U.S. signed an agreement for the establishment of Forward Operating Locations (FOLs). This meant that the American military could use air force bases on Aruba and Curaçao. While the bases were originally used for operations against drug smuggling and the Colombian guerrilla movement FARC, this changed with the election of George Bush. Venezuela was seen as a threat by then, because it was a beacon of hope for the poor and working people of Latin America. In 2002 there was a CIA-backed coup attempt against the democratically elected Hugo Chávez. Since then there have only been more intrigues against Venezuela.

In 2006 there was a big military exercise by the U.S., Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, France and Canada in the Caribbean, named Joint Caribbean Lion 2006. This exercise was clearly a provocation against Venezuela. After criticisms by the Venezuelan government the then-minister of defence Henk Kamp and some right-wing MPs decided to accuse Chávez of “wanting to conquer the Antilles”. This was based on false statements from the Venezuelan opposition, that stated Chávez claimed everything within 200 miles from the Venezuelan coast as Venezuelan territory, while in that speech Chávez clearly said “12”, and not “200” miles.

Now there is a new conflict. This has everything to do with the recent militarization of Colombia and its seven military bases that have been given to American troops. Venezuela is not talking nonsense as the media keep claiming. Colombia’s military spending now is 5% of its Gross Domestic Product. At the peak of her struggle against the FARC this was 2.5%.

Also the American Fourth Fleet has been stationed back in the Caribbean since 2008. This fleet was disbanded in 1950 after the end of WWII, but now it is back and close to the Venezuelan coast.

The Netherlands are now playing the role of junior partner of the U.S. in the Caribbean. Different spy planes have been detected above Venezuela. An American Boeing RC-135 has taken off at different times from Curaçao and has been detected over Venezuelan air space.

It is no coincidence this is all happening after president Obama asked the Netherlands to keep their troops in Afghanistan for a longer period. A majority of the Dutch people is in favour of a withdrawal of the troops. Prolonging the mission would mean a big loss of popularity for the Dutch government parties. That is why the Dutch government is now trying to find other ways to support American imperialism.

The Socialist Party (SP) is the only party that has asked questions to the government about the intrigues in the Caribbean, and those questions have not been answered. The SP is also the only party against the prolongation of the agreement with the US. This is a start. It has to be made clear that the support to the intrigues of the U.S. and Colombia against Venezuela has to stop!

No support for the intrigues of the U.S. and Colombia!

The right of self-determination for Aruba and the Antilles! There is no self-determination as long as there are American bases on the islands! There is no real self-determination possible without socialism.

Close the American bases on Aruba and Curaçao!

Vonk Netherlands and Hands off Venezuela
Wednesday, 13 January 2010

[1] The Netherlands have two overseas areas in the Caribbean, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. The Antilles consist of Bonaire, Curaçao, Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius and Saba. Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao (the so-called ABC-islands) lie between 15 and 50 miles off the Venezuelan coast.

US Military Aggression Against Venezuela Escalating by Eva Golinger

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:11:45 +0100

Caracas, 20 December – Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez revealed today on his Sunday television and radio program, Aló Presidente, that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), also known as drones, have illegally entered Venezuela’s airspace during the past several days. “A few days ago, one of these military planes penetrated Venezuela as far as Fort Mara,” a Venezuelan military fort in the State of Zulia, bordering Colombia. The drone was seen by several Venezuelan soldiers who immediately reported the aerial violation to their superiors. President Chávez gave the order today to shoot down any drones detected in Venezuelan territory. Chávez also directly implicated Washington in this latest threat against regional stability by confirming that the drones were of US origen.

On Thursday, President Chávez denounced military threats against Venezuela originating from the Dutch islands Aruba and Curazao, situated less than 50 miles off Venezuela’s northwest coast. Both small islands host US air force bases as a result of a 1999 contract between Washington and Holland establishing US Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in the Caribbean colonies. Originally, the contract stipulated US military presence in Aruba and Curazao soley for counternarcotics missions. However, since September 2001, Washington uses all its military installations to combat perceived terrorist threats around the world. The military bases in Aruba and Curazao have been used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaisance missions against Venezuela during the past several years.

In 2006, Washington began conducting a series of high level military exercises using Curazao as the principal zone of operations. Hundreds of US aircraft carriers, warships, combat planes, Black Hawk helicopters, nuclear submarines and thousands of US military troops have been engaging in different military exercises and missions in the Caribbean region during the past three and a half years, causing substantial alarm and concern to nations in the region, particularly Venezuela, which has also been subject to hostile and agressive diplomatic actions from Washington.

In 2008, the Pentagon reactivated the Navy’s Fourth Fleet, charged with defending US interests in the Latin American region. The Fourth Fleet was deactivated in 1950, after accomplishing its original defense mission during World War II. The fleet’s reactivation nearly 60 years later was perceived by a majority of nations in Latin America as a direct threat to regional sovereignty and provoked South American countries to establish a Defense Council to deal with external threats. The Pentagon responded by proudly admitting the Fourth Fleet’s reactivation was a “showing of US force and power in the region” and a demonstration that the US “will defend its regional allies”. This was perceived as direct support to Colombia, and an attempt to intimidate Venezuela.

On October 30, Colombia and the US signed a military cooperation agreement authorizing US occupation of seven military bases in Colombian territory and all other installations as required. The agreement is seen as the largest US military expansion in Latin American history. Although the two governments publicly justified the agreement as an increased effort to fight drug trafficking and terrorism, official US Air Force documents revealed that the US would conduct “full spectrum military operations” throughout South America from the Colombian bases. The Air Force documents also justified the disproportional military expansion as necessary to combat “the constant threat…from anti-US governments in the region”. The documents further revealed that the US presence in Colombia will increase the success of “Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaisance” operations and will improve the Pentagon’s capacity to conduct “expeditionary warfare” in Latin America.

Since 2006, Washington has classified Venezuela as a nation “not fully collaborating with the war against terror”. In 2005, Venezuela was labeled by the State Department as a nation “not cooperating with counter-narcotics operations”. Despite no substantive evidence to prove such dangerous accusations, the US has utilized these classifications to justify an increase in aggression towards the Venezuelan government. In 2008, the Bush Administration attempted to place Venezuela on the list of State Sponsors of terrorism. The initiative was unsuccessful primarily because Venezuela is still a principal supplier of oil to the US. Should Washington consider Venezuela a terrorist state, all relations would be cut off, including oil supply.

Nevertheless, Washington still views Venezuela as a major threat to US interests in the region. The US is particularly concerned about Latin American nations engaging in commercial relations with countries such as China, Russia and Iran, perceived as economic threats to US control and domination in the region. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a warning to countries in Latin America that have recently forged relations with Iran, such as Bolivia, Brazil, Nicaragua and Venezuela. “…I think that if people want to flirt with Iran, they should take a look at what the consequences might well be for them, and we hope that they will think twice…”, Clinton stated during remarks made regarding the State Department’s Latin American policy.

The Colombian government announced yesterday that a new military base will be built right near the border with Venezuela, with funding and equipment from the United States. Colombia’s Defense Minister Gabriel Silva also announced the activation of two air battalions at other border areas near Venezuela. The new military base, located in the Guajira peninsula, which borders the Venezuelan State of Zulia, would have up to 1,000 troops and would also allow the presence of US armed forces and private military contractors. This announcement clearly ups the anty against Venezuela.

Today’s statements made by President Chávez regarding the US military drones discovered violating Venezuelan territory just days ago further escalate the growing tensions between Venezuela and Colombia. The MQ-1 Predator UAV, a type of combat drone, has been used over the past year in Afghanistan and Pakistan to assassinate suspect terrorists. The drones are equipped with Hellfire missiles and are capable of hitting ground targets in sensitive areas.

Venezuela is on high alert in the face of this dangerous threat. Chávez made the statements regarding the drone detection during the launching of the new National Police Force, a recently created communal police force directed at preventive security operations and community-based service.

New Venezuelan Mission Aims to Lower Maternal and Infant Mortality Rates by Tamara Pearson

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:09:14 +0100

Mérida, December 23rd 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – On Wednesday, the Venezuelan government launched its latest social mission. Called Mission Baby Jesus, the program aims to provide better attention to women giving birth by improving hospital infrastructure, increasing the availability of medicine, providing health education for pregnant women and young children, and by building prenatal care houses.

The missions also aims to promote healthy nutrition for women at child bearing ages, and especially for pregnant women and newborn children. It aims to reduce maternal and infant mortality and encourage and increase breast feeding. It will also focus on the health of children under 5 years old including preventative health care and detecting any mental or physical health disabilities.

President Hugo Chavez said that before he was elected in 1998, the average rate of infant mortality as a percentage of total deaths of children under five was 26.72%, and that figure lowered to 16.7% in 2007. He said the aim now is to bring that figure below 10%.

To represent the launch of the mission, today the government inaugurated an intensive neonatal services room in the general hospital of Guatire, Miranda state, which has a capacity to care for 63 newborn babies.

Chavez, speaking over satellite television, told the crowd at the inauguration that from this pilot project they want to consolidate the mission “under the guidance of ALBA,” the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of our America. Cuba and Venezuela initiated the ALBA as an alternative to U.S.-dominated free trade deals in 2004, and the trade bloc now includes nine member nations.

“Cuba and Venezuela, we are the vanguard,” he said, recalling the range of benefits provided by other Cuban assisted health missions in Venezuela, including basic health care, free eye surgery, dentistry and special assistance for people with disabilities.

“We can’t permit that pregnant women giving birth are ignored or given bad treatment. A woman in this situation should be something sacred,” Chavez said.

The president approved funds of BsF 324 million (US $150 million) for the first stage of execution of the mission, which will last the first half of next year. The funds will be for infrastructure for hospitals in obstetrics, pediatrics, and neonatal care as well as to build special houses across the country for prenatal care.

Included in the allocation of funds is BsF 94 million (US $43.7 million) for renovating labour rooms, operating theatres, and neonatal intensive therapy units in sixty hospitals, 50 of which are in rural areas.

Also included are BsF 50 million (US $23 million) designated to medical, surgery, laboratory and radiology supplies, BsF 100 million (US $46 million) are assigned to “dignified salaries and social security,” and BsF 20 million (US $9 million) to children’s shelters.

Last Saturday Chavez also announced that the Barrio Adentro health mission has, since its formation in 2003, carried out 384,963,965 consultations, of which 174,338,231 were in the poor suburbs. Since January this year, 52,804,044 consultations were conducted, an average of two per person.

ALBA Declaration on Copenhagen Climate Summit by ALBA countries

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 14:00:42 +0100

The following is the statement issued by the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) on 18 December in response to the results of the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit

December 28th 2009, by ALBA countries

The following is the statement issued by the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) on 18 December in response to the results of the UN Copenhagen Climate Summit.

We, the countries that make up ALBA, denounce before the world the threat that the results of the United Nations Conference in Copenhagen pose for the destiny of humanity.

In the first place, the process of negotiations was corrupted by the violation of the essential principles of the multilateral system. This undemocratic process has not recognised the equality of all, was dishonest, not very transparent, and exclusive. It was designed to guarantee the positions of a small group of countries.

Our response to climate change must be in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. This process has lacked legitimacy; it has violated all the principles of multilateralism and the United Nations Charter, above all those of sovereign equality between all countries.

The main characteristic of this unfortunate failed meeting is that a very small group of countries, coordinated and convoked by Denmark, have been for the last few weeks writing an accord that they have unilaterally named “Interested parties”, excluding the large majority of the world, establishing first class and second class countries as criteria.

While the chair of the Summit sent countries to take up the groups again, in order to continue editing and cleaning up the texts that were approved by the particpants as a basis of negotiation, at the same time, the Danish prime minister convoked the presidents of a group of countries to edit a document behind our backs.

Further evidence of the exclusive nature of this event is the call of a group of Presidents behind closed doors, without participation of the majority and without explaining the criteria behind the selection.

It’s clear that we can’t consider the issue of climate change without considering changing the system. The model of capitalist production and consumption is bringing life on the planet to the point of no return and to a crucial moment in human history, and the debate in these situations can’t be reduced to the economic interests of a small group.

Until now very little has been achieved, however it is important to preserve the current climate agreements: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. They are important platforms for advancing the defence of life. Here we have an important world political accord, where all of us agree that climate change is a problem that has to be urgently addressed, and where the countries who are historically responsible for the problem have agreed to commit themselves to reducing emissions by amounts that allow the problem to be addressed.

The current scenario is seeing all this take a big step backwards, and requires us to forget the Kyoto Protocol. In this summit we haven’t managed to write accords that address the obligations of the developed countries: to establish aims of reducing emissions or to establish a second period of commitments for the Kyoto Protocol.

There are offers on the table, but none of them compare. The United States doesn’t want to commit itself on the basis of the efforts of other developed countries. The developed countries came to this meeting with a prior agenda, and they are violating every democratic proceeding in their attempt to impose it.

In the Bali Plan of Action, approved in 2007, it was agreed that the developed countries would have obligations of mitigation, to which they would add voluntary actions of mitigation of the developing countries.

Now, the developed countries have dedicated themselves to misunderstanding the Bali Plan over the last two years, in order to try to use this manifestation of our will to unite our efforts as a way of transferring their obligations to us. The efforts and will to mitigate of the developing countries can’t be used as a way to manipulate us and tell us, after they have destroyed the world, that now its our turn to mitigate so that they can continue contaminating and destroying on the basis of their patterns of exploitation, production, and consumption.

There is also the issue of principles here. We, the developing countries, are dignified and sovereign nations and victims of a problem that we didn’t cause. This moral principle, based on historic responsibility, is the reason why the developed countries should provide sufficient resources for the complete implementation of the principles of the Convention.

The environmental crisis as a result of the increased temperatures of the atmosphere is a consequence of the capitalist system, of the prolonged and unsustainable pattern of production and consumption of the developed countries, of the application and imposition of an absolutely predatory model of development on the rest of the world, and the lack of political will for the full and effective fulfilment of the commitments and obligations of the Kyoto Protocol.

Developed countries have over exploited the atmospheric space. This climatic debt in the widest framework of ecological debt includes an emission debt as much as it includes an adaptation debt that should be honoured by developed countries. It’s not about charity or a handout, but a judicially bound obligation.

Category 1 countries accumulated a total of $1,123 billion in military expenses in 2008. The United States spent $711 billion in 2008, according to the budget for the 2009 financial year, which includes $170 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. So the world knows that they have the capacity, but what they don’t have is the political desire to respond to their international commitments and obligations to struggle against climate change. They are trying to use and abuse the needs of the poorest in order to force illegal accords.

Today, through the carbon markets, those who cause climate change, continue contaminating, while the weight of emissions reductions transfers to the developing countries. They thought that in Copenhagen they could convince us to buy their right to contaminate, in exchange offering promises of paltry amounts of money.

1. We strongly denounce and we request that the documents generated by the chair of the summit without the mandate of the participants, be contested, and that we can state our position against the groups of friends of the chair openly. The chair has not guaranteed equality of participation at all levels, including the presidential level.

2. We reiterate our commitment to the struggle against climate change and to the principles of the Kyoto Protocol, now more valid than ever, whose content we consider capable of improvement with the decisions of the participants, and subsequent accords, but something that we shouldn’t allow to die. The complexity of the recent negotiations has shown us that the economic interests in conflict wont allow an accord if the developing countries won’t accept respect for the principles.

3. In this sense, we express our political desire to continue working in the framework of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. The relaunch of these negotiations should be based on respect, inclusion, transparency, and legitimacy.

4. We recall that while the conference failed in an irreversible way, the voices of the youth who know that the future is theirs, grows stronger. They strongly denounce the manoeuvres of the developed countries and they know that the struggle will continue. We join with them and their protests, and we salute and support them. The people must stay on their guard.

Today more than ever, before the lamentable manoeuvring that has been practiced in Copenhagen for petty economic interests, we reiterate that, “Don’t change the climate, change the system!”.

Translated by Tamara Pearson for Venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuela Says Colombia Planning Attack in Venezuelan Territory by James Suggett

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:57:32 +0100

The Colombian government, which recently announced that it will build a new military base near the Venezuelan border, is planning to simulate the existence of an encampment of Colombian guerrilla insurgents in Venezuela in order to justify an attack on Venezuelan territory, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced on Monday.

Mérida, December 29th 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com)

“We have evidence that the [Colombian] government, instructed and supported by the United States, is preparing a false positive [with which] to prepare the terrain to launch an attack on Venezuelan territory,” said Chavez on national television.

´False positive´ refers to a scandal in Colombia in 2008, where armed forces personnel killed civilians and falsely reported them as combat deaths in the country’s civil war with the guerrillas.

“It would not be strange if they were to kill who knows how many people in Colombia, bring them to Venezuelan territory... construct a few huts, an improvised camp... and say there is an encampment there,” Chavez explained, saying the purpose would be to destabilize the progressive political changes brought by his government.

Chavez said the fact that the Colombian civil war has spilled across the Venezuelan border is not an excuse to attack Venezuela. “Who could totally avoid that guerrilla forces enter and leave our territory here and there, in so much forest? Yes, they themselves have more than half of Colombia occupied by the guerrilla forces,” Chavez said.

Tensions between Colombia and its South American neighbors have increased since Colombia bombed a guerrilla camp in Ecuador in March 2008 and signed a deal to host an increased number of U.S. military personnel on seven of its bases last October.

Following the 2008 attacks, Colombia accused Venezuela of giving material support to Colombian insurgents. However, the evidence it presented, mainly in laptops allegedly recovered from the wreckage of the bombing in Ecuador, was never verified as authentic.

Venezuela accused Colombia of threatening the sovereignty of the continent and facilitating U.S. intervention, and severed diplomatic relations and significantly decreased its economic ties to Colombia.

Over the last several months, Venezuela has sent 15,000 troops to patrol the 2,000 kilometer-long border region and prepare to defend the national territory in the case of a potential attack.

New Colombian Base near Venezuelan Border

A week and a half ago, Colombian Defense Minister Gabriel Silva announced the construction of a new “joint base” to be shared by police and military forces near the northern border with Venezuela, and the activation of a new fleet of hundreds of Blackhawk helicopters supplied by the U.S.

This Tuesday, Colombian President Álvaro Uribe declared, “I de-authorize any mention that indicates a retaliatory intention, or the intention of international warfare. This government does not permit it.”

“The only objective we have is to defeat an internal terrorist problem,” said Uribe. “While I am president, the country may not have, cannot have a strategy or a discourse of international aggression.”

U.S. and Colombian officials have repeated this general assertion since news of their impending military pact became public last July. However, U.S. Air Force budgetary documents explicitly state the U.S.’s intention to use the Colombian bases for intelligence gathering and “full spectrum operations” across the entire continent.

2009 a “Tough” Year Says Venezuelan President Chavez by Kirak Janicke

Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:51:31 +0100

Caracas, December 31, 2009 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – After five years of economic growth fuelled by high oil prices, Venezuela’s economy entered into recession at the end of 2009 with a decline of 2.9 percent, according to a central bank report released Tuesday.

Despite the recession Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez
has vowed to maintain social spending.

“According to estimates by the Venezuelan Central Bank, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) experienced, in real terms, an inter-annual contraction of 2.9 percent in 2009,” the bank's end-of-year report said.

President Hugo Chavez during his end of year address, Wednesday (VTV)

Venezuela experienced 4.8 percent expansion in 2008, but moved into recession earlier this year as oil prices plunged.

Chavez characterised 2009 as the toughest struggle yet against capitalism's global systemic crisis, in his end of year address to the country on Wednesday.

The oil sector was hit hardest by the global economic downturn, with a contraction of 6.1 percent, while the non-oil sector shrank 1.9 percent from the previous year.

The average price for oil exports in 2009 fell 34 percent to $56.88 a barrel, down from the $86.49 average the previous year.

The country also held back the volume of oil shipments by 3.1 percent to comply with "cuts implemented by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, in a context of weak energy demand, as a result of the global economic crisis," the BCV report said.

Overall oil export revenues dropped 35.3% in 2009 to USD 57.61 billion, down from USD 89.1 the previous year, the bank said.

Export revenues from both the public and private non-oil sector declined 44.7 percent compared to the previous year, dropping to USD 3.32 billion, with the biggest decreases reflected in base metals production, chemicals and rubber products.

Total export revenues dropped from USD 95.13 billion in 2008, to USD 60.93 billion, a contraction of 35.9 percent.

Imports also declined by 22 percent, from USD 49.48 billion in 2008 to USD 38.5 billion in 2009.

Manufacturing dropped 7.2 percent, overall trade was down 8.2 percent, and transport declined by 8.5 percent.

According to the central bank the non-oil sector is suffering the impact of declining consumption and investment, "the uncertainty regarding the recovery of the global economy and the contraction of imports during the year, particularly in the third and fourth quarters."

Consumption registered a drop of 1.8 percent in 2009, while investment decreased by 7.6 percent.

However, the economy showed growth of 3.1% in the construction sector, communications also soared by10.1 percent, and electricity generation and water increased by 4.6 percent. Public spending increased 2.1 percent.

Accumulated inflation for the year, though still high at 23 percent, was down from 27.6 percent last year, while unemployment rose from 7.4 percent in 2008 to 8 percent.

Meanwhile, the BCV noted that Venezuela’s current-account surplus fell to $12.4 billion this year from 37.4 billion in 2008, and the combined current, capital and financial account registered a deficit of $11 billion (equivalent to 5.5 percent of GDP).

Venezuela has USD 35 billion in international reserves the report said.

Government intervention into eight small private banks over November and December to protect the savings of Venezuelans also brought stability to the system the BCV said.

Despite the economic contraction the BCV report said the government’s social policies would protect the living standards of Venezuelans and together with the national executive the bank would, “continue laying the groundwork for the transformation of economic and social model.”

The last time Venezuela experienced recession was in 2003, when the economy contracted 7.8 percent, due predominantly to an oil industry shutdown as part of a failed opposition campaign to oust the democratically elected Chavez.

However, since then government policies have reduced extreme poverty from 20.2 percent to 11.8 percent in 2008 the central bank noted.

During his address Chavez said the traditional method of measuring GDP data is based on distorted “capitalist” methodology that fails to take into account the government’s free social programs in areas such as health and education, among other factors.

Chavez also sustained that the economic problems Venezuela is experiencing are a symptom of the “failure of capitalism.”

“We must remember that what is in deep, structural and general crisis is the capitalist system that we are confronting…We have to explain with hard facts how the capitalist model and the logic of capital works… because we're still heading toward socialism, but we do not yet live in socialism,” he explained.

“The project offered by the Venezuelan opposition is neoliberal capitalism which they dream of reinstalling in the country and they have the support of the U.S. Empire, which we are confronting, and which is doing everything it can to contain the Bolivarian Revolution and the changes that are occurring in Latin America and the Caribbean,” the Venezuelan president continued.

In contrast, the economic policy of the government is based on preserving and protecting the interests of the Venezuelan population, safeguarding employment, wages and social needs and priorities such as food, health and security, he stressed.

Despite the ravages of the global economic crisis Venezuela maintained social spending in 2009 Chavez pointed out.

“We’re not going to touch social spending, for us that is sacred,” he said. In addition, Venezuelan public sector and minimum wage workers received a two phase wage increase of 20 percent over 2009.

“We achieved the recognition of the rights of workers in many collective agreements in the midst of a worldwide crisis, with low oil prices,” Chavez said.

Bolivia: massive victory for Evo, a vote for socialism (Jorge Martin)

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:15:55 +0100

Evo Morales and the Movement Towards Socialism party (MAS) got a resounding victory in the December 6th election in Bolivia. The crowds in the capital La Paz received Morales’ victory speech with shouts of “socialismo, socialismo”.

The official results show the extent of the victory: More than 64% (2.9 million) voted for Evo Morales on a 94% turn out. The MAS won in 6 Departments (La Paz, 80%; Oruro, 79%; Potosí, 78%; Cochabamba, 68%; Chuquisaca, 56%; and Tarija, 51%). In the working class stronghold of El Alto, the epicentre of the revolutionary movements in 2003 and 2005, 87% voted for Evo Morales. It is important to note that Tarija is part of the Media Luna (Eastern Crescent) provinces, where the reactionary opposition was able to mobilise mass support in the last few years. The right wing opposition, led by the hated former Cochabamba mayor Manfred Reyes, managed to win Santa Cruz (52% against the MAS 40%), and the sparsely populated Departments of Pando (51% to the MAS 44%) and Beni (53% against the MAS 37%).

Even in reactionary Santa Cruz, the MAS won 9 out of 15 provinces, and the opposition voting capital was surrounded by solid votes for the MAS in the working class areas outside of the city centre. The official campaign of the MAS here was very unpopular with MAS activists, as it was based on “appealing to the middle class” by watering down the message and even reaching alliances with former members of the reactionary UJC, which had organised the fascist gangs that participated in the attempted coup against Morales in September 2008. This policy was proven wrong as the vote for the MAS (which remained solid in the working class neighbours) actually went down in the capital city.

The vote for Morales is nearly double the number of votes he received in 2005 when he was first elected as president (with 53% and 1.5 million votes). At that time there were 3.6 million registered voted, but now the figure has expanded to 5.1 million. Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly from the urban and rural poor, who in the past did not even bother to register to vote, have been incorporated into the political struggle. This is the result of the cycle of struggle that has shaken Bolivia since the beginning of the century, of which the election of Evo Morales in 2005 was the electoral expression.

The hopes and aspirations of the masses of working people and peasants of Bolivia were expressed in this massive vote for Morales, whose campaign was based on the idea of getting a 2/3 majority in Parliament in order to move forward to socialism. Ramon Loayza, former head of the MAS group at the Constituent Assembly and left wing peasant leader, split from the MAS, criticising the government from the left. He hoped to gather the votes of those who think that Evo is not going fast enough in his programme of social transformation. But, by making an alliance with small business sectors in Santa Cruz, it was no longer clear whether his criticism was from the left or from the right. His vote was 0.33%. Clearly, the Bolivian masses consider the MAS as the political expression of their struggle for change.

Morales was very clear when he spoke to his supporters on election night. He said that the victory meant that: “we now have an enormous responsibility with Bolivia and with human kind, to deepen and accelerate the process of change in order to proclaim socialism.” One of his first moves was the beginning of the process to expropriate the landed estate of Branko Marinkovik, the wealthy landowner in Santa Cruz who was behind the attempted coup last year. However, others in the government and the MAS have already said that it is now time to conciliate with the opposition!

Evo Morales will be under intense pressure from the organised workers and peasants, who have ensured his increased victory, to deliver on all fundamental issues: land reform, jobs, nationalisation of natural resources, health care and education. That can only be done through the nationalisation of the main monopolies (national and foreign-owned), the banks and the expropriation of the land, so that the economy can be put under workers’ control to be planned in the benefit of the majority of Bolivians, rather than the 50 families, which have dominated the country for decades.

As seen in Honduras (and Bolivia itself) the oligarchy will not hesitate to resort to illegal, violent means to defend its economic and political domination. Any attempt to serve the people while leaving intact the power of the oligarchy is doomed to fail. If Evo Morales moves decisively to crush the oligarchy he will have the full support of the mass movement of workers and peasants, who represent the overwhelming majority of the population.

Mexico: Stop the attacks against CLEP-CEDEP

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:57:57 +0100

The economic crisis has driven to despair the Calderón administration, the state's finances are suffering like never before, reflected in further adjustments and cuts in public spending, especially in areas related to the needs of working families of the cities and countryside. These budget adjustments and cuts have resulted in strong concern among students, teachers and workers in state education, which perceive their work and education conditions are deteriorating day by day, making the ferment of discontent increasingly evident.

Particularly in the state universities there are levels of tension that place on the agenda the feasibility of large mass demonstrations rejecting the policies of Calderon and the university authorities, encouraging the latter to promote reactionary measures that attempt to prohibit at all costs this discontent from being transformed into an open struggle in defense of state education and labour rights. Now they want to put in place constant persecution and harassment against anyone who dares to speak out against attacks on education.

Recently, this same policy has been implemented, against young students of the IPN, UNAM and UAM. In the case of the Polytechnic, the federal government has not been the only one who has driven this policy, but also the education authorities.

In 2007 they were responsible for one of the most severe attacks that the student movement has suffered in this institution. Through a gangster-like operation, 10 students from this school were arrested with the sue of extreme violence; they were put on trial and finally 4 of them were found guilty despite the inconsistency and falsehood of the evidence in the case.

To this day the authorities of the IPN continue to attack young people who belong to the CLEP-CEDEP. By apocryphal letters, purportedly sent from various social organizations, they continue to slander, threaten the comrades, and police investigation were launched for crimes that were not even explained.

This is in addition to the campaign that has also been carried out against members of the CLEP-CEDEP at UNAM. Similarly,the comrades are harassed, they are followed home, with pictures being taken from suspicious cars parked outside their homes and, moreover, appeals have been made, over the Internet, to physically them when they are see in schools.

In both cases, the IPN and UNAM, are part of the process of class struggle that we are witnessing all over the country. The mass mobilization of students and workers in defence of the SME and LyF have left the government of Felipe Calderón shaking, and who, like a cornered dog, launches furious attacks.

It is known by the labour and student movement, that such methods are used by the government to intimidate social leaders to get them to desist from their struggle, but what they don't not realise is that it takes more than that to get a social fighter to abandon his or her conviction to fight for a better world for workers and their families.

Given that the education authorities and the federal government are still using these kinds of methods to attack social organizations, members of the CLEP-CEDEP have made it clear that more youth will join the fight and we will link up our movement more closely with the workers' movement. We will seek solidarity, wherever necessary, not only nationally but also internationally and we place full responsibility on the government of Felipe Calderón, his representative in the IPN, Enrique Villa Rivera and José Narro Robles Rector, if any attacks, whether verbal, physical or psychological, are carried out against members of the CLEP-CEDEP.

We call on the labour movement and student movement in Mexico and the world to defend, together with us, the demands listed below.

The youth and workers undersigned:

1. We condemn the repressive measures that the government of Felipe Calderón and his cronies in the schools, Jose Villa Rivera and Jose Narro Robles, have deployed against the student movement and members of the CLEP-CEDEP and the labour movement, unions and social organizations.

2. We sympathize with the struggles that youth, workers and, in general, the people of Mexico, are organising against the anti-labour and anti-popular policies that the right-wing government of Felipe Calderón is implementing.

3. We demand the immediate withdrawal of the Preliminary Investigations against Jay Claudia Aguilar and Luis Enrique Martinez Orihuela, as well as any charges, as they have done nothing but to defend the rights of students and workers.

4. We demand an end to harassment that Hector Aguilar Campos has been submitted in the last period.

5. We also demand unconditional respect for democratic and trade union rights of all workers in the IPN, which is why we call for an immediate halt to the campaign of persecution and harassment that has been launched by the authorities of this institution against workers Samuel Sotelo Crespo, Patricia Gongora.

6. We hold responsible the government of Felipe Calderón, Enrique Villa Rivera, Director General of IPN and Jose Narro Robles, rector of UNAM, for any attack against the colleagues mentioned above or any other member of CLEP-CEDEP.

7. We pledge to carry out a campaign of solidarity in our ranks and our unions to report on the case of these comrades and the resolution you may have.

Stop attacks on the youth of CLEP-CEDEP!
United and organized ... We will win!

Send this appeal using a form here.

Or send it per e-mail to:

Dr. José Narro Robles
narro@servidor.unam.mx

Dr. Enrique Villa Rivera
Director General of IPN
dirgral@ipn.mx
jvilla@ipn.mx

Lic Fernando Gomez Mont
Secretary of the Interior
secretario@segob.gob.mx

Donate to the CLEP-CEDEP Legal Defence Fund

Donate online

You can donate online via PayPal.

Or donate through our secure server via the Wellred website. Please enter the amount in British Pounds that you wish to donate and press "add to cart":

Donate by post

You can also make a donation by post. Send cheques (from Britain) or International Money Orders (from the rest of the world) to:

Socialist Appeal,
PO Box 50525,
London, E14 6WG

(Make cheques payable to "Socialist Appeal" and mark them on the back "for IMT")

In the US you can send payments made out to Wellred to:

Wellred
PO Box 4244
St. Paul, MN 55104

Thank you!

Alan Woods: �We must carry out a revolution within the revolution� (Ultimas Noticias)

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:39:18 +0100

Nov. 16 2009 – Alan Woods represents the hard line wing of the revolution. It is not a question of building new structures on the old base as the reformists ideologists propose. For Woods, the revolution requires a new base, a clean break with the old rule of the oligarchy. Regular visitor to Venezuela since Hugo Chávez came to power, Woods talked to Últimas Noticias about the current situation of the Bolivarian process.

How could you explain a revolutionary process which has not touched the financial sector, which is the backbone of capitalism?

This is the crucial problem.

Here we have started a revolution, a lot has been achieved, but we have no right to say that the revolution has been completed. I think it will not be completed until we carry out the expropriation, not of everything, but the expropriation of the land, the financial sector and the key industries.

There is a lot of talk about socialism, but if the economic power remains in the hands of the same national oligarchy, revolution is not possible. Hence the title of my book: Reformism or Revolution, Marxism and Socialism of the 21^st Century – a reply to Heinz Dieterich.

Are we in a reform or in a revolution?

We are in a revolution, but it has not been carried out to the final conclusion and this is dangerous, because the whole of history shows that it is impossible to carry out half a revolution.

What are the dangers we are facing?

A number of nationalisations have been carried out, but we have still not touched the centre of power: the financial sector. Therefore, on the one hand we do not have a socialist planned economy, but on the other hand we do not allow the capitalist system to work according to its normal laws, and this at the end of the day leads to chaos, the worst of both worlds. If investment is in private hands, then the bosses only invest for their own benefit. You cannot plan what you do not control. These decisions, so important for Venezuela, are not in the hands of the Venezuelans.

In whose hands are they?

In the hands of those who have controlled them always, a handful of rich who continue to control key and basic parts of the economy, and particularly the financial sector. Until this central problem is not solved, there will be a danger.

From this perspective, the banks should be nationalised …

Of course, this is point number one. Without nationalising the banks it is impossible to take the necessary decisions to control investment and the productive sector.

For 11 years, the Venezuelan people have shown enormous loyalty to president Chávez. They saved the revolution in 2002, during the coup and then during the recall referendum. But there is a limit to the patience of the people. When a peasant, a worker, sees how his basic problems are not solved, then we can witness a process of disillusionment, of tiredness, and I am afraid, there is something very worrying. The threat of counter-revolution has not gone away, it is still there. Up until now the masses have always voted for Chávez, but there are serious problems of a certain worsening of conditions, the reforms are being affected by the economic crisis, there are also problems of corruption, bureaucracy, careerism.

In these conditions, the danger is that the right wing will go on to a real offensive. This seems to me to be a more serious threat than Colombia.

The main danger I see is not external, but internal.

Don’t you think that at this point the government has become counter-revolutionary?

No. I wouldn’t say that, but it is a government that is not doing what it should be doing. There are vacillations, almost permanent indecision, confusion. There is also a serious problem of bureaucracy.

I think that president Chávez is a very courageous and sincere man, but one man alone cannot make a revolution.

Is Chávez alone?

Yes, I think so, below him there is a thick layer of bureaucracy which does not share his ideas. The bureaucracy is counter-revolutionary, it reflects the ideas of the bourgeoisie within the Bolivarian movement.

Without control by the rank and file, then the problem of the bureaucracy can never be solved.

Sacrifices yes, but there must be sacrifices for all.

Right now it would seem that it is only the people that makes sacrifices…

That’s true, you have mentioned the two first key problems of this revolution

This is the reason why we need to make a criticism, criticism is very necessary. I am not criticising the Bolivarian revolution, nor president Chávez, but these deformations of the revolution which do exist.

But do you not think that just as it is important to criticise, there must also be a readiness of the government to listen to these criticisms?

Some do listen, but there is a layer which is not interested in these criticisms at all …

Is president Chávez, amongst those who are not interested?

I think that president Chávez is aware of this. But, how can one man fight against this on his own (…) ? There must be a revolution within the revolution.

Source: Aporrea

Honduras: the farcical agreement is exposed � boycott the elections! (Jorge Martin)

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:36:35 +0100

(Jorge Martin, November 16th 2009) As we explained in a previous article, the Tegucigalpa/San José Accord signed on October 30 by representatives of the legitimate president of Honduras, Mel Zelaya, and those of the coup regime of Micheletti, was in reality a farce.

The text of the agreement was already quite bad (even though it was presented as a victory by Mel Zelaya and some of the leaders of the Resistance), but at least it contained one clause which talked of the reinstatement of president Zelaya, who had been removed by a military coup on June 28. However, in reality, the oligarchy had no intention of implementing that point and very soon started more trickery.

As we already warned, the text of the agreement left the question of Zelaya’s reinstatement to the National Congress which could also consult the Supreme Court of Justice. This was clearly a trap, since both Congress and the Supreme Court had given “legitimacy” to the coup in June. As a matter of fact the presidency of the Congress (which is not in session now because of the elections called for November 29) decided to consult the Supreme Court and other bodies, thus delaying the decision on Zelaya. Meanwhile, coup president Micheletti decided to get his government to resign… and then appoint the same people again to the National Unity and Reconciliation government which included no representatives from Zelaya. The farce was complete. To this date the Supreme Court has not yet responded to the report requested by Congress.

But none of this could have worked, or at least could not have had any shred of legitimacy, had it not been for the position of the US, which made it clear that regardless of the decision of Congress on the issue of Zelaya being reinstated, they would recognise the November 29 elections.

Demonstration on November 5, 2009.In a very interesting article written by Tomás Andino, one of the leading figures of the Resistance and member of parliament for the left-wing Democratic Unification party (UD), he put it clearly: “The Tegucigalpa agreement, far from being a 'victory', means the surrender of President Zelaya. The agreement has been written on the terms of the empire. It is a pity that Mel swallowed the hook, and authorised the signature of the agreement… The question is that even though he has signed, the empire has made it clear that they will accept 'any decision taken by the Honduran Congress', which means that it is likely that they will not accept the reinstatement before the electoral farce of November 29, to prevent damaging it.”

Boycott the elections

Faced with this situation, the National Resistance Front has decided to boycott the elections on November 29. Trade union candidate Carlos H. Reyes, after consulting the rank and file of his organisation, decided to make a clear statement withdrawing from the elections and calling for boycott. A number of candidates from other parties (Liberal, PINU and others) have also decided to withdraw from the elections.

The situation with the left-wing Unificación Democrática, however, is a bit more complicated. The leadership of the party is divided in two wings. One, the official wing, led by Cesar Ham, has an openly opportunistic stance, arguing that they have to stay in the electoral process in order to keep their electoral registration. There is also the issue of the 4 million lempiras in state political funding that they would lose if they were to boycott the election. This is clearly a position of betrayal of the resistance movement. Members and activists of UD have participated actively in the resistance movement and at least 6 of their members have been killed for their part in the movement. The Cesar Ham wing of UD are clearly treacherous opportunists, more worried about their jobs and money than about the principles they claim to stand for.

Demonstration on November 5, 2009.There is another wing of UD, led by Renan Valdez and Tomás Andino, amongst others, who call themselves the Genuine Leadership of UD, which has come out clearly against the elections and for boycott. They have made an appeal to the rank and file of UD to prevent the party from supporting the electoral farce. They argue, correctly, that: “to participate in the fraudulent elections would contribute to give legitimacy to the coup regime and will create more difficult conditions for the defeat of the new government, which would mean that UD would become its accomplice”.

We could say that the negotiations and the so-called agreement have played the role they were intended to: create confusion in the resistance movement and give some degree of “legitimacy” to the elections called by the coup regime. Washington has already said that they will recognise the result of the elections as legitimate. That wing of the US state apparatus that was always supportive of the coup has won, against those who, even though they shared the aims of the coup, did not necessarily agree with the methods used.

Now at least the situation has become clear to the mass movement: the only way to defeat the coup is through mass mobilisations, not through negotiations. As Tomás Andino puts it correctly: “The only thing that can save the situation is for the Peoples’ Resistance to break the ice, first of all refusing to recognise the Tegucigalpa Agreement and mobilising to prevent the electoral farce of the oligarchy on November 29… In this way we would prevent the agreement from fulfilling one of its main aims which is to legitimise the coup through elections, and only in this way we would have conditions for a defeat of the coup regime in the medium term and achieve the aim of our struggle: the Constituent Assembly.”

This is a very similar perspective to what we put forward on October 28: “In order to move forward and continue the struggle it needs to start by clearly rejecting negotiations with the regime and then move to organise a serious campaign against the November 29 elections. The elections should be boycotted across the board because they are called by an illegitimate regime in conditions of brutal repression. This boycott should be organised through a massive campaign of political explanation in the neighbourhoods, building up to mass demonstrations and a meticulously-prepared general strike.” (see Honduras: repression and negotiation defuse the resistance movement)

As we said then: “The courageous movement of the Honduran masses over the last four months has not been in vain. It has created powerful organisational structures and links between the active layer and the masses. The mass movement has had a taste of its own power and strength. Above all, the level of consciousness has experienced a giant leap. None of this will be wasted, no matter what happens in the next few weeks. None of the fundamental problems facing the Honduran masses have been resolved, and they cannot be resolved within the limits of capitalism, so there is no alternative but to continue the struggle. It is necessary to group the most advanced activists of the movement into an organisation based on the ideas of Marxism. Within the movement of the Honduran workers, the Marxists will fight to give the marvellous energy of the revolutionary struggle of the masses a far-sighted and decisive leadership that can take it to victory.”

Honduras: resistance against the coup grows and calls for boycott of elections (Jorge Martin)

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:00:23 +0100

Eighty days since the coup in Honduras there are no signs of the resistance being weakened. On the contrary it is growing and becoming more militant. The conditions exist for the coup regime to be overthrown, but this requires decisive action in the form of a total, all-out general strike.

Tuesday, September 15 is the anniversary of the proclamation of independence of Central America which this year will also mark 80 days since the coup which ousted democratically elected president Zelaya and replaced him with right-wing Roberto Micheletti, the man of the oligarchy.

Demonstration on July 10For the last 80 days we have witnessed the most impressive resistance movement, which has not been cowed by repression, harassment, media manipulation, killing of prominent activists by death squads... Eighty days after the coup, the resistance movement remains strong, its confidence is growing, its organisation is being strengthened and the consciousness of the masses of workers, peasants and the youth has experienced a qualitative leap.

It has been this impressive movement of the Honduran working people, and particularly its resilience, which has kept the issue of the coup under the spotlight and forced countries around the world to intensify diplomatic pressure on the coup leaders.

In the last few days, most countries in Latin America and even the United States itself have declared that they will not recognise the results of the elections that the Micheletti regime has called for November in an attempt to legitimise its rule.

Last week, elected president Zelaya went to the United States and met with Hillary Clinton. Since the coup, the position of Washington has been ambiguous, to say the least. While the US were delighted in seeing the removal of Zelaya, the fact that this was the result of a military coup in which the president was put on a plane by armed soldiers and taken to Costa Rica (with a stopover in the air base of La Palmerola, where a US base is located) was an embarrassment for Obama’s foreign policy towards Latin America. Obama would like to see the restoration of constitutional order in Honduras, but under conditions which would see Zelaya neutralised and the oligarchy back in charge. This was the meaning of the San José talks brokered by Costa Rican president Oscar Arias. According to the terms of this “accord” Zelaya would be able to come back to the country, but would be tied hand and foot and gagged by a coalition government, a blanket amnesty for the coup plotters and a commitment not to raise the issue of a Constituent Assembly.

Washington has not taken any serious measure to cut off aid to Honduras and most importantly has not rescinded preferential trade agreements on which a large part of the Honduran economy is dependent. After all, even if Obama and Clinton are not pleased by the methods used by the oligarchy to remove Zelaya, they agree with the result and those who carried out the coup are their own people. Furthermore, there are powerful forces in the United States, in the Republican right, within the Democratic Party and the state apparatus, which openly support the coup in Honduras, and which have very close ties with the Honduran oligarchy. During the 1980s Honduras served as a base for US operations against the Nicaraguan revolution. John Negroponte, Roger Noriega and others who then played a key role in Bush’s Latin American policy, were heavily involved at the time, organising and funding the contra gangs of murderous cut-throat mercenaries. Old favours are not easily forgotten and common class interests stand above disagreements on method.

Honduras resist, design by Resistencia Morazán BlogJust to underline this point, Honduras was invited by the US Southern Command to participate in the Panamax 2009 military manoeuvres starting off the coast of Panama on September 11. When news of this was reported by the media, a SouthCom press release clarified that “Honduras withdrew from the exercise Aug. 10.” This would confirm that the invitation for Honduras to participate was maintained up to 7 weeks after the coup, and that only then the Honduran army withdrew ‑ as opposed to being kicked out!

What did Zelaya get out of the meeting with Clinton? Well, the US Department of State issued an official statement announcing the termination of a “broad range of assistance” to Honduras and the fact that “at this moment”, it “would not be able to support the outcome of the scheduled elections”. Regarding aid to the Micheletti regime, we have already explained that despite a similar announcement on July 7^th, money from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (headed by Hillary Clinton) had continued to be transferred to the Honduran regime. If this new statement means that the July 7^th announcement regarding the “suspension of aid programmes” to Honduras is now, finally, going to be implemented, that will amount to only a very small pressure on the regime. As part of this “friendly pressure”, Washington has also revoked the visas of a number of prominent figures in the coup, including Micheletti.

The part of the statement which talks about not supporting the illegitimate elections has to be read carefully. The measures announced regarding Honduras, which are certainly not “strong” as the communiqué says, are taken “in light of the continued resistance to the adoption of the San Jose Accord by the de facto regime”, that is, if the coup leaders agree to an accord which as we have already pointed out, would achieve the same results as the coup but by nicer constitutional means.

More important, from the point of view of the finances of the regime, which is not going to be particularly bothered by the cutting off of small amounts of aid (US$18 million), is the position of the IMF. On September 1, the IMF announced that Honduras had been allocated $163 million in Special Drawing Rights. This lead to an uproar of criticism of the IMF, which was then forced to do a partial retreat. “The present regime in de facto control is not able to use these SDRs until a decision is made on whether the fund will deal with that regime as the government of Honduras,” IMF spokesman David Hawley said at a news conference on September 10. If these funds were to be frozen ‑ something that remains to be seen ‑ then it would amount to considerable pressure on Micheletti.

However, the key point in the US State Department’s announcement was the fact that it still refused to regard what happened in Honduras on June 28 as a military coup. The choice of words was both careful and important: “The Department of State recognizes the complicated nature of the actions which led to June 28 coup d’etat in which Honduras’ democratically elected leader, President Zelaya, was removed from office. These events involve complex factual and legal questions and the participation of both the legislative and judicial branches of government as well as the military.” If the US were to declare the coup as a military coup then it would be forced by law to cut off any relations with the Honduran regime and possibly to cut off preferential trade relations with the country. Given the structure of the Honduran economy (heavily dependant on the exports of the maquiladoras to the US and on the remittances of the Hondurans in the US to their families), this would be a deadly blow for the regime, which would collapse within 48 hours. This is precisely the reason why this will not happen. It is one thing to put some pressure on your friends; it is a completely different matter to support your enemies!

The Resistance becomes stronger and more organised

It is really remarkable that after nearly 80 days, the resistance has continued without showing any signs of tiredness or demoralisation. Not only this, but the movement, led and coordinated by the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup, has become stronger, better organised and has undergone a qualitative leap in its political consciousness.

It is important to underline the fact that the Front sees itself as struggling not only for the restoration and return of the democratically elected president Zelaya, but also and above all, for the calling of a Constituent Assembly, which they see as a way of fundamentally changing the political system of the country. Also, the question of socialism, which was completely absent from the discussions before the coup, has now penetrated popular consciousness. Honduras has caught up with the Latin American revolution with a giant leap. An indication of this is the speech at one of the massive demonstrations by Oscar Montecinos, a 10 year old boy who has become one of the symbols of the resistance, which he finished by shouting “paso firme, rumbo al socialismo!” - “forward steadily, towards socialism”.

There are weekly mass demonstrations with tens of thousands of participants, despite the heavy handed police and military presence. The marches go through different neighbourhoods in the main cities where the local population come out in support, shouting slogans, encouraging the marchers, giving them food and water. This is a genuine mass movement with deep roots amongst the workers, the peasants, the youth and the poor. For three weeks the teachers were on strike and when they could no longer maintain the struggle at that level they agreed to work Monday to Wednesday and then strike every Thursday and Friday, which is when the more massive marches take place.

The organised working class has played a key role in the resistance and particularly in the leadership of the Front. On September 8 there was a national meeting of trade union delegates involving the three main trade union confederations which agreed to call for an all out general strike. Already unions like those of the water, the electricity and the telecommunications companies, all of them in the public sector, announced their participation. As we pointed out before, the only effective way of paralysing the regime is by moving towards a full general strike.

"Nobody can be above the law", I repeat of my "law"On September 6 a very important First National Delegate Assembly of the Resistance Front was held in the capital Tegucigalpa, with hundreds of delegates from all over the country. One of the agreements reached by the meeting was to strengthen the structures of the resistance throughout the country. Israel Salinas, general secretary of the United Confederation of Honduran Workers (CUTH), said that they needed to establish “representatives at a national, regional, departmental, and municipal level as well as in every neighbourhood and county, with the aim of strengthening the movement and organising more people in order to face the challenges that are before us.”

This is a very important step forward and is the correct way of organising, through mass meetings in every neighbourhood, town, village, school, university and workplace, and at the same time electing accountable delegates at all levels. The unity of the movement can only be achieved through a democratic structure. But these local, neighbourhood committees of the Resistance Front must also take up the struggle for concrete problems facing the people where they live and where they work, so that the general struggle against the Micheletti regime becomes inseparably linked with the struggle for jobs, housing, education, health care, land, etc.

Another of the decisions of the Delegate Assembly of the Front was to “actively boycott the electoral farce called by the coup plotters”. This is also correct. Participating in elections called by the Micheletti regime would be akin to recognising its legitimacy. We are convinced that the movement of the masses is strong enough to not only boycott the elections but also to overthrow the regime, if the correct tactics are employed. Already, the demonstrators have started to tear down election propaganda during the course of the regular marches and particularly Liberal Party candidates (the party of Mel Zelaya) have been confronted by angry crowds throwing eggs at them in several parts of the country. The boycott of the elections cannot be a passive act of the people staying at home; it has to be an active movement, as the Assembly of the Front agreed.

Candidates and electoral propaganda should not be allowed into working class neighbourhoods or peasant communities. They should be actively confronted. The whole election campaign should be made unworkable by the mass movement of the people, including a general strike. If eventually the regime should manage to get to Election Day (November 29), then all polling stations should be surrounded by mass pickets, and government workers in the different departments should strike and refuse to collaborate with the carrying out of the elections.

However, the decision of the Delegate Assembly of the Front to boycott the elections has opened up a discussion within the ranks of the resistance. Some are talking of the possibility of using the election ticket of the left-wing Unificación Democrática (UD) to stand in the parliamentary and council elections. Others are saying the Carlos H. Reyes, the independent candidate and trade union leader of the militant STIBYS, should stand for president. This is extremely dangerous as it could divide the resistance and make any tactic of boycott less effective. Obviously the question of boycott or participation is a tactical one. We are clearly in favour of boycott and we think that it is possible to overthrow the regime if the correct tactics are used (a general strike leading to a mass insurrection). However, the decision must be taken in a democratic manner by a democratically convened body (as was the case of the National Delegate Assembly of the Front), and should then be respected by all those who are participating in the resistance. Splitting the movement on a question like this would be highly irresponsible and would amount to an act of betrayal.

In their desperation, the oligarchy is increasingly resorting to paramilitary means of repression. Already a number of prominent activists have been killed using death squad methods. Now, the Colombian paper El Tiempo has reported on the recruitment of “demobilised” Colombian paramilitaries to be sent to Honduras, hired by landowners and ranchers, to defend their properties against the growing and more confident movement of the peasants (See: Estarían reclutando ex paramilitares para que viajen como mercenarios a Honduras). The paper provides proof of one such recruitment meeting in which Colombian ex-paramilitaries were offered $750 plus food and lodging in order to go to Honduras to defend the properties of the capitalists and oligarchs. According to this report, some have already travelled to Honduras.

Demonstration in Choluteca, which was attacked by armed menThis confirms another report that has come out of Honduras, about 100 armed men led by the local mayor Quintin Soriano, who attacked a peaceful demonstration in Choluteca. A rally by hundreds of peasants, called by the Resistance Front in this city of 100,000 inhabitants in the south of the country, had gathered outside the offices of the Association of Ranch Owners, and was attacked by a group of 100 men armed with machetes and fire arms, leaving 20 injured.

After 80 days of struggle there is no doubt that the workers, peasants and youth of Honduras are capable of overthrowing the coup and starting the process of transforming society. However, they need to be armed with a correct strategy and correct politics in order to succeed. The Resistance Front has taken many steps in the right direction. It is crucial to strengthen its structures at all levels, based on mass assemblies and elected delegates. The orientation to the working class should be emphasised, a general strike can paralyse the country’s economy and overthrow the regime. Part of the task of the committees of the Front should be to organise their own self-defence and the self-defence of the demonstrations, which are regularly coming under attack by police, military and paramilitary forces. Only a general strike combined with a mass insurrection can defeat the coup. The masses should only trust in their own forces not in any number of diplomatic combinations that are only designed to fool the revolutionary people.

Venezuela: Victory for the Mitsubishi workers! (Hermann Albrecht - CMR Venezuela)

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:30:25 +0100

Thursday, 10 September 2009. On Monday the SINGETRAM workers informed us that the bosses at Mitsubishi had backed off and withdrawn their plans to close the plant. This is an important victory that demonstrates that militancy, firmness on the part of the workers’ leaders and genuine worker participation and democracy are what are required to win.

In the afternoon of Monday, 7 September, we received a notice from comrades in SINGETRAM about the withdrawal of the closure on the part of MMC Automotriz management and the relaunching of activities as from 21 September. This victory of the Mitsubishi workers was possible on the basis of the mobilisation, the firmness in defence of the workers and their jobs, and the genuine trade union democracy when discussing the action against the bosses’ lockout and the joint participation of the workers, peasants, students and communities in the establishment of a Socialist Commune which the Socialist Industrial Park launched in the Los Montones industrial zone in Barcelona, bringing together the rank and file of the PSUV against the latest aggression of the Japonese multinational.

The bosses’ lock out

This past 24 August, the company finalised the suspension of operations at the MMC Automotriz plant, located in the Los Montones Industrial Zone in Barcelona, Anzoátegui, paralyzing the assembly line unilaterally in a new attempt to finish off the SINGETRAM trade union. In the best style of the bosses’ strike of December 2002, the management of the automotive assembly plant decided to close the plant, threatening not to resume production, the possibility of abandoning production in the country – all of this based on the supposed anarchy at the company and low productivity of the workers at the plant. The press release published on the same day by AFP stated that “the company, whose assembly plant is located in Barcelona, in eastern Venezuela, has put an end to production due to ‘the extremely low performance’ of its operations in addition to ‘the high level of absenteeism, lack of discipline, aggression and anarchy amongst a group of workers’. As always, the exploiter is trying to place the blame on the oppressed, on the victims of capitalist exploitation, which is what we the workers are.

People’s AssemblyClearly, the consistent struggle that the SINGETRAM comrades have advanced for dignified working conditions, for health and safety at work, as well as in defence of jobs and the struggle against outsourcing are the real reasons for the closure. This is about the bosses’ need to break militant and combative trade unionism in order to increase the exploitation of the workers and increase surplus value. This is not only clear for the management of MMC Automotriz but for the Venezuelan bourgeois in general. It is no coincidence that the day after the unilateral closure of assembly plant had been made public, Noel Àlvarez, president of FEDECÁMARAS, declared at a press conference his support for the closure, attacking the union by stating that “what is happening with the assembly plant… reflects a deepening of labour disputes, which has occurred repeatedly at other companies, when a group of trade unionists, instead of defending their interests, start acting politically”, adding “be warned that this will not only affect the economy in the state of Azoátegui, but will also mean that many workers will be unemployed”. In a fit of cynicism, Álvarez even went so far as to say that the bosses are “committed” to trying to improve relations. This, when since 1998 we have witnessed the period of the greatest capital strike in the country and especially in recent years with the strengthening of the campaign of sabotage on the part of the bourgeois of the national economy, now compounded by the current capitalist crisis that has hit the country.

“The increase in unionisation is approximately 300%, most of which have a partisan character, which causes union parallelism and the paralysis of activities, which deeply impacts the country’s productive chain”, stated Álvarez. The central problem for the bourgeoisie, as we have explained various times, is that a product of the revolutionary process is a renewed rise in the consciousness and militancy of the working class, which has also swept away the old union bureaucracy in many cases, who had been submissive to the wishes of the bosses and complacent faced with the cuts to the rights of the workers. According to the bourgeois newspaper, El Nacional, “the union problems have been marked by the penetration of political ideologies that have nothing to do with contractual demands and impact businesses, employees and consumers”. It is precisely this rise in class consciousness and the elements of workers’ democracy that have been generated in many of these new unions that have emerged from the rank and file that these people really fear. It is precisely this questioning of the relations of production that is needed to understand that real power lies in the hands of the workers and that we do not need bosses to produce, because we are the ones who generate wealth. This is the way forward that President Chávez is proposing and which the workers at MMC Automotriz are following.

The labour inspectorate opposed to the closure

The Ministry of Labour immediately declared the actions of the management as an unjustified unilateral closure by the bosses and demanded the immediate opening of the plant and the relaunching of productive activity, all of this while SINGETRAM comrades had demonstrated the false nature of the statement of objections presented by the company. Likewise, the inspectorate, by means of an administrative decision adopted on the same Monday, obligated MMC Automotriz to pay the wages and benefits of the workers, given that the suspension had resulted from the unilateral action of the boss, according to statements in the media. However, management refused the reopening, indicating in a statement that supposedly “the conditions of safety necessary for operations are not present, thus the stopping of activity is justified.” In line with its initial argument for the closing of the plant, the statement rejecting the order to reopen indicated that “leaflets and posters with threats against the lives of various workers who have filed complaints with the Public Ministry, demonstrate that an atmosphere of aggression and violence prevails at the installations of the company with absolute impunity”. However, we remember that it was the management at MMC Automotriz themselves who were involved in bloody repression with the murder of comrades Pedro Suárez and Javier Marcano, as well as several bullet wounds to others when using a Anzoátegui first response police team (riot police) they tried to retake control over the plant with blood and fire this past 29 January.

In terms of the accusations of MMC Automotriz management, comrade Félix Martínez, general secretary of SINGETRAM, had already explained that while an agreement had been reached on 21 March with the company to produce 60 vehicles per day, “this was conditional on MMC fulfilling the payment of benefits. Instead, workers were harassed, causing violence. We want to stress that what is happening inside the company is the sole responsibility of management, which is incapable of responding.” He even explained the serious humanitarian situation which was caused by management when they suspended “rehabilitation treatment for 125 workers with occupational illnesses”, comrades who have risked their health producing wealth under conditions of super-exploitation for these parasites, who now want to throw these workers out like junk.

Success of the Popular Assembly for the formation of the Socialist Commune

This conflict has again demonstrated the leading role that the working class can and must play in the revolution and the importance of workers’ democracy in union organisations as well as how these can unite and promote the creation of organs of revolutionary struggle which unite not only the workers in one particular company, but also concretise the unity of the class through concrete struggle and come closer to the other oppressed sectors. Already since 25 August, when the MMC Automotriz workers met with representatives from the Ministry of Labour in Anzoátegui to start the legal procedures in order to counteract the claims of the bosses SINGETRAM announced that the way to struggle against the claims for closing the plant would pass through the united action of the workers in the Los Montones industrial zone in Barcelona together with the Communal Councils in the surrounding areas, as well as the participation of peasants and students.

People’s AssemblyThus, on 28 August a large People’s Assembly was held in the Los Montones Industrial Zone in which various unions in the zone participated, as well as surrounding communal councils, explaining the situation of the bosses’ lock out and proposing the idea of creating a Socialist Commune in the zone such as the President of the Republic had proposed which, from the rank and file and in an organised manner should concretely respond to the problems facing the workers in the area as well as in surrounding communities. Preparations were made to establish a large assembly held on 5 September in order to form a team for the promotion of the Socialist Commune, bringing together many unions in the area as well as Communal Councils, peasants and students.

More than 750 participated on Saturday in a further People’s assembly with the participation of representatives of most of the unions active in the industrial area, communal councils from Barcelona and even some from Puerto la Cruz, comrades from the National Peasants Front Ezequiel Zamora, and students from the UNESR and the UDO universities. The mood was one of enthusiasm and militancy. The discussion covered not only the problems of the workers in the industrial area, particularly those of MMC, but also the struggle of factories like Vivex, which has been occupied for more than 8 months. Amongst those attending, 50 people committed themselves as part of the Committee to Promote the Socialist Commune of the Los Montones Industrial Park, with the aim of starting to solve the problems of the area.

Workers' and peoples' victory: lock out defeated

Yesterday in the afternoon, the Singetram comrades informed us that the bosses had abandoned the lock out and that a date had been agreed for September 21 for the reopening of the plant. According to the note published today in the bourgeois paper El Tiempo: "The assembly plant announced the resumption of operations for September 21, pointing out that a number of legal decisions open the way to the restoration of the safety conditions needed to operate". The El Tiempo article further points out that, "without offering any details of the agreement reached between the company and the workers, management points out, in a statement, that it will continue its plans to improve health and safety, and that it hopes that a legal resolution preventing the circulation of propaganda inciting violence within the installations of the plant will be complied with".

The truth is that the bosses have had to abandon their plans as a result of the mobilisation of the workers, not only of the Mitsubishi workers but from all over the industrial area, linking up with the PSUV, the Workers’ Socialist Front, and also because of the unity of action which was achieved in two peoples' assemblies with the participation of representatives of students, the peasants’ movement and the local communal councils. The task is now to continue the organisation of the revolutionary rank and file, to develop the Workers’ Platoons of the PSUV, so that the workers and the communities are ready to face new attacks on the part of the MMC multinational and also to promote the setting up of the Socialist Commune of the Los Montones industrial park, to solve the problems of this area which has been abandoned by the capitalists and the state bureaucracy.

Throwing Bullets at Failed Policies: US Plans For New Bases in Colombia (Upside Down World)

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:06:53 +0100

Thursday, 10 September 2009. Written by Benjamin Dangl. It was a winter day in the Argentine city of Bariloche when 12 South American presidents gathered there on August 28. It was so cold that Hugo Chavez wore a red scarf and Evo Morales put on a sweater. The presidents arrived at the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) meeting to discuss a US plan to establish seven new military bases in Colombia. Though officials in Colombia and the US say the bases would be aimed at combating terrorism and the drug trade, US military and air force documents point to other objectives.

Earlier his year, when Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa decided to not renew the US lease on the military base in Manta, Ecuador, the US set its sights on Colombia, a long-time US ally and one of the biggest recipients of US military aid in the world. Under the agreement the US eventually developed with Colombia, the US would have access to seven military bases for 10 years, stationing up to 1,400 US personnel and private contractors.

One US military document cited by the AP explains that the Palenquero base in Colombia – which the US plans transform with a $46 million upgrade – would be a stopping off point for the US military and air force so that "nearly half the continent can be covered by a C-17 (military transport) without refueling."

Uruguayan analyst Raul Zibechi writes in an article for the Americas Program that the US is shifting away from large, immobile bases to more a more flexible model involving smaller bases. He cites the U.S. Air Force's April 2009 report entitled "Global en Route Strategy" which "refers to the ability to utilize these installations above all for air transport, making it possible to have control from a distance and act as a dissuasive force, leaving direct intervention only for exceptionally critical situations." The cooperation of local governments is a key aspect of this plan. Zibechi writes, "This ongoing cooperation is much more important than direct military presence, as current military technology allows troops to concentrate in any given area within a matter of hours."

Considering the regional implications of the expanded US presence, the presidents at the Bariloche meeting agreed that UNASUR countries will "abstain from resorting to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity" of other South American countries, and planned to investigate the military bases agreement further.

Yet what many of the region’s presidents already know is that increased US militarization is unlikely to curb violence in Colombia because the biggest perpetrators of violence in the country are already allies of the US, largely through the multi-billion dollar Plan Colombia.

"The largest number of killings of civilians each year in Colombia is not committed by the guerrillas," Latin American political analyst John Lindsay Poland writes in the Americas Program. "A large majority of Colombia's 4.7 million internally displaced people were forced from their homes by paramilitary violence, with more than 11 million acres of land violently stolen. The increased U.S. military presence won't contribute anything to returning those lands to their rightful owners, nor to holding the Colombian Army accountable for more than 1,700 civilian killings committed since 2002."

US soldiers in Colombia also reportedly committed 37 acts of sexual abuse from 2006 to 2007. Poland writes, "A U.S. soldier and contractor reportedly raped a 12-year-old Colombian girl inside the Tolemaida military base in 2006, dumping her outside the gates in the morning." The two rapists remain free and are back in the US without facing charges.

An increased US military presence in a failed war on drugs is also unlikely to curtail narco-trafficking, as pointed out by President Morales at the meeting in Bariloche. Morales spoke of his experiences as a coca grower and union leader facing the brunt of US militarization. "I witness this," he said, when describing repression. "So now we're narcoterrorists. When they couldn't call us communists anymore, they called us subversives, and then traffickers, and since the September 11 attacks, terrorists," Morales said. "The history of Latin America repeats itself."

Many analysts see the plans for these bases as an indication that Washington is not interested in changing its disastrous policies in the war on drugs. "This agreement is made within a framework of anti-drug policy that is overwhelmingly seen as a failure," Michael Shifter of The Inter-American Dialogue told NPR. "Is there a better way to fight drugs without just continuing the same policy that hasn't produced very much for decades?"

Morales said the root of the drug problem lies in the US, not in South America. "If UNASUR sent troops to the United States to control consumption, would they accept it? Impossible!"

***

Benjamin Dangl is the author of the forthcoming book, Dancing with Dynamite: Social Movements and States in Latin America, (AK Press, 2010). He edits TowardFreedom.com, a progressive perspective on world events and UpsideDownWorld.org, a website on activism and politics in Latin America. Email Bendangl(at)gmail(dot)com

Honduras � Seven weeks of unabated resistance despite brutal repression of the coup regime ...

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 19:38:29 +0100

Seven weeks after the coup against Honduran president Mel Zelaya, the national resistance continues to mobilise tens of thousands of workers, youth and peasants in a movement that repression has not been able to smash. Meanwhile diplomatic manoeuvres of all kinds are continuing in attempt to find a “negotiated solution” which saves the coup from being overthrown by a popular insurrection.

US's role in the coup

One of the marches in August. Photo by libertaddeexpresi... on Picasa.The role played by the United States in the coup has been the subject of a heated debate. It is clear that when Obama arrived at the White House he wanted to adopt a different approach to Latin America than Bush's. The policy of Bush of waving the stick, that is the belligerent harassment of the growing revolutionary movement in the continent, including the organisation and support for attempted coups in Venezuela and Bolivia, and in general the direct destabilisation of governments considered to be “dangerous”, had not given good results and furthermore had put the US on the defensive and isolated its position in the continent.

From Obama's point of view, it was time to use the carrot. The aims of US imperialism remain the same, the domination of the continent as a source of raw materials, a market for its products and an area of geo-strategic interest. That has not changed. However, Obama wanted to pursue the same aims with different methods. Thus we saw how at the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad in April, Obama shook Chavez's hand and made signs of an aperture towards Cuba, while at the same time putting pressure on Brazil to play a role of a “moderating influence” in the region.

How does this new style of Obama fit with the coup in Honduras? As we have already explained in previous articles, Washington had been in touch with the coup plotters in Honduras for months. However, the White House's preferred option was a constitutional coup, that is, a resolution of Parliament or the Supreme Court, which allows the removal of Zelaya from power, but respecting the formalities of bourgeois “democracy”. The day before the coup, Zelaya himself recognised that it had been pressure from US, directly from Washington, which had prevented the first coup attempt, on June 26.

However, once a plan is set in motion it acquires its own dynamics. The US ambassador in Honduras, Llorens, who had been responsible for Bush's Andean policy at the time of the coup in Venezuela in 2002, was kept informed at all times of the steps taken by the coup plotters in Honduras. In a country like Honduras, for which the term “banana republic” was originally coined, no coup takes place without the green light from Washington. The Honduran oligarchy could not wait any longer. Zelaya had called on the people to support him and stormed a military air base in order to seize the ballot boxes and ballot papers, thus violating the sacred principle of authority of the military command. The high command of the armed forces had been removed by the president. That same Sunday, June 28, a consultation was to take place on whether a fourth question should be asked at the time of the general elections in November, setting in motion the process towards a constituent assembly, and the oligarchy feared that they would get soundly defeated.

But there is still one question: if the oligarchy had control of the different powers, the Armed Forces, parliament, the electoral court, the supreme court, why not just take Zelaya into custody instead of expelling him from the country? General Romeo Vasquez, head of the Armed Forces who carried out the coup explained it clearly: “We expelled Zelaya from the country in order to avoid bloodshed” he said in an interview to AFP, explaining that if he had been arrested, his followers would have stormed the jail to free him and the army would have had to fire, causing many more deaths. In other words, they were afraid of the peoples' reaction against the coup.

However, as days go by, more details of the direct participation of US imperialism in the coup emerge. Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega has denounced that according to flight routes of planes leaving Honduras, the flight in which Zelaya was expelled to Costa Rica left from the US military base of Palmerota. The US military base in Honduras, also known as Soto Cano, holds 600 troops of the US Southern Command Joint Task Force Bravo, more than the number of US troops in Colombia, and occupies a strategic position for the US in the whole of Central America.

Furthermore, two close collaborators of the Clintons have publicly appeared as advisors to the coup government of Micheletti. One of them, Bennet Ratcliff, a high executive in a lobbying firm with close ties to the Clintons, was an adviser to the delegation that Micheletti sent to the Costa Rica talks between the coup plotters and the government of Zelaya. According to the New York Times correspondent: “Every proposal that Micheletti’s group presented was written or approved by the American.” The Costa Rica talks, which we will deal with later, were also an initiative of Hillary Clinton in order to find a negotiated way out for the coup, with the aim of de-activating the peoples' mobilization in Honduras and tie Zelaya’s hand and foot.

Lanny Davis, another Washington lobbyist, now represents the Latin American Business Council of Honduras, that is, the great fortunes which are behind the coup. Davis played a key role in the Hillary Clinton campaign against Obama in the Democratic primaries, as well as having been special counsel to president Clinton at the end of the 1990s. Davis publicly admits - how could he do otherwise - that “with the benefit of hindsight, the decision to take him [Zelaya] out of the country could have been done differently,” and adds: “He should have been put in jail, as the Supreme Court ordered him. He violated the law. The Congress voted him out of office. And he should have been arrested and prosecuted with full due process of law.”

This “scrupulous respect for legal process” does neither prevent Davis nor Ratcliff to act openly in defence of the interests of the Honduran coup plotters. It is unthinkable that either of them would act in this matter without having previously consulted Hillary Clinton. In his intervention in front of a congressional panel in the US, Davis praised the initiative of Clinton regarding the San José talks in Costa Rica and stressed the need for a bipartisan approach (that is, the unity of Democans and Republicrats) towards Honduras. In this he coincided with Otto Reich, who also spoke to the panel, an old fox of Latin American reaction, who played an important role in the contras in Nicaragua in the 80's and was later Bush's secretary for Hemispheric Affairs, and who has also been an outspoken defender of the coup in Honduras.

One of the marches on August 10. Photo by indymedia Chiapas.As a matter of fact, even if we assume that Obama himself really wants to follow a policy of diplomacy towards Latin America, it is not quite clear whether he has full control of the US state apparatus, most of whose functionaries have direct links to the Honduran oligarchy, after many years of doing business in common. Even though Obama's statements have been stronger in denouncing the coup and in giving formal recognition to Zelaya's legitimacy, the facts and the official statements of the different bodies of the state in the US have been much more cautious to say the least.

For instance, while the State Department officially announced on July 7 the “suspension of aid programmes” to Honduras, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a state company dealing with third world aid, has continued to transfer money to the Honduras Central Bank (to the tune of 7.5 million dollars in four transfers between July 9 and 30). Who is the president of MCC? None other than US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton!

Obama has been harshly criticised by the Republican right for his alleged “support for Zelaya,” whom they consider to be a puppet of Chavez's communist crusade. In an official response to Republican senator Richard Lugar, the State Department assures him that this is not the case: “Our policy and strategy for engagement is not based on supporting any particular politician or individual,” to then blame Zelaya for the coup! “We also recognize that President Zelaya's insistence on undertaking provocative actions contributed to the polarization of Honduran society and led to a confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.” One must take note of the careful use of language. Despite the fact that Obama had already publicly admitted that there had been a coup in Honduras, this letter continues to talk, about a “confrontation that unleashed the events that led to his removal.”!!

Several things are clear: Washington wanted to remove Zelaya from power; it preferred to do so by constitutional means and they told the coup plotters so; the coup plotters carried out the coup with the green light by key players in the US; once the coup had been carried out, Washington does not repudiate it, but attempts to find a diplomatic solution which would ensure three aims: the demobilisation of the Honduran resistance, the de-activation of Mel Zelaya, and a diplomatic victory for the US in Latin America.

Even though it is important to analyse the divisions within the US ruling class and the different factions within the state apparatus, we should not lose sight of the fact that they all represent the interests of imperialism and the ruling class, even though they might differ as to which methods to use. For an activist in the movement in Honduras, repression is very concrete, it is a question of beatings, tear gas, jail, sexual assaults, threats and sometimes death. At the end of the day, Obama, as legitimate representative of the implementation of the policy of imperialism in Honduras, is therefore also responsible for the repression and the coup. Whether Bush or Obama are at the helm, the imperialist interests of the ruling class always prevail.

The San José talks

During the month of July, talks between the coup regime of Micheletti and the government of Zelaya took place in San José, Costa Rica, with the mediation of Costa Rica's president Oscar Arias. In order to understand clearly the aim of the talks one has to read the terms of the agreement that was proposed, which Zelaya accepted, but that the coup plotters rejected:

“1. To legitimise the return of José Manuel Zelaya Rosales to the presidency of the Republic until the end of the term of office for which he was elected [in January 2010]

“2. The formation of a government of national unity and reconciliation made up of representatives of the main political parties”

One of the marches on August 10. Photo by indymedia Chiapas.This represents the return of Zelaya but on the basis of a government of national unity with the coup plotters. His hands are tied.

“3. Declaration of a general amnesty, exclusively for all those conflicts arising from the coup”

This means an amnesty only for the coup plotters, leaving the door open for Zelaya to be put on trial as the coup plotters pretend. His feet are also tied.

“4. President José Manuel Zelaya Rosales and his government renounce any attempt to have a fourth ballot box during the elections”

That is, the coup plotters achieve what they wanted with the coup, there will be no campaigning for a constituent assembly. Not happy with tying him hand and foot, Zelaya is also gagged.

“5. The bringing forward of the national elections scheduled for November 29 to the last Sunday in October.

“6. Transfer by the Armed Forces of executive power to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal one month before the elections in order to guarantee the transparency and normality of the suffrage.”

The elections are brought forward to be supervised by a body which is under the control of the oligarchy and which participated in the coup.

“7. The creation of a commission of verification made up of note-worthy Hondurans and members of international bodies, particularly the OAS, to look after the fulfilment of these agreements and to supervise the correct return to constitutional order”.

A commission of “note-worthy” Hondurans and “members of the OAS” to supervise that Zelaya, despite being tied foot and hand and gagged, does not attempt to do his own thing. Unfortunately Zelaya accepted all the points in this agreement, which represent a full scale capitulation, and he declared so publicly.

As well as getting a solution which would mean tying Zelaya foot and hand, another aim of these negotiations was to divert the attention of the national resistance against the coup away from mass mobilisation in the streets and to the negotiating table, where talks were being delayed for days and weeks. With a sharp political instinct, the leaders of the resistance maintained street protests and denounced the trap: “The social movements do not have many expectations in the talks that are taking place in Costa Rica; what they are doing is to win time for this de facto government so that they consolidate in power and break the resistance of the peoples' movement”, said Juan Barahona, the leader of the Peoples' Block.

The attitude of the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup was crystal clear from the beginning. First of all they said that mobilisations would not stop during the talks. Secondly they demanded as a basic point which could not be negotiated the restitution of president Zelaya. Thirdly, expressing the deep seated mistrust on the part of the organised people towards these talks, they demanded that representatives of the Front would be present in the talks and sent a delegation to Costa Rica. This is highly significant because it means that the National Front puts itself at the head of the organised people and assumes its representation in official forums, giving itself a similar rank to that of Zelaya's legitimate government.

Finally, when the text of the San José proposal was announced, the Front, in an open letter to Oscar Arias, dated July 19, rejected all of the points in the text, with the exception of the first which talks about the restitution of the president. This shows the enormous maturity reached by the movement of the Honduras masses in the last few weeks of organised struggle against the coup. Also significant of the role acquired by the National Front is the fact that, on the first weekend in August, the US ambassador himself, Llorens, went to meet the leadership of the Front asking them to accept the San José proposal, which they strongly rejected.

However, the San José talks failed because of the refusal of the coup plotters to accept the first point, that is, the restitution of Zelaya. They correctly understood that the return of Zelaya, even bound hand and foot and gagged, in the context of mass mobilisations which continued unabated, would be seen as a victory for the movement. Zelaya himself could become a rallying point for the continuation of the mass struggle, regardless of the points of the agreement, and even regardless of his own will.

It is also clear that the coup regime feels safe and supported by the points of support they have in Washington, both within the Obama administration as well as amongst the Republican right. They know that Washington might exert some diplomatic pressure, but that it is not prepared to go all the way (that is, to cut off the supply of money and military aid or reach the point of direct intervention against the coup), because that would paramount to siding openly with Zelaya … and Chávez. They are bidding for time probably with the idea of reaching the elections in November or October which would give “democratic legitimacy” to the regime, and maybe reaching a stop gap solution in the form of a joint presidency or a third personality to occupy the position of president.

National resistance continues and is not cowed by repression

By expelling Zelaya from the country, the oligarchy achieved precisely what it wanted to prevent: it unleashed a mass movement of workers, peasants and youth which has grown in intensity and strength, in its degree of organisation, which repression has not been able to stop and which has drawn advanced political conclusions. The march on July 5^th, when president Zelaya made an attempt to land at the Toncontin airport, was probably one of the largest that has ever taken place in the country's history. This was one week after the coup. Even more extraordinary is the fact that the mobilisations and the strikes have continued for seven weeks, defying repression (which is increasing), the brutal misinformation campaign of all the media (with a few honourable exceptions) and all the diplomatic traps aimed at defusing the movement. We must pay tribute to the people of Honduras who, whatever the immediate outcome of this battle, have shown to have the necessary courage to fight heroically. It can be said that the Latin American revolutionary wave has finally reached the shores of Honduras.

One of the marches on August 10. Photo by indymedia Chiapas.The mobilisations have been organised through the National Front of Resistance Against the Coup, which gathers all the trade union, peasant, youth, cultural, indigenous and political organisations in the country which oppose the Micheletti regime. The Front operates through weekly delegate assemblies where the next steps and the political line are discussed. The importance of this body is such that, as we have already mentioned, even the US ambassador has been forced to meet with its leadership. This proves that US imperialism is aware of the fact that any “solution” it wants to impose, must count on the approval of the Front.

The trade unions have played a key role in the resistance against the coup. The strikes have affected above all the teachers, but also the rest of the public sector and sections of private industry. The Union of Beverage Workers (STIBYS) has become the nerve centre of the resistance and most of the delegate meetings of the Front are hold in its offices.

At the end of July, the coup regime of Micheletti was sure that the combination of the manoeuvres of San José, repression and misinformation, together with the understandable tiredness of a movement which had already been in the streets for a month, would have worn out the resistance and decided to lift the curfew. Big mistake. The national resistance responded with a national march on the capital Tegucigalpa and the second largest city in the country, San Pedro Sula, which started on August 6 and culminated in massive demonstrations on August 11. At the same time, the general strike which had been called every Thursday and Friday in the three precedent weeks, was extended on this occasion to the whole week. For five or six days, tens of thousands of Hondurans from all over the country, including the most remote peasant communities, marched by foot, 15 or 20 km a day, to show their opposition to the coup regime.

Repression increases

This impressive movement of the masses is taking place despite a clear increase of repression and the reappearance of the hated death squads. For instance, on Friday July 24, the police arrested Pedro Magdiel Muñoz Salvador, a 23 year old bricklayer. His dead body, which had 47 stab wounds, was found the following day, 400m away from the Nicaraguan border, where the Army was preventing Zelaya from entering the country. Clearly, either the police killed him or they handed him over to a paramilitary group to finish the job. Pedro Magdiel was an active member of the Front where he was part of the disciplinary commission.

Injured student at a demonstration on July 30. Photo by Gilberto on Picasa.On July 2, the Army killed Gabriel Pino Noriega, a journalist from San Juan Puebla. On July 11, Roger Ivan Baez, a leader of the Peoples' Block and the Democratic Unification (UD), former textile workers’ trade union leader, was killed when he entered his home in San Pedro Sula. On July 12, peasant leader Ramón Garcia, was taken off a bus and killed by armed men. He was also a member of the left wing Democratic Unification (UD) party. On July 30, teacher Roger Abrahan Vallejo Soriano, 38, was killed by the Army with a shot in the head. The list is long.

On July 26, the STIBYS union office, where the General Command of the Resistance Front meets, suffered a bomb attack. In the early hours of August 6, the building of the National Children's Institute (PANI) was machine-gunned from a moving vehicle. The Union of PANI Workers (Sintrapani) has participated actively in the resistance and has an office in the building. On August 11, after dark, the offices of Via Campesina peasant's organisation in the capital were also attacked with gun fire. It is important to stress that the majority of these attacks and selective murders take place at night once the curfew is in place, when only police and the army are allowed to be on the streets.

The students and teachers of the National Autonomous and National Pedagogic Universities have also suffered from repression and the police and the Army have, illegally, invaded their installations.

The regime has also resorted to the infiltration of agents provocateurs into the demonstrations of the resistance with the aim of causing violent incidents so that then they can present a picture of the demonstrators as a “violent mob”. This was the case at the end of the massive march on August 11, with the burning down of Popeye's fast food restaurant and a number of public transport units, an action which was clearly organised by provocateurs in order to “justify” indiscriminate police repression. The final result was hundreds of people injured and at least 40 taken into custody. Amongst those wounded is Marvin Ponce, a member of parliament for the UD. The repression, carried out by the Army and the police, was brutal and was also used against the march in San Pedro Sula. Despite this, the movement was not cowed and protests continued on August 12, 13 and 14.

Which strategy for the movement?

The resistance movement has reached a turning point. On the one hand, the oligarchy is not able, neither with tricks nor with repression, to smash the resistance against the coup. The resistance on the other hand, led by the Front, has shown to have the ability to mobilise in large numbers and the people of Honduras have responded to all its calls, facing brutal repression. However, it has not yet been able to defeat the coup.

One of the marches on August 10. Photo by indymedia Chiapas.Which strategy can lead the movement to victory? First of all, the appeal by the Front and the unions which participate in it for a general strike is correct and necessary. The coup plotters represent the interests of 12 families which control the country's economy (the Rosenthal, Ferrari, Canahuati Larach, Facussé, Nasser, Lamas, Kafie, etc). The country's economy, already hit by the crisis, has been seriously affected by the coup and the mobilisations against it. The workers have the ability to completely paralyse the country's economic and social life. Without the kind permission of the working class in Honduras, the transportation system would grind to a halt, education and health service would not work, the maquiladoras would be paralysed, papers could not be printed, electricity would not be generated and telecommunications would be stopped. The Front has already made an appeal to “spread the peaceful actions to paralyse the normal functioning of the commercial operations of those companies which promote, finance and execute the political and military coup against the legitimated government of Manuel Zelaya Rosales and against the people of Honduras as a whole”. It is necessary that this appeal is put into practice in the form of a complete general strike which puts on the table the question of who rules the country.

Secondly, the mass presence of the people on the streets must be maintained (with the necessary caution not to wear out the movement). As part of the strategy of mobilisation the question of how to deal with repression and infiltrated agents must be discussed. Correctly, the Front has based itself so far on peaceful mass mobilisations. However, faced with growing and brutal repression on the part of the coup regime, it is necessary and urgent to organise the self-defence of the resistance, of its mobilisations and of its organisations. In each trade union and peasant organisation self defence pickets must be organised to defend their offices and their leaders. These pickets must be under the strict control of the organisations and not act on their own initiative. In the same way, these pickets should play a key role during the marches, guarding them against the infiltration of provocateurs and if needed, organising the defence of the marches against the attacks by the police and the army. The danger is that if measures of this kind are not taken, there could be the temptation amongst sections of activists of the resistance, frustrated and impotent faced with repression, to organise small armed groups, isolated from the mass movement, which would be counter-productive.

Thirdly, on August 1, the Front made a correct appeal for an international workers' boycott against the coup regime: “The National Front Against the Coup makes an appeal to the organisations which represent the world working class to organise and implement militant solidarity with the working class and the people of Honduras, by carrying out actions of boycott of all products which leave and enter Honduran ports, in order to economically asphyxiate the dictatorship”. Now it is the responsibility of all workers organisations in Central America to carry this appeal into practice. The workers of Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica have a particular responsibility in this. They hold in their hands the physical possibility to blockade Honduran international trade. They must understand that if the coup is finally victorious in Honduras, the oligarchy of their own countries would be strengthened and would feel confident to carry out actions on the same lines. The threat is real and very concrete in the case of El Salvador, where the FMLN won the elections but does not control parliament. For the worker and peasant masses of these countries, the defeat of the coup in Honduras is a question of life and death.

The trade union organisations in the US also have an important responsibility in this, as most of Honduras’ foreign trade takes place with the US. The US longshoremen have a proud and militant tradition of international solidarity and should declare immediately a workers' boycott on all goods from and to Honduras.

Fourthly, it is important to understand that the coup regime will not fall unless the repressive apparatus of the state is broken. In the first days of the coup there were many isolated examples of rank and file elements within the Army and the police who were sympathetic to the people. There were even rumours of a possible rebellion of young officers. For the seven weeks of the resistance, the people, showing great instinct, have approached the soldiers once and again, telling them that they are also part of the people and that they should not attack their own people. This is correct, but it is not enough. The Front should organise a conscious and coordinated campaign towards the ranks of Army in order to break its morale. Leaflets specifically aimed at soldiers should be printed and distributed. They should be contacted through their families and neighbours. There should be an appeal for the formation of soldiers' committees (which at first would necessarily have to be clandestine), which should be coordinated with the Front.

The combination of a general strike which would paralyse the country's economic life, the mass mobilisation of workers, students and peasants on the streets, the international workers' boycott and a serious and bold appeal to the ranks of the Army, is the only strategy which can guarantee a victory against the coup. Above all, the resistance can only trust its own forces. It is useless to make appeals to the US to intervene. As a matter of fact, diplomatic pressure on Micheletti will be stronger the stronger the movement of the masses is, since what the US and the bourgeois governments of Latin America and the EU fear the most is precisely the overthrow of the coup through an insurrectionary uprising of the people.

What programme?

Finally the question of the programme defended by the resistance is also vitally important if it is to gather around it the widest layers of the workers and the people. The Front has already made it clear that it is not just a question of the return of Zelaya, even though this is a basic democratic demand, but that their struggle is for the calling of a Constituent Assembly in order to turn the political institutions of the country upside-down. In the conditions of Honduras this demand is absolutely correct, together with that of trial and punishment for the coup plotters.

One of the marches on August 10. Photo by indymedia Chiapas.However, a constituent assembly in and of itself cannot solve the deep seated problems of the Honduran masses. In Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador Constituent Assemblies have been convened and new constitutions passed, but economic power remains in the hands of the oligarchy, and the bourgeois state is still in place blocking the advance of the revolution. It is not enough to change the political structures, the workers and peasants must take power, through committees of elected and recallable representatives, put an end to the farce of bourgeois democracy and replace it by a genuine form of democracy, workers' democracy.

The most advanced democratic demands must be combined with the economic and social demands which are behind the struggle of the people of Honduras: for decent and secure jobs, for quality education for all, for free health care for all, for a agrarian reform, etc. All of this can only be achieved and guaranteed in a permanent way through expropriation of the 12 families which control Honduras in collaboration with and at the service of imperialism. Mel Zelaya himself pointed out during the solidarity meeting in Mexico on August 5 that the peoples of Latin America are struggling “to build a better world, free from the exploitation of a few which take advantage of the workers”. “The people of Honduras and the Latin American people are struggling for Socialism”, he added.

Even from a purely democratic point of view, this programme is logical. Is it not the 12 families that have carried out an undemocratic coup against the freely expressed will of the people? As a punishment, all their properties should be expropriated. The lessons of April 13, 2002, in Venezuela must be learnt, when after the defeat of the coup against Chavez by the masses no measures were taken against the coup plotters. How did they respond to this generosity on the part of the Bolivarian revolution? By organising another coup in December of the same year and sabotaging the economy up to this day.

It is the responsibility of the most advanced activists of the resistance and particularly those who come from a socialist tradition, like those of Democratic Unification, as well as long standing trade unionists, but also of the youth who are just now joining political life, to raise clearly the banner of the struggle for socialism as the only way out for the people of Honduras.

In the last seven weeks, the people of Honduras, and its working class at the forefront, have written a glorious page of struggle and resistance. The outcome of this battle is not yet decided. The International Marxist Tendency is unconditionally on the side of the resistance against the coup and we modestly want to contribute our opinions to the debate on the programme and the strategy that can make possible a victory against the oligarchy and imperialism.

Canada' Financial Post launches diatribe of disinformation against Venezuela (VHeadline.com)

Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:47:42 +0100

Tuesday, August 18, 2009. VHeadline Venezuela News reports: Writing in today's editions Canadian Financial Post, columnist Diane Francis takes Venezuela to task in an article headlined "Venezuela: a banana kleptocracy" which will be sure to set Venezuela-Canadian trade relations back several leagues considering the insulting tone of phrase and "imperialist" superiority of her thrust, combined with a total lack of understanding of the throes that Venezuela is going through after more than 40 years of domination and theft by the North American empire.

Rather than commit herself to any serious journalistic investigation, Ms. Francis quotes leading opposition commentators who do do not fail to deliver the goods for Ms. Francis' anti-Venezuelan rant.

We just wonder what her turn of phrase would be if Venezuelans turned with equal venom on her and her beloved Canada instead?

QUOTE:

Canadian eh?
All enlightened governments, including Canada's which just signed an investment agreement, should deem Venezuela a "no-go" zone. This is because the country, under Hugo Chavez, has descended into a kleptocracy. Industries, like coffee and rice, have just been nationalized and confiscations without compensation are underway.

Two Canadian mining companies are victims, as are Venezuelan business interests, and there are gross human rights abuses, says Canadian lawyer, activist Robert Amsterdam.

In his white paper entitled "The Erosion of Judicial Autonomy under Hugo Chavez," Amsterdam and his Venezuelan legal colleagues recite a case involving Eligio Cedeno who has been jailed without charges for two years because he opposes the Chavez regime. Here is their executive summary:

"The rule of law and liberal democracy in Venezuela are crumbling under the leadership of President Hugo Chavez. Chavez has subverted the fundamental institutions of government converting them into tools for maintaining and consolidating personal power," they wrote.
"He and his supporters harass those who do not align themselves politically and ideologically with the Bolivarian Revolution. They use various means to persecute their opponents, including assaults in the media, violence, censorship and false criminal charges. Chavez has gained complete control of the criminal justice system. A growing class of political prisoners has emerged, including businessman Eligio Cedeno."

"Intervention by the international community is both necessary and appropriate in order to preserve the rights of Venezuelan citizens."

Official theft

So where is the Canadian and other governments when it comes to preserving the rights of foreign firms and individuals. Take the case of the two embattled Canadian mining companies -- Crystallex International Corporation and Gold Reserve Inc. They have spent years exploring and millions obtaining rights to develop two world-class ore bodies in Venezuela only to have them confiscated, de facto, through illegal means. Both trade for pennies as a result.

Crystallex' statement in its 2009 Second Quarter was: "The company's principal asset is its interest in the Las Cristinas gold project located in Bolivar State, Venezuela. The Company's interests in the Las Cristinas concessions are derived from a Mine Operating Contract (the "MOC") with the Corporacion Venezolana de Guayana (the "CVG") which grants Crystallex exclusive rights to develop and mine the gold deposits on the Las Cristinas property."

"The Company has not received a response from the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources ("MinAmb") to its June 16, 2008 appeal of the Director General of the Administrative Office of Permits at MinAmb denying its request for the Permit for the Las Cristinas project."

"On March 2, 2009, the CVG confirmed that the Company was in compliance with the MOC. This corroborates the Company's position that is not in default of the MOC and there is no change in control under the terms of the MOC. The Company plans to remain compliant with the MOC in order to protect the option of proceeding to international arbitration."

That's theft through government obstruction and stone-walling.

The other case involves a combination of Venezuelan tactics to obstruct and reduce the value of Gold Reserve Inc. combined with a hostile takeover bid this winter by Rusoro Mining Inc., a Moscow favorite. The bid failed because it was declared illegal by the Ontario Superior Court because a financial intermediary was collecting fees from both parties without disclosing this to Gold Reserve.

Canada bye bye unless you bear arms

Lest anyone discount this as just the usual maneuverings in the world of mining, the secret intentions to steal from the Canadians were published last fall in a blog out of China.

"Venezuela said it will offer a joint venture to Russian-owned miner Rusoro to operate the Las Cristinas and Brisas gold projects, currently under contract to two Canadian companies, Mining minister Rodolfo Sanz on Thursday. He told a Russian delegation that a memorandum of understanding would soon be signed with Rusoro. It appeared that Sanz intends to replace the Canadian companies who operate the projects that contain some of Latin America's largest gold deposits, with Rusoro, but he did not mention their names."

Why would this be happening, given the fact that the Canadian companies had signed a deal and invested millions in good faith already?

"What's happening in Venezuela is not understood by Canadians," said Amsterdam in a recent interview. "Chavez has political prisoners, he is killing opposition without due process. I have a client who is victim to phony charges, no trial and has been in jail for two years. there are two million people on Chavez's black list who are denied decent jobs. In the meantime, he is causing problems with neighboring countries and has bought US$10 billion worth of arms from Russia. We just don't get the danger."

Lloyds of London does. In June, it withdrew maritime "war risk" policy cover for Venezuela, "the first such exclusion of a Latin American country for 20 years. the move is the latest sign of Venezuela's deteriorating business environment," wrote Oil and Gas Insight in June.

END QUOTE

VHeadline Venezuela News
news.desk@vheadline.com

JNF presence in S. America perpetuates Palestine injustice (The Electronic Intifada)

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:24:26 +0100

Rahela Mizrahi, The Electronic Intifada, 13 August 2009.

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10708.shtml

The sign leading to Bolivar and San Martin courts. (Rahela Mizrahi)

Without any sense of irony, lands of destroyed Palestinian villages have been expropriated by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and dedicated to revolutionary South American heroes of liberation.

Since its inception in 1901, the JNF has been a key player in the dispossession of Palestinians and the colonization of their homeland. As Uri Davis notes in his book Apartheid Israel, the 1953 Jewish National Fund Law and the 1961 Covenant between the government of Israel and the JNF are central to the Israeli legal apartheid system that "nationalizes" privately-owned Palestinian property.

Despite this history, JNF has offices in the capitals of Bolivia and Venezuela where they raise funds to further entrench a racist system and to erase the signs of Israel's double crime: the ethnic cleansing of Palestine and the demolition of the Arab Jewish communities all over the Arab world and the transfer of Jews of Arab origin to Palestine by means of deception and terror.

After demolishing most of the Palestinian villages in the territory now called Israel, the Zionist movement housed the transferred Jews of Arab origin in some of the villages and the JNF employed them in the planting of pine forests over the ruins of the Palestinian villages.

Together, the Jewish National Fund Law and the Covenant define 93 percent of the entire territory that Israel occupied in 1948 as "national lands" legally designated for those persons who are defined under the laws of the State of Israel as "Jews." This effectively places these lands off limits to the indigenous Palestinian population, carrying out a sort of legal ethnic cleansing. In addition, the JNF has been instrumental in veiling the ruins of many, if not most, of the Palestinian localities ethnically cleansed by the Israeli army in the course of and in the wake of the 1948 war. According to Uri Davis, it accomplishes this task by planting forests and developing recreational facilities on the lands they have cleansed, and over their remains.

A prime example of the double crime being committed by the Zionists is Eshtaol Forest. Most of the Eshtaol Forest covers the lands of the two Palestinian villages: Islin, where 280 inhabitants used to live, and Ishwa, formerly home to 680 Palestinians. The inhabitants of these lands were expelled by the Harel Brigade of the Palmach militia, which departed from Kibbutz Zoraa the morning of 18 July 1948. The Eshtaol forest also resides on the lands of two other villages: Beit Mahsir, where 2,620 inhabitants were expelled on 11 May 1948, and Beit Susin, where 230 inhabitants were expelled on 20 April 1948.

In Eshtaol Forest, there stand three courts. The first one is dedicated to the memory of Simon Bolivar, the revered 19th century liberator of Latin America from European colonialism; it stands on the land of the village Ishwa. The other two courts are dedicated to another liberator of Latin America from the same period, General Jose de San Martin; they stand on the land of Beit Mahsir.

Moshav (the Zionist term for village) Eshtaol, built on the ruins of Ishwa, is a village of immigrants from Yemen, who were transferred by the Zionist movement to Palestine right after the 1948 ethnic cleansing. In the transfer camp in Sana, Yemen's capital, the Zionist Agency looted more then 50 tons of the Yemeni Jewish community's ancient sacred books and manuscripts and many tons of goldsmithing, a craft in which they specialized. In the transfer camp, children were kidnapped and were delivered to European Jewish families for adoption. Once in Moshav Eshtaol, and in the neighboring Moshav, Yishi, which has an identical story, the community succeeded in restoring a part of life as it was in Yemen.

The return of the Palestinian refugees to their land does not necessarily mean another dispossession of this community. On the contrary, it may provide an opportunity to establish neighborhood relationships that will fix the wrongs that were done both to the Palestinian refugees and Jews from Arab countries by a European settler-colonial movement. Meanwhile, it would fortify the culture of the Yemeni Jewish community of Moshav Eshtaol and Moshav Yishi, which were always fed by Arab and Muslim civilizations in their country of origin. It might also serve to strengthen their Arab dialect of Hebrew, a dialect and culture under threat of extermination by the Israeli Zionist Ashkenazi establishment.

Only when these historic injustices are rectified, can the use of these revolutionary heroes' names be justified. Until that time, those concerned with social justice should pressure the governments of Venezuela and Bolivia to kick the JNF out of their cities.

Rahela Mizrahi has a degree in fine arts from the Betzalel Academy in Jerusalem and is currently completing her second degree, writing on the "Patterns of Expropriation, Conversion, and Appropriation of Palestinian Heritage through Israeli Art" at Tel Aviv University. A version of this essay was originally published by the International anti-Zionist Network: http://www.ijsn.net/398/.

A bloodstained legacy: Britain�s secret war in Colombia

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:54:31 +0100

(Dan Read, July 10 2009) In March 2005, three trade unionists were snatched from the shanty towns of Bogotá, Colombia, by soldiers of the High Mountain Battalions. Taken to the outskirts of the city, the three were beaten, castrated and then shot. Their bodies were then dressed in the uniform of the Revolution Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in order to disguise their murder as part of routine combat operations.

Many of the atrocities on trade unionists are carried out by the Colombia army in conjunction with paramilitary death squads. Photo by Agostinhox.Since then such incidents have been repeated many times over. Colombia has the highest death rate for trade unionists in the world, with over 2,500 union members having been murdered over the past 15 years. Over 41 met their deaths in 2008 alone.

Many of these atrocities are carried out by the Colombia army in conjunction with paramilitary death squads. In what might seem surprising to some, it would also appear that such forces have been receiving military aid from the British government since the 1980s.

In late 2008, the Justice for Colombia (JFC) campaign published a report on British involvement in the Colombian military. The document alleges the UK’s status as “reportedly the second largest donor of military aid to Colombia” and describes its relationship with the High Mountain Battalions, who have a “history of involvement in the torture and murder of trade unionists”.

Liam Craig-Best, a member of JFC said:

“There is not one reason for the UK’s involvement but a set of reasons, one of these being economic...The two biggest foreign companies operating in Colombia are both British, those being British Petroleum and SAB Miller – the brewing company - whose presence is much larger than the American and Spanish multi-nationals currently investing there."

The government has been under pressure for the past several years to distance itself from the Colombian army out of fear that military assistance could lead to further human rights abuses.

And there is no shortage of said abuses. Like much of Latin America, over 65% of the population of Colombia live below the poverty line, with foreign corporations eagerly taking advantage of cheap labour and trade union repression.

The gentle dictates of the world market have ensured Colombia’s status as a neo-colony. The nation now imports over 70% of its foodstuffs from abroad, something which has led to backbreaking poverty for the country’s remaining peasantry. In desperation these destitute farmers often become involved in the drug trade in order to make ends meet, in the process falling prey to criminal elements active nationwide.

The plight of Colombian workers and peasants has not gone unnoticed however. For some time trade unions in Britain and Ireland in particular have been attempting to put pressure on the UK government to cut its military aid programs.

Such efforts appeared to bear fruit last March when the government declared it had disbanded its training scheme. After some initial optimism, JFC believes that that the training regimes – some of which are thought to involve the SAS – are continuing.

Liam said:

“What we saw very recently was the dropping of the two less offensive parts of the aid, those being operations regarding human rights training and the clearing of land mines. The Foreign Office then claimed that they had stopped a large part of their aid to Colombia.

But really this only made up a tiny minority of what aid was being received. The counter insurgency training – or counter narcotics as they are calling it now – continues.”

According to Bob Ainsworth, MP for Coventry North East and Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the government keeps “a record of Colombian security force personnel who have received UK training in Colombia for future monitoring purposes, including any accusations of human rights abuses” and that “to date, there have been no cases of any UK-trained personnel being involved in such abuses.”

Unfortunately there is no way of knowing if that is the case, as by Ainsworth’s own admission the “names of trained personnel are withheld as their release would, or would be likely to, prejudice international relations.”

Again in 2005, soldiers from the 17^th Brigade assaulted the community of San Jose, killing eight people – several of them children – in the process. In this instance, JFC contacted the British MOD for comment, which subsequently refused to confirm or deny that the 17^th had received UK sponsored training.

We can gain some understanding of Britain’s involvement from statements given by Colombian army officers themselves. High ranking personnel have made numerous statements on the effectiveness of British assistance, with one officer, who appears to have received training in jungle warfare operations, being openly quoted in the newspaper El Tiempo.

Further evidence suggests that the British government is unconcerned as to who it is working with was provided in December 2007. This was when Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister Kim Howells was photographed with soldiers of the High Mountain Battalions, troops which, as mentioned, have been implicated in varying abuses.

Howells also posed for the camera alongside General Mario Montoya; a man implicated in the deaths of multiple trade unionists and political dissidents. Montoya has a 30 year history of involvement with right wing paramilitaries, death squads and drug traffickers.

The man has also had the luxury of being flown over to Northern Ireland for seminars on counter-insurgency – or what is officially known as counter-narcotics – training. A great deal of Colombia military brass also enjoy the same treatment, with one event held in March 2008 being attended by none other than Juan Carlos Pinzon, the current Vice Minister of Defence for Strategy and Planning in Bogotá, as well as assorted high rankers from both Britain and the US.

General Montoya’s fortunes took a turn for the worse last November, when a UN investigation unearthed some of his more unsavoury activities. After resigning his position in the military however, Montoya escaped trial and now serves as Ambassador to the Dominican Republic.

There is more to Britain’s involvement than immediate commercial interests, however. Jeremy Corbyn, Labour MP and long standing campaigner on Latin American issues, believes that the “special relationship” between Downing Street and the White House dictates a high level of cooperation on the military field.

Speaking during an interview outside of Parliament, he said: “Colombia is important in that it has the most pro-US administration found in Latin America. The reason why such things as western involvement in human rights abuses are ignored by much of the press is that the government agenda fits in with everything the West wants.

A lot of multi national investment in coal, oil and gas can be found in Colombia. Alongside the substantial US presence across the continent, British military aid can become a Trojan horse for much deeper involvement.”

Although Howells was to lose face under the scrutiny of negative media coverage, the government still sees fit to continue providing assistance to their Colombia allies. The “Trojan horse” for further involvement, it seems, is still standing tall. The need for the working class to organise both industrially and politically has never been greater – the involvement of British imperialism in propping up the rotten murderous regime in Columbia underlines the importance of the international struggle against capitalism and for a socialist federation of Latin America.

Canadian Labour Congress Slams Harper On Honduras Coup

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:41:57 +0100

Canadian Labour Congress /Congres du travail du Canada
July 21, 2009

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P. Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A oA6

Dear Prime Minister:

On behalf of the 3.2 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC), I am writing to urge the Canadian government act immediately to sever all diplomatic and economic ties with the unconstitutional government of Honduras, until democratically-elected Manuel Zelaya is reinstated to his rightful position as President of the country.

We are very concerned with Canada's equivocal response to the overthrow of democracy in one of the poorest nations in the Americas. On June 28, while governments throughout the world expressed outrage at the coup d'etat conducted by the military in Honduras, Canada was the only government in the Americas to not demand President Zelaya's immediate and unconditional reinstatement. Instead, at the Organization of American States (OAS), Canada suggested President Zelaya delay his return. Also, Canada did not withdraw its ambassador, as did the majority of all other governments in the Americas. Nor did Canada follow the example of the World Bank and the Government of the United States, by cutting loans and some aid.

The Canadian Labour Congress, along with our partner organizations in Honduras and in the hemisphere, is closely monitoring events in Honduras and we look forward to seeing improvements in Canada's actions on this file. Specifically, we are requesting Canada make a clear statement that it does not recognize the unconstitutional government backed by the military, by cutting off diplomatic ties with Honduras. We request the government cut all bilateral aid to Honduras and the Export Development Corporation loans to Canadian companies operating there. You must make it clear to those companies that it cannot be "business as usual" with this disruption of democracy. The military overthrow of a democratically-elected government must not be allowed to stand, as it could set a dangerous precedent.

Canada should follow the position of the rest of the members of the OAS, insisting the mediated talks lead to a restoration of Manuel Zelaya's presidency. Once this takes place and democracy is restored, and those who have committed crimes are brought to justice, Honduras will need support of all governments and civil societies in the region to begin a process of national reconciliation. Ideally, this will identify mechanisms to ensure that the hopes and aspirations of all Hondurans are addressed in a peaceful, respectful and democratic manner in the future.

Sincerely,

Kenneth V. Georgetti President

c.c. CLC Executive Council
Michael Ignatieff, Leader of the Opposition
The Honourable Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs
The Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of State of Foreign Affairs (Americas)
Jose Miguel Insulza, Secretary General, Organization of American States
ITUC - Human and Trade Union Rights
TUCA - Human and Trade Union Rights

Canadian imperialism stands back and watches coup unfold in Honduras

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:32:56 +0100

(Camilo Cahis, July 10 2009, www.marxist.com) Canada has stood almost alone on the international stage, going so far as to say that Zelaya should not return back to Honduras. This should not come as a huge shock for Canadians as the Canadian state has been pursuing an increasingly interventionist role in Latin American affairs for a while now.

The world is currently witnessing another reactionary coup d'etat in Latin America, unfortunately the latest in a long line of coups that have deposed popularly elected governments in the hemisphere. Honduras' president, Manuel Zelaya, was kidnapped in the dead of the night and exiled by the country's military on 28^th June and the reactionary Roberto Micheletti put into power. Governments around the world, including a half-hearted US government, said that they would not recognize Micheletti's regime and called for the return of Mr. Zelaya. Canada, on the other hand, has stood almost alone on the international stage, going so far as to say that Zelaya should not return back to Honduras. This should not come as a huge shock for Canadians as the Canadian state has been pursuing an increasingly interventionist role in Latin American affairs for a while now.

Peter Kent, Canada's secretary of state for the Americas, is “emphatically” opposed to Zelaya's return to Honduras. Photo by Jared Purdy.Manuel Zelaya had planned to return to Honduras on Sunday 5^th July, a day after the Organization of American States (OAS) had voted to suspend Honduras' membership and issued a resolution stating they had a “deep concern about the worsening of the current political crisis” in Honduras. Most OAS countries had also supported a resolution calling for the immediate return of Zelaya, but this resolution was defeated largely by the arguments presented by the United States and Canada. The US and Canada also opposed any mention of placing sanctions on the illegal government in Honduras, preferring that countries simply “reflect” on their countries' relations with Honduras.

In an article published in the New York Times, the most vocal opponent to re-instating Mr. Zelaya appears to have been Canada's secretary of state for the Americas, Peter Kent. In this article from 5^th July, Kent states that he is “emphatically” opposed to Zelaya's return to Honduras because “it is far from clear that the current conditions could guarantee his safety upon return.” Kent was also opposed to sanctions or any other harsh measures imposed on the new Honduran dictatorship, stressing that the OAS needed to “maintain diplomatic initiatives” which “directly [engage] the interim government to help end the crisis.” Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Hondurans are out on the streets demanding a return of Manuel Zelaya and the end of this military dictatorship. The Micheletti dictatorship has responded with the arrests of hundreds of workers and activists, and even killing some of them. In spite of this, there has not been even a peep from the Canadian government.

Canada's shameful role in Honduras should not be a surprise, though. Too many Canadians have been brought up with the idea that Canada is a peacekeeping nation and that unlike the United States, it does not invade or interfere in other countries' affairs. We would argue that Canada has always been an imperialist country but it is true that in the last decade, we have seen a hardening in Canada's foreign policy, with Canadian imperialism becoming much more naked and overt. Canada's continued occupation of Afghanistan is the most evident example, but Canadian imperialism has played an increasingly important role in Latin America. And, with the election of the Obama administration, the spirit of George Bush's foreign policy seems to have migrated north to Ottawa.

With US imperialism having being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been an opening for Canadian interests to come to the fore in Latin America in the meantime. Moreover, considering the significant interests that Canadian banks have in the US, it is very much in their interests to defend and represent US interests in the hemisphere, too.

A lot of people do not know, for example, the pernicious role that Canada has been playing in Venezuela. During the 2004 recall referendum where the Venezuelan oligarchy attempted to recall Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, the Canadian embassy in Caracas was funnelling funds to Sumáte, the opposition group looking to get rid of President Chávez. (It is also important to note that the Liberals were in government then, meaning that this imperialist role in Latin America is not simply a result of the Conservatives currently being in government.) Since then, the Canadian embassy in Caracas, coupled with Focal, a supposedly non-partisan arm of CIDA (the Canadian International Development Agency), have been repeatedly caught giving funds to groups that are tied to various opposition groups in Venezuela. During Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 2006, the Venezuelan government expelled the Israeli ambassador; Israel simply opened up their diplomatic offices from within the Canadian embassy. Peter Munk, the chairman of Barrick Gold, the world's largest gold mining operation, publicly denounced the governments of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and of Evo Morales in Bolivia, declaring that he would prefer to work with the Taliban than revolutionary governments in Latin America! Numerous Canadian media outlets, including the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, and Maclean's magazine, have launched what can only be described as a vicious smear campaign against the radical governments of Latin America. Tim Harper, the former Americas bureau chief for the Toronto Star, was finally censured by the Ontario Press Council after a campaign by the Bolivarian Circle “Louis Riel” proved that Harper had written a series of maliciously one-sided articles trashing Chávez and the Venezuelan government.

According to noted journalist, Yves Engler, Canada is the second largest investor in Honduras. Canadian mining companies Breakwater Resources, Goldcorp, and Yamana Gold all have significant operations in Honduras. President Zelaya had previously announced a moratorium on new mining concessions, undoubtedly angering these Canadian mining interests. Furthermore, Montreal-based clothing giant Gildan produces over half of all their t-shirts in Honduras, and would not have benefited from Zelaya's policies that attempted to lift millions of Hondurans out of poverty with better wages.

As much as Peter Kent and the Canadian government's response (or lack thereof) to the coup d'etat in Honduras is deplorable and needs to be protested, it isn't simply due to the Conservatives being in power. Canadian interference in Latin America has been going on since before Stephen Harper took power. Canada has strong economic and political interests in Latin America and it will do its utmost to defend them, even if it trumps the democratic will of the people of Central and South America. Canadian imperialist interference will continue as long as Canadian economic interests continue to profit from the exploitation of working people around the world.

Along with protests aimed at Peter Kent and the Conservative government, the Honduran solidarity movement needs to demand an end to Canadian imperialist activity throughout the hemisphere—hands off Latin America! We need to attack the state and corporations at home that make imperialist intervention possible. Canadian workers and students need to be brought into the same struggles as those being fought by their Honduran counterparts. The best way to defend the revolutionary movements of Latin America is to build the conditions for revolution at home.

Honduras: One week after the coup � mass mobilisation continues � Army prevents Zelaya�s come back

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:22:13 +0100

All kinds of manoeuvres are taking place after the coup in Honduras. The coup organisers want to hold on, but pressure is being brought to bear for some kind of compromise solution, which however cannot satisfy the masses. The only real answer lies in the full mobilisation of the Honduran workers and peasants.

Hundreds of thousands had marched to the Toncontin airport and broken through police lines to make sure Zelaya's plane could land.On Sunday, July 5, a week after having been removed by a military coup, Honduran president Mel Zelaya boarded a Venezuelan plane in Washington with the aim of going back to his country. Hundreds of thousands had marched to the Toncontin airport and broken through police lines to make sure his plane could land. However, the army opened fire on the unarmed demonstrators, injuring scores and killing at least one. Zelaya’s plane was prevented from landing by the Army which positioned vehicles on the landing strip. The government of Micheletti ‑ imposed by a coup ‑ has closed down all of the country’s airports.

Men, women, children, workers, peasants, the poor, had gathered from early in the morning to march to the airport to receive their president. A report from Radio Globo put the figure at half a million, others put the number at 200,000 people. The live broadcast from Telesur showed a huge crowd of hundreds of thousands, far bigger than the 65,000 that had marched against the coup the day before in Tegucigalpa. Speaking from Honduras to In Defence of Marxism, Democratic Unity (UD) party MP Tomás Andino said: “This demonstration was unprecedented, probably the largest in the history of Honduras”. We have to take into account that the population of the country as a whole is only 7.5 million people. This demonstration was the biggest so far against the coup and dwarfed any of the demonstrations organised by the coup plotters during the week.

This massive movement of the people of Honduras has taken place despite the fact that the new regime has imposed a curfew (which has now been extended and is in place between 6pm and 6am every night), has arrested dozens of known trade union and popular movement activists and leaders, has killed a number of them (the correspondent from El Pais has reported that people have been taken to hospital by the police with bullet wounds every single night), has suspended constitutional guarantees (a de facto state of emergency situation) and put in place a media blockade (a number of radio and TV stations have been closed down). According to police officials 651 people were arrested on Saturday and Sunday alone. None of this has stopped the movement and the strikes which have paralysed mainly the education system and the telecommunications and electricity companies. Peasant and indigenous organisations are maintaining road blocks in many of the districts in the interior of the country.

Hundreds of thousands had marched to the Toncontin airport and broken through police lines to make sure Zelaya's plane could land.The scope of the movement against the coup and rising international pressure is already opening up rifts within the camp of the coup organisers. According to some reports, businessmen Ricardo Maduro, Rafael Ferrari and Carlos Flores Facussémet met with representatives of the coup organisers until early in the morning trying to get them to reach an agreement. But the coup plotters, led by Micheletti, are particularly obtuse representatives of the Honduran oligarchy, and having taken the step of organising the coup, are now in no mood to make any concessions. In a farcical press conference Micheletti alleged that Nicaraguan troops were massing at the border in preparation for an invasion of Honduras. When pressed by the journalists to give more details, he changed his tune and said that it was just a “psychological invasion”!

On Saturday, July 4, Micheletti’s junta also rebuffed OAS general secretary Insulza, who had gone to Honduras in a last minute attempt to reach a compromise. It is clear that this coup is highly embarrassing for the current US administration and that pressure is being put on the coup plotters to at least make some concessions which could allow for a negotiated settlement, probably including some guarantees on Zelaya’s part that he would not seek to call a referendum on a Constituent Assembly.

The role of the United States in the coup

Photo by ALBA TVThere has been a lot of speculation about whether the Obama administration was involved in this coup or not. On this question, Andino was very clear: “We think it is impossible for the Honduran Army to have acted without at least tacit approval on the part of US intelligence”.

All the information that has come out over the last week confirms what we said just after the coup:

“It is clear and public knowledge that the US knew that a coup was being organised. They had had conversations with the leaders of Congress in which the coup had been discussed. The advice from the US had been against taking the step of arresting Zelaya. Probably the US administration, faced with the mass mobilisation on Friday and having learnt some lessons from Venezuela, was not very confident in taking what might be seen as an illegal step and were more in favour of continuing with the script of the “constitutional coup”, leaving the removal of Zelaya for another, more favourable, moment.” (Defeat the reactionary military coup in Honduras – Mass mobilisation in the streets and general strike!)

US ambassador Hugo Llorens had stated on a number of occasions that he was against the consultation being proposed by Zelaya on the possibility of a referendum on a constituent assembly, but he phrased his opposition in typical diplomatic language: “one cannot violate the Constitution in order to create a Constitution”, he said (La Prensa, June 4). This was precisely the argument used by the oligarchy to block Zelaya’s proposed consultation.

Photo by ALBA TVHowever, Llorens stressed that: “whatever is finally done, it should be done within the law, within the Constitution”. On June 17, he echoed the arguments of the Honduran capitalists: “The political situation in the country does not help to create an investment friendly climate. Uncertainty in a country does not help investment” (La Prensa). And he added that the dispute about the consultation should be resolved by Congress. What he was saying, loud and clear, was that the US were in favour of a “democratic constitutional coup”.

Right up to the eve of the coup, US ambassador Llorens was talking to the coup plotters. On June 21, there was a meeting in the US embassy with the presence of president Zelaya, as well as all the coup plotters: Congress president Micheletti, Liberal and National Party presidential candidates Santos and Lobo, and the head of the Armed Forces, Romeo Vásquez. According to the report in the Honduran La Prensa, Zelaya was told that “the best way out of the crisis” would be for him to “cancel the consultation and carry out an opinion poll instead”. (La Prensa, June 22). The very fact that the US ambassador is meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign country in this manner is a clear indication of the status of Honduras as a “banana republic” dominated by US imperialism. The message to Zelaya was clear: cancel the referendum or else.

Photo by ALBA TVIt would be extremely naïve to think that Llorens did not know of the plans for a coup ‑ in fact this was being openly discussed in the Honduran media in the days leading up to it ‑ and even more naïve to think that he had not reported to Washington. Llorens is not a newcomer, he was nominated as US ambassador to Honduras by the Bush administration and had been Head of Andean Affairs at the National Security Council in 2002 and 2003. This position made him Bush’s main advisor on matters related to Venezuela, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador. He therefore was well aware of the failure of the 2002 coup in Venezuela.

The policy of the new Obama administration regarding Latin America has been one of hiding the stick and mainly waving the carrot. The aims are the same, but after the fiasco of Bush’s bullish policy in the region, Obama is keen to push back the revolutionary wave sweeping the continent by leaning on the “reasonable left” governments in the region. He cannot, therefore, afford the embarrassment of a military coup. Certainly the US administration wanted to remove Zelaya, who had become a thorn in their side, by joining ALBA, siding with Chavez, refusing for months to accept the new US ambassador, Llorens, as a gesture of solidarity with Bolivia (where the US were involved in another attempted coup in September last year) and by generally contributing to a sharpening of the class struggle (“polarisation”) in Honduras with his “irresponsible” statements about the rich and poor, and “freeing the country from imperialism”. They merely preferred to do so by constitutional means.

Photo by ALBA TVOn June 25 the Honduran congress declared itself in “permanent session”. They were going to carry out the coup by declaring the disqualification of the president. The coup was averted at the last minute with the intervention of Llorens and even, according to some reports, of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself. But this only delayed the coup until Sunday 28, when the army took Zelaya in the middle of the night and put him on a plane to Costa Rica.

This was revealed in the lukewarm and belated statements of the Obama administration in the aftermath of the coup. The first official pronouncement of the White House was along the lines of an appeal to “all political and social players in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic Charter”. That was an appeal for all players to respect democracy, when some of them had just carried out a coup! It was only after the strongly worded condemnation of the coup by the ALBA member countries, led by Venezuela, that the US was forced to utter the word “coup”, and threatened to curtail military aid to Honduras. However, ambassador Llorens was left in Honduras, in order to keep an open line “with all players”.

Photo by ALBA TVEven though Zelaya has been in Washington for a few days, neither Obama nor Clinton have thus far met with him, preferring to allow the OAS to deal with the matter. The Organisation of American States has been charged with trying to find a reasonable solution to this mess, one that would save face by bringing Zelaya back, but on the basis of neutralising him – and above all the masses who support him. After all, even if he came back, he does not have control of Congress, nor the Supreme Court, nor the Army, and there are elections scheduled in November in which he cannot legally participate. When Zelaya announced that he was going back to the country on Thursday, July 2^nd, the OAS gave the regime a 72-hour ultimatum, thus delaying his return. Then Zelaya announced that he would go back on Saturday 4th, only for OAS general secretary Insulza to announce his own visit to Honduras on that day, delaying Zelaya by one more day.

But Insulza was met with derision on the part of the coup plotters who announced that, before anyone kicked them out, they would be leaving the OAS. There are certain elements in politics that are never completely under anyone's control. Here we saw the most obtuse representatives of the Honduran oligarchy biting the hand that was offering them a way out.

Photo by ALBA TVThe Spanish El Pais, always reflecting faithfully the opinions of imperialism, put it quite bluntly last week: “It is urgent to find a way out within the agreed [OAS] deadline, in order to prevent Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, from filling the vacuum which might be left afterwards. If the OAS, with US support, does not reinstate Zelaya, the road would then be open for the insurrectionary solution that Chavez is suggesting. The US seems to be conscious of the fact that it is running more risks here than they could have ever imagined in a country like Honduras, and is attempting to be very careful in its moves, so that Zelaya can win but without a victory for what he represents. In other words, without a victory for Chavez and populism”. (El Pais, July 2^nd, Ultimátum de la OEA a los golpistas)

El Pais, incidentally came out against the coup but supported the reasons for it, after having written a vitriolic denunciation of Zelaya the day before the coup, in an editorial which ridiculed Chavez’s warning that a coup was being prepared in Honduras. (Editorial: Crisis en Honduras, June 26^th)

Negotiations and mass action

Photo by ALBA TVNonetheless, in the next few days, more pressure will be exerted on the coup leaders to reach a settlement. This was confirmed today in an article in the Washington Post: “U.S. officials confirmed that Honduras's de facto government had sent a message to the OAS seeking to open negotiations, a move that one official described as positive. 'We think this could create the basis for continuing movement by the OAS on diplomatic initiatives,' one official said.”

Tomás Andino, the UD deputy, told us that Carlos Flores was in negotiations with Washington to find a negotiated way out of the current crisis. “They want to bring back Zelaya, but bound hand and foot”. He pointed out that the businessmen fear that if the current efforts do not force the coup plotters to step down they will be faced with an armed mass uprising of the people which would threaten the whole of the capitalist regime.

Photo by ALBA TVHowever, we must be clear on one point: no amount of diplomatic pressure can defeat the coup in Honduras unless the masses of workers and peasants fight for it on the streets as they have done in the last few days. It may even come to pass that Zelaya is returned to Honduras, only for Congress to start proceedings to remove him from the presidency before the end of his term in January.

Over the last week, the mass movement in Honduras has become broader, more confident and more radicalised. This is precisely what the coup plotters feared, and the reason why they organised the coup. The struggle of the hundreds of thousands of Honduran working people, who have come out on the streets over the last week braving repression, is not only for the reinstatement of the president, but also for the trial and punishment of the coup plotters. Even more than that, it is a fundamental struggle for jobs, bread, land, dignity, and national sovereignty. None of this will be achieved simply with the return of Zelaya alone. If a negotiated settlement is finally reached, this will not satisfy the demands of the masses for justice, and it will certainly not solve the economic and social problems that have pushed them to rally behind Zelaya.

Photo by ALBA TVSpeaking to Tomas Aquino, from the Honduras Democratic United Party, he made it very clear that the Peoples’ Resistance Front Against the Coup rejects any kind of negotiation with the coup-plotters and stands for the unconditional reinstatement of the president. He added that the masses of the people have become radicalised through their own experience. “They no longer demand a referendum on the Constituent Assembly, they want a Constituent Assembly full stop, as they are not prepared to deal any more with the political institutions that organised the coup”.

The return of Zelaya, if it does finally take place in the next few days, will only be a real victory for the mass movement if it is achieved without concessions on his part. If so, it will strengthen the resolve of the workers and peasants, it will increase their confidence in their own strength.

Photo by ALBA TVThis last week of struggle has been a very rich school of political education for the masses. Under the whip of repression their political understanding has developed by leaps and bounds. All that Zelaya wanted, apparently, was to carry out a consultation on the possibility of a referendum to decide on a Constituent Assembly! And just because of that, the oligarchy en bloc organised a military-civilian coup. As Andino explained to us, the coup has the support of all traditional political parties, the hierarchy of the Evangelical and Catholic churches, the monopoly mass media groups, the owners of industry, the landowners, the judiciary and the tops of the Army. The whole of the capitalist political establishment is against a minor democratic reform! Because they are terrified of the revolutionary implications of the direct participation of the masses of the workers and peasants in politics. The capitalist system cannot allow it. Andino added that, “what we see is the beginning of a revolution”, and he is correct.

The two main lessons to be learnt from these events are, on the one hand, that the oligarchy in these underdeveloped capitalist countries cannot allow even the most moderate progressive reforms if these are accompanied by a process of politicisation and mobilisation of the masses. They fear the revolutionary consequences of the active participation of the masses in politics. On the other hand it should by now be clear that it is utopian to expect that the institutions of the capitalist state (the judiciary, army hierarchy, mass media, police, etc.), will allow genuine revolutionary change to take place without them stepping in to defend the interests of their masters, the ruling class. This is a serious warning for the revolutionary movement in Bolivia, in neighbouring El Salvador, in Ecuador, etc.

Photo by ALBA TVThe only way forward for the movement in Honduras is to continue the mobilisation against the coup. This must be organised and coordinated nationally through committees in every workplace, neighbourhood and village. An appeal must be made to the ranks of the Army, the ordinary soldiers who are also part of the people. Mass demonstrations must be protected by defence committees made up of the workers and peasants themselves. The army generals have already shown what they are capable of, the people cannot face them unprotected. Tomás Andino reported to us lots of different examples of fraternisation of police officers and soldiers with the protestors. These have not yet crystallised in any section of the army openly rebelling, but this could happen in the next few days.

Finally, the main weapon of working people against the oligarchy and the coup is the general strike. Without the permission of the working class not a wheel turns and not a light bulb shines in Honduras. Workers can bring the country to a halt and prevent the coup regime from functioning. Andino reported to In Defence of Marxism that about 60% of public sector workers had participated in the strike against the coup and that this week would see the spreading of the strike movement to the private sector. The call for strike action had been made by the three trade union confederations, all of them part of the Peoples Resistance Front.

Tomás Andino also made an appeal for action to the international working class. “There should be blockades against Honduran products on the part of dockers and transport workers. This can hit the capitalist class where it hurts”.

International solidarity on the part of working people and the labour movement internationally is also crucial. We stand firmly on the side of the Honduran people and against any attempts to water down their fundamental demands.

For the immediate return of Zelaya!

Trial and punishment for the coup plotters!

Full support for the struggle of the people of Honduras!

Report on the Second Latin American Meeting of Worker-Recovered Factories: "Our solidarity ...

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:20:07 +0100

The Second Latin American Meeting of Worker-Recovered Factories took place on June 25-27. Over two hundred workers gathered at the National Library in Caracas to discuss perspectives for the occupied factories movement internationally. Worker representatives were present from all over the world, including Paraguay, Bolivia, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Turkey, Iraq and Canada.

Leading activists from Mitsubishi, Vivex, Inveval, the newly nationalized La Gaviota, the Cabelum factory in Guayana, the Front of Health sector workers' of Lara, the trade-union in CEMEX and many more unions and occupied factories were present. A number of leading Bolivian trade-unionists of the COB (Central Workers' Federation), the Central Obrera Departamental de Oruro and of the FSTMB (Miners Trade-Union Federation) unfortunately had to send apologies for various reasons.

At 2:00 p.m. on June 25 the opening meeting officially began. After a few remarks, Serge Goulart (the national coordinator of the Occupied Factories Movement in Brazil) introduced the first speaker. Eduardo Samán, the Venezuelan Minster of Commerce, spoke at length about the need to deepen the revolution in Venezuela. World capitalism is in crisis, he said, and “we can’t expect that it will collapse on its own.” To this end he called on working people to organise to defend and deepen the revolution in Venezuela. He ended his talk by reaffirming the importance of the meeting in building a collective memory of workers’ shared experience. The minister was presented with several gifts, including The Battle of Inveval: The Struggle for Workers’ Control in Venezuela by Pablo Cormenzana, a militant of the IMT in Venezuela. César Gonzáles, coordinator of the worker-recovered factories in Paraguay, also presented the minister with a film about Cerámica Itauguá – a ceramics plant in Paraguay occupied by its workers.

Lalo Paret of the National Movement of Occupied Factories in Argentina also spoke at the meeting. He discussed the importance of distinguishing between workers’ cooperatives and the nationalisation of factories under workers’ control. Cooperatives do not address the problem of capitalism. If workers run a business under the cooperative model they will be forced to adhere to the competitive logic of capitalism. Nationalisation under workers’ control, on the other hand, ensures that workers’ interests are not subjected to the dictates of the market. Instead of the factory belonging only to the workers who work there, it belongs to all workers – to society as a whole. This was an important lesson learned from the Argentinean experience.

Luis Primo from FRETECO spoke next. He is also an organising member of both the First and Second Latin American Meetings of Worker-Recovered Factories and is a well-known unionist in the UNT. He emphasised that one of the major problems facing the working class in Venezuela and abroad is how to transform capitalist management into working-class management. So far workers have learned about workers’ control; now they have to learn about workers’ management. Workers also have to learn know to “articulate the national with the international,” he said.

A representative from La Gaviota, a recently expropriated sardine plant, also spoke at the meeting. Pascuala talked about the difficulties she and her co-workers faced when they decided to occupy their factory. At first it was difficult because they lacked raw materials. Many workers became discouraged and didn’t think they could do it. Eventually the materials came through and confirmed to them that workers “can do it, united and together.” They discovered that they can continue production under workers’ control. “We can do it without the bosses” she said. Workers now decide how much is produced and where it is sent. “Now we do everything – and we get to eat the sardines!”

Félix Martínez, the general secretary of the Union of the New Generation of Mitsubishi Workers (SINGETRAM) spoke next about the police brutality that ended in the death of two comrades. “Before Chavez,” he said, “unions had [absolutely] no support.” Activists were beaten up or killed regularly. Chavez has been able to provide some support to struggling workers in Venezuela. Since the death of the two Mitsubishi workers, however, the economic fight has been transformed into a political one; and this requires ideological vigilance. “Now that we have met the IMT”, he said, “we have learned to be vigilant about ideology. We are going to make a school for workers.”

He also talked about the importance of the exchange of ideas between workers of different countries in the fight for socialism. We need unions with more democracy and leaders who will fight for workers to ensure that the needs of the group are met. Most importantly, he insisted, the means of production need to be transferred to the workers. “We are part of the development towards worldwide socialism. I am completely convinced that this is the only way forward – collectively. Our solidarity is permanent.”

After Félix spoke a moment of silence was observed for the two fallen workers at Mitsubishi, and for all workers who have been persecuted or killed.

The last speaker of the day was Jorge Paredes, the president of the union at Inveval. Miembro del consejo de fábrica de Inveval y trabajadores Presidente de Inveval. He spoke about the importance of eliminating private property and of combating bureaucracy and the state. He also discussed how the umbrella organisation, FRETECO, will be an important factor in organising these fights.

On the second day reports were given on the state of workers’ movements in various countries. Representatives from Iraq, Canada, Turkey and Paraguay reported on the situation in their respective countries.

Following the international reports, Pablo Cormenzana, the author of The Battle of Inveval, spoke about the Venezuelan revolution and the struggle of occupied factories. Pablo stressed that the central point for the workers’ revolution in Venezuela is the occupied factories movement. But unfortunately workers in Venezuela cannot count on the state to fight in their interests. There are elements within the government that represent the interests of the bourgeoisie, and the case of Inveval reveals this clearly. “It is a microcosm of the class struggle,” he said. It has been nationalized for four years but it is not producing at full-scale, only repairing valves because of sabotage on the part of the bureaucracy. In spite of the fact that Chávez has hailed Inveval as an example to follow, signed the decree for its budget and also for the expropriation of Acerven (the sister-factory – a smelter which is vital for production in Inveval), none of this has been carried out and the bureaucracy is deliberately sabotaging Inveval. This highlights the need for stepping up an international solidarity campaign.

Likewise in Venezuelan society workers’ needs are not being met. The bureaucracy still poses a great threat and barrier to the revolution. Yet with the economic crisis the situation is getting more and more dangerous; and this is bringing the question of leadership to the fore. The working class needs to finish the revolution – it needs to take power. This is why organising the factory councils on a national level is so important.

The second day ended with a debate on private property versus social property. The debate was lively with many interventions from the floor. Luis Primo chaired the discussion. Gerardo Xicotencatl, trade-union leader at Olympia – an occupied factory in Mexico and the centre of one of the key struggles in that country – spoke on the political and social situation in Mexico in general and the concrete struggle at Olympia in particular.

On the third day there was a discussion on the repression of workers in all countries. Workers spoke about their experiences in Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. Josie from Brazil described the plight of students in her country as well. In the end it was proposed that an international tribunal be created on the question of the criminalization of social movements and the repression of workers around the world. This was accepted unanimously.

A special resolution of solidarity with the masses of Iran was also discussed and voted unanimously. This resolution condemns the reactionary Islamic regime and hails the revolutionary movement that has taken to the streets in spite of harsh repression. This shows that the workers of Latin America are following events in Iran and are in complete solidarity with their fighting class brothers and sisters in Iran.

Another resolution, demanding that president Lula of Brazil give back Cipla and Interfibra to the workers, was also passed.

A final declaration of the meeting will be available shortly, including an addendum with international greetings from the meeting to various countries.

The balance-sheet of this meeting is overwhelmingly positive. It was a continuation of the first meeting which was celebrated in October 2005. But this time, the political situation on a world scale places it on a qualitatively higher level. On the one hand because the workers felt that they themselves had organized and financed this gathering. On the other hand because the economic crisis of capitalism is pushing new layers into struggle and these struggles are becoming increasingly militant in nature. Thus, it is necessary to link them together and build unity among workers, also on an international level.

The last decision of the meeting was that the third gathering should be held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and to have an international character, not just involving Latin American countries, but also Europe, The Middle East, Asia and Africa.

Report of the first Latin American meeting of occupied factories.

Read reports in Spanish:Apertura del IIº Encuentro Latinoamericano de empresas recuperadas por sus trabajadores
Finalizó el II encuentro latinoamericano de empresas recuperadas por sus trabajadores