Category: Venezuela

  • This outcome was far from certain in recent months. With Guaidó’s self-proclamation and initial enthusiasm far in the rearview mirror, the opposition’s cherished tradition of cannibalistic infighting became ever more present. Corruption scandals and bitter name-calling made the rounds on social media.

    Leaders like Henrique Capriles were openly calling for Guaidó’s head while mocking the “interim government” by likening it to a video game. A sector of the opposition managed to twist the hardliners’ arm and run in the November 21 mega-elections. The gamble was clear: get a respectable number of elected governors and mayors and Guaidó’s post would be under even more pressure.

    But it did not work out, which forced the warring parties into a kind of détente.

    The post Washington, Guaidó And The Billion-Dollar Circus appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • During the 21st century, the US, working with corporate elites, traditional oligarchies, military, and corporate media, has continually attempted coups against Latin American governments which place the needs of their people over US corporate interests. US organized coups in Latin American countries is hardly a 20th century phenomenon.

    However, this century the US rulers have turned to a new coup strategy, relying on soft coups, a significant change from the notoriously brutal military hard coups in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and other countries in the 1970s. One central US concern in these new coups has been to maintain a legal and democratic facade as much as possible.

    The US superpower recognizes successful soft coups depend on mobilizing popular forces in anti-government marches and protests. Gene Sharp style color revolutions are heavily funded by US and European NGOs, such as USAID, NED, National Democratic Institute, International Republican Institute, Open Society Foundations, Ford Foundation, and others. They make use of organizations professing “human rights” (such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International), local dissident organizations, and increasingly, liberal-left media (even Democracy Now) to prepare the groundwork.

    US regime change operations have found three mechanisms this century that have been tremendously successful. First, economic warfare on a country, through sanctions and outright blockades, creates rising discontent against the targeted government. Second, increasing use of corporate media and social media to spread disinformation (often around “human rights,” “democracy,” “freedom,” or “corruption”) to foment mass movements against leaders that prioritize their nation’s development over US financial interests. This heavily relies on CIA social media operations to blanket a country with disinformation. Third, lawfare, using the appearance of democratic legality to bring down those defending their country’s national sovereignty. Related to lawfare are the electoral coups in countries such as Haiti, Honduras, and Brazil, where the US engineers or helps to engineer a coup by stealing the election.

    Many of the attempted coups failed because the people mobilized to defend their governments, and because of crucial and timely solidarity declarations in defense of these governments by the Latin American bodies of the OAS, UNASUR, and the Rio Group. Today, the Rio Group no longer exists, UNASUR is much weakened, and the OAS is now fully under US control.

    US Backed Coups and Attempted Coups

    2001 Haiti. Haitian paramilitaries based in the Dominican Republic launched an attack on the National Palace, seat of the government of President Aristide. The attack failed, but until 2004, similar to the 1980s Nicaraguan contras, these paramilitaries launched numerous raids into Haiti, and played a key role leading to the 2004 coup perpetrated directly by US troops.

    2002 Venezuela. The US government partially funded and backed the short-lived April 11-14 coup against Hugo Chavez.

    2002-3 Venezuela. Management of the state oil company PDVSA organized an “oil strike,” actually a lockout of the oil workers, to drive Hugo Chavez out of power. This again failed in early 2003.

    2003 Cuba. In the lead up to the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq, John Bolton claimed Cuba was a state sponsor of terrorism, producing biological weapons for terrorist purposes, just as Saddam’s Iraq was falsely claimed to have weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). During this period, the US increased its anti-Cuba propaganda directed at the country and increased funding to “pro-democracy” groups in Cuba, while anti-Cuban right-wing groups escalated their activities. The US paid “dissident” groups to organize protests and disruptions, including hijacking seven boats and airplanes to reach the US where they were never prosecuted. The goal was to create the appearance of disorder in Cuba, which, combined with its alleged biological WMDs, demanded an international intervention to restore order. Cuba squashed this movement in spring 2003.

    2004 Haiti. In an early 20th century style US coup, US troops invaded Haiti, kidnapped President Jean Bertrande Aristide and exiled him to the Central African Republic.

    2008 Bolivia. The Media Luna attempted coup involved right-wing leaders and some indigenous groups from Bolivia’s lowlands financed by the US. They sought to separate the richer Media Luna region from the rest of the country. In the process, they killed 20 supporters of President Evo Morales. Juan Ramon Quintana of the Bolivian government reported that between 2007-2015, the NED gave $10 million in funding to some 40 institutions including economic and social centers, foundations and NGOs. US embassy cables showed it sought to turn social and indigenous movements against the Evo Morales government.

    2009 Honduras. Honduran military forces, under orders from the US, seized President Manuel Zelaya, brought him to the US military base at Palmerola, then exiled him to Costa Rica. This began an era of brutal neoliberal narco-trafficking regimes that ended in 2021 with the landslide election of Xiomara Castro, Zelaya’s wife.

    2010 Ecuador. In September a failed coup against President Rafael Correa by military and police units backed by the indigenous organizations CONAIE and Pachakutik. The US had infiltrated the police and armed forces, while the NED and USAID funded these indigenous organizations.

    2011 Haiti. Following the Haiti earthquake in 2010 that killed 200,000, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imposed Michel Martelly as president after threatening to cut off US aid to Haiti. Clinton flew to Haiti to demand that Martelly be named one of the two runoff candidates, although Martelly was not recognized by the Electoral Council as one of the qualifiers. Despite a voter boycott, with fewer than 20% of the electorate voting, Martelly was announced the winner of the “runoff.” One reason why most Haitians boycotted was that the most popular political party in the country, Fanmi Lavalas, the party of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was excluded from the ballot. The Haiti elections were funded by USAID, Canada, the OAS, the European Union and other foreign bodies.

    2012 Paraguay. President Fernando Lugo was scapegoated for a land occupation confrontation between campesinos and the police, which led to 17 deaths. President Lugo was removed from office without a chance to defend himself in a lawfare coup.

    2013 Venezuela. After the April election that Nicolas Maduro narrowly won, Henrique Capriles, the US-supported loser, claimed the election was stolen and called his supporters out into the streets in violent protests. Due to the strength of the UNASUR countries at the time, the US could not convince other countries to also reject Maduro’s victory.

    2014 Venezuela. “La Salida”(The Exit), led by Leopoldo Lopez and Maria Corina Machado, resulted in 43 deaths, and aimed to drive President Maduro from power. Again, the US could not get other Latin American governments to denounce Maduro, either in UNASUR or in the OAS.

    2015 Ecuador. Between 2012-2015, $30 million from NED went to political parties, trade unions, dissident movements, and media. In 2013 alone, USAID and NED spent $24 million in Ecuador. This paid off in 2015 when CONAIE, which thanked USAID for its funding, called for an indigenous-led uprising. They began with marches in early August and concluded in Quito for an uprising and general strike on August 10.  The attempted coup failed.

    2015 Haiti.  A new electoral coup for the presidency was funded by the US to the tune of $30 million. Both the US and the OAS refused Haitians’ demands to invalidate the election. The police attacked Supporters of opposition parties were shot with live and rubber bullets, killing many. President Michel Martelly’s chosen successor Jovenel Moise became president.

    2015 Guatemala. The US engineered a coup against right-wing President Otto Perez Molina because he was not sufficiently subservient.

    2015 Argentina. Argentine prosecutor Alber Nisman was evidently murdered days after he made bogus criminal charges against President Cristina Fernandez, claiming she was involved in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center. This was used to create a scandal, unseat her, and bring neoliberals back to power. Neoliberal forces and media used the case to disrupt the Kirchner coalition from winning another presidential election.

    2015-2019 El Salvador. El Salvador’s right-wing opposition backed by the US sought to destabilize the government of President Salvador Sánchez Cerén of the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN).  The conservative mass media launched a smear campaign against the administration, in concert with a surge in gang-driven homicides that the police chief said was part of a campaign to drive up body counts and remove the FMLN government. Sanchez Cerén and other former officials who were members of the FMLN later became targets of lawfare, “a strategy used in recent years by conservative groups in power to try to demobilize the organization and resistance of the peoples against neoliberalism and other forms of domination.”

    2016 Brazil. US-backed right-wing movements launched a campaign against President Dilma Rousseff of the Workers Party for “corruption.” Aided by the corporate media, they organized a series of protests in Brazil’s largest cities throughout 2015. In March 2016, a massive political demonstration brought together more than 500,000 people in support of impeaching President Rousseff. She was finally impeached by Congress and removed from office in a successful lawfare coup.

    2017 Venezuela. Violent protests (guarimbas), led by Leopoldo Lopez, sought to oust President Maduro, with 126 fatalities. The guarimbas ended after the elections for the National Constituent Assembly.

    2017 Honduras. The US supported an electoral coup by President Juan Orlando Hernández involving widespread electoral fraud and government killing of dozens in protests. The US quickly recognized him as president and pressured other countries to do so also, even though the OAS itself had called for a new election.

    2018 Nicaragua. US-backed violent protests, supported by anti-FSLN media and social media disinformation campaigns, sought to remove President Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas from power. After two months, public sentiment turned strongly against the violent protests and they disintegrated.

    2018 Brazil. Former President Lula de Silva was the leading candidate to win the presidential election, but was imprisoned due to a lawfare operation of the US and Brazil’s right-wing, using bogus corruption charges. Bolsonario won the election, aided by a large-scale fake news operation which sent out hundreds of millions of WhatsApp messages to Brazilian voters.

    2019 Venezuela. In January, Juan Guaido declared himself president of Venezuela after US Vice President Pence assured him of US recognition. On April 30, the Guaido-Leopoldo Lopez’ planned uprising outside an air force base flopped. Later, a mercenary attack from Colombia failed to seize President Maduro in the presidential palace.

    2019 Bolivia. The US engineered a coup against Evo Morales, in part by using a social media campaign to make the false claim he stole the election. The OAS played a key role in legitimizing the coup. The disastrous coup government of Jeanine Anez lasted for just over one year.

    2021 Cuba. The US orchestrated and funded protests against the Cuban government in July and November. The US sought to build a new generation of counter-revolutionary leadership by creating new “independent” press and social media platforms. These failed more miserably than the 2003 protests.

    2021 Bolivia. In October, the right-wing tried to organize a coup and general strike, demanding the release of former President  Anez who was now imprisoned. The attempt was only successful in Santa Cruz, the center of the Media Luna. Later, mass organizations led a rally, encompassing 1.5 million, to the capital to defend the MAS government.

    2021 Peru. The right-wing oligarchy used lawfare unsuccessfully to unseat new President Castillo, a leader who emerged from the popular indigenous movement, seeking to remove him for being “permanently morally incapable.” However, a new lawfare case has been brought against President Castillo concerning “corruption.”

    2021 Nicaragua. The US planned to repeat the 2018 Nicaragua protests, combined with a concocted campaign that the Daniel Ortega government had imprisoned US-financed opposition “pre-candidates” before the presidential election. This coup attempt failed but the US and OAS refused to recognize the election results.

    In 2022 we can expect the US to continue “regime change” operations against Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru, and now Chile with the election of progressive President Boric.

    This list of 27 US-backed coups and attempted coups in the first 21 years of this century may be incomplete. For instance, not included are the lawfare frame-ups directed by Ecuador’s former President Lenin Moreno, a US puppet, against former Vice President Jorge Glas, who is now imprisoned, nor against former President Rafael Correa, now in exile.

    This listing of US coups and attempted coups is also misleading. As throughout the 20th century, the US daily, not periodically, interferes in what it considers its colonies to both impose neocolonial regimes and maintain those regimes which open their markets to the US without conditions and align themselves with US foreign policy.

    Under the facade of “democracy promotion” Washington works to advance the exact opposite goal: foment coups against democratic and popular governments. Governments and leaders that stand up for their people and their national rights are the very targets of “democracy promotion” coups.

    Present day US reliance on soft coup operations involves funding not only NGOs and right-wing groups in the targeted countries for training in Gene Sharp style “democracy promotion” programs. Many liberal and liberal-left alternative media and NGOs in the US now receive corporate funding, which pushes their political outlook in a more pro-imperialist direction. This is well-illustrated in the soft coup attempts against Evo’s Bolivia and Rafael Correa’s Ecuador. These NGOs and alternative media give a false humanitarian face to imperialist intervention.

    Moreover, these regime change operations are now openly being used at home against the US people. This is seen in the confusion and political divisions in the US population, manufactured by the 2016 Hillary Clinton Russiagate disinformation campaign against Trump and the Trump 2020 stolen election disinformation campaign against the Democrats. For those of us opposed to US interventionism, we are called upon to expose these new sophisticated methods of soft coup interference, to demand the national sovereignty of other nations be respected, and to bring together the US people against this manipulation by the corporate rulers.

    The post 21st Century US Coups and Attempted Coups in Latin America first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US policy towards Latin America and the Caribbean continued in a seamless transition from Trump to Biden, but the terrain over which it operated shifted left. The balance between the US drive to dominate its “backyard” and its counterpart, the Bolivarian cause of regional independence and integration, continued to tip portside in 2021 with major popular electoral victories in Chile, Honduras, and Peru. These follow the previous year’s reversal of the coup in Bolivia.

    Central has been the struggle of the ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America) countries – particularly Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua – against the asphyxiating US blockade and other regime-change measures. Presidential candidate Biden pledged to review Trump’s policy of US sanctions against a third of humanity. The presumptive intention of the review was to ameliorate the human suffering caused by these unilateral coercive measures, considered illegal under international law. Following the review, Biden has instead tightened the screws, more effectively weaponizing the COVID crisis.

    Andean Nations

    The unrelenting US regime-change campaign against Venezuela has had a corrosive effect on Venezuela’s attempt to build socialism. With the economy de facto dollarized, among those hardest hit are government workers, the informal sector, and those without access to dollar remittances from abroad.

    Nonetheless, Venezuela’s resistance to the continued US “maximum pressure” hybrid warfare is a triumph in itself. Recent economic indicators have shown an upturn with significant growth in national food and oil production and an end to hyperinflation. Further, the government has built 3.7 million housing units, distributed food to 7 million through the CLAP program, and adroitly handled the COVID pandemic.

    When Trump recognized Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela in 2019, the then 35-year-old US security asset had never run for a nationwide office and was unknown to over 80% of the Venezuelans. Back then some 50 of the US’s closest allies recognized Guaidó; now barely a dozen does so. Contrary to campaign trail inuendoes that Biden would enter into dialogue with the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, Biden has continued the embarrassing Guaidó charade.

    The November 21 municipal and regional elections were a double triumph for Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution: the ruling Socialist Party (PSUV) won significantly while the extreme right opposition (including Guaidó’s party) was compelled to participate, implicitly recognizing the Maduro government.

    Venezuelan special envoy Alex Saab was extradited – really kidnapped – to the US on October 16 on the vague and difficult to disprove charge of “conspiracy” to money launder. Swiss authorities, after an exhaustive 3-year investigation, had found no evidence of money laundering. Saab’s real “crime” was trying to bring humanitarian aid to Venezuela via legal international trade but circumventing the illegal US blockade. This egregious example of US extra-territorial judicial overreach is being contested by Saab’s legal defense because, as a diplomat, he has absolute immunity from arrest under the Vienna Convention. His case has become a major cause in Venezuela and internationally.

    Meanwhile, Colombia, chief regional US client state, the biggest recipient of US military aid in the hemisphere,  and the largest world source of cocaine, is a staging point for paramilitary attacks on Venezuela. President Iván Duque continues to disregard the 2016 peace agreement with the guerrilla FARC as Colombia endures a pandemic of rightwing violence especially against human rights defenders and former guerillas.

    On April 28, Duque’s proposed neoliberal tax bill precipitated a national strike mobilizing a broad coalition of unions, members of indigenous and Afro-descendent communities, social activists, and campesinos. They carried out sustained actions across the country for nearly two months, followed by a renewed national strike wave, starting on August 26. The approaching 2022 presidential election could portend a sea change for the popular movement where leftist Senator Gustavo Petro is leading in the polls.

    In Ecuador, Andrés Arauz won the first-round presidential election on February 7 with a 13-point lead over Guillermo Lasso, but short of the 40% or more needed to avoid the April 13 runoff, which he lost. A victim of a massive disinformation campaign, Arauz was a successor of former President Rafael Correa’s leftist Citizen Revolution, which still holds the largest bloc in the National Assembly. The “NGO left,” funded by the US and its European allies, contributed to the electoral reversal. Elements of the indigenous Pachakutik party have allied with the new president, a wealthy banker, to implement a neo-liberal agenda.

    In Peru, Pedro Castillo, a rural school teacher and a Marxist, won the presidency in a June 6 runoff against hard-right Keiko Fujimori, daughter of now imprisoned and former president Alberto Fujimori. Castillo won by the slimmest of margins and now faces rightwing lawfare and the possibility of a coup. Just a few weeks into his presidency, he was forced to replace his leftist foreign Minister, Hector Béjar, with someone more favorable to the rightwing opposition and the military.

    In Bolivia, a US-backed coup deposed leftist President Evo Morales in 2019 and temporarily installed a rightist. Evo’s Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) party successor, Luis Arce, took back the presidency last year in a landslide election. With the rightwing still threatening, a massive weeklong March for the Homeland of Bolivian workers, campesinos, and indigenous rallied in support of the government in late November.

    Southern Cone

    Brazil has the world’s eighth largest economy world and the largest in Latin America. Rightwing President Jair Bolsonaro has been dismantling social welfare measures, rewarding multinational corporations, and presiding over wholesale illegal mining and deforestation, while the popular sectors protest. Former left leaning President Lula da Silva is strongly favored to win in the October 2, 2022 elections. He was also favored to win in the 2018 presidential election against Bolsonaro but was imprisoned on trumped up charges, preventing him from running.

    In Chile, Gabriel Boric won the second round of the Chilean presidential election by a landslide on December 19 against far-right José Antonio Kast, the son of a German Nazi Party member. The 35-year-old Boric was a leader in the huge protests in 2019 and 2020 against corrupt President Sebastian Piñera, who is the richest person in the country. The slogan of the protests was: “If Chile was the birthplace of neoliberalism, then it will also be its graveyard!”

    Although the victory is a repudiation of the Pinochet legacy, Boric has also been somewhat critical of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. Boric’s libertarian socialist Frente Amplio party rode to victory with major support from the Chilean Communist Party along with center-left forces. Earlier in the year, in a plebiscite to forge a united popular campaign, Communist Daniel Jadue lost to Boric. A Constituent Assembly, where the left won the majority of the delegates in a May election, is currently rewriting the Pinochet-era constitution.

    In Argentina, the center-right Together for Change coalition decisively swept the November 13 midterm elections, rebuking the Peronists who have been unable to effectively address high unemployment and inflation.  In 2019, the center-left Peronist Alberto Fernández succeeded rightwing President Mauricio Macri, whose record breaking $50.1 billion IMF loan saddled the people with austerity measures. Prospects are now dim for restructuring of the debt or suspending payments with an opposition majority more intent on discrediting Fernández than addressing the issues.

    Caribbean

    Candidate Biden had signaled a return to the Obama-Biden easing of restrictions on Cuba. But once in office, Biden intensified the US hybrid war against Cuba. Discontent with critically deteriorating economic conditions erupted in popular demonstrations on July 11, fanned by the US-funded opposition. A repeat effort at a regime-change demonstrations, largely orchestrated by Washington, fizzled on November 15. Biden continues the same illegal policy of regime change against Cuba  as that of the previous twelve US presidents: covert and overt destabilization, blockade, and occupation of Guantánamo.

    Despite an economy severely impacted by the pandemic and the tightening of US blockade, Cuba has produced three COVID vaccines with two more in development. More than 90% percent of Cubans are vaccinated, surpassing the US.

    In Haiti, a 7.2 magnitude earthquake hit on August 14. Another upheaval has been the nearly continuous popular revolt against US-installed presidents. President Jovenal Moïse, who had ruled by decree after cancelling elections, was assassinated on July 7 in an apparent intra-ruling class squabble. Claude Joseph was installed as interim president for a few days and then replaced by Ariel Henry, with elections still postponed.

    Biden deported thousands of emigres back to Haiti. This represented “a disappointing step backward from the Biden administration’s earlier commitments to fully break from the harmful deportation policies of both the Trump and Obama presidencies,” according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

    Central America and Mexico

    In El Salvador, President Nayib Bukele, formerly associated with the left FMLN party, continued his regression to the right. In response, the Popular Resistance Bloc and other civil society groups staged large protests on September 15 and October 17.

    In Honduras, Xiomara Castro, wife of the former President Zelaya, was swept into the presidency by a landslide popular vote on November 28. The slogan of the now triumphant resistance front was: “They fear us because we have no fear.”

    In the twelve years since the US-backed coup overthrew the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya, the country had devolved into a state where the former president, Juan Orlando Hernández, was an unindicted drug smuggler, the intellectual authors who ordered the assassination of indigenous environmental leader Berta Cáceres ran free, Afro-descendent people and women were murdered with impunity, gang violence was widespread, and state protection from the pandemic was grossly deficient.

    In neighboring Nicaragua, the US called the November 7 presidential election an undemocratic fraud nearly a year in advance as part of a larger regime-change campaign against left-leaning governments. The US claimed that “pre-candidates” were barred from running. However, these individuals had been arrested for illegal activities and were not credible candidates.

    In fact, the US has never supported democracy in Nicaragua. US Marines occupied Nicaragua from 1912 to 1934, only leaving after installing the autocratic Somoza dynasty to do their bidding. When the Sandinistas ousted the dictatorship in 1979, the US launched the Contra War. After fomenting an unsuccessful coup in 2018, the US NICA Act then imposed sanctions. This was followed in 2020 by the RAIN plan, a multi-faceted coup strategy.

    Disregarding Washington’s call to boycott, a respectable 65% of the Nicaraguan electorate went to the polls and 76% of the voters re-elected Sandinista President Daniel Ortega. The Sandinista’s landslide victory was a testament to their success in serving Nicaragua’s poor and a repudiation of the 2018 coup attempt. Immediately after the election, the US RENACER Act imposed new illegal sanctions.

    In Mexico, the June 6 midterm elections pitted the ruling MORENA coalition against the traditional parties (PAN, PRI, PRD), chambers of commerce, and the US embassy. NGOs funded by USAID and NED supported the opposition, whose talking points were echoed by the Economist and the Nation. While MORENA retained is majority in Congress and two-thirds of the governors in the midterms, they suffered setbacks in Mexico City, their traditional stronghold.

    Mexico is a critically important state as the second largest economy in Latin America, the eleventh in the world, and the US’s top trade partner. After decades of rightwing rule, left-of-center Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and his new MORENA party have been in office for three years. Early on, AMOL earned the enmity of the US, when he proclaimed: “The global economic crisis has revealed the failure of the neoliberal model…The State should assume responsibility to lead development without foreign interference” (meaning the US).

    AMLO has predictably experienced pushback from traditional elites in Mexico and from the US, particularly in his attempts to reverse the privatization of the energy sector. The Zapatistas and some leftists oppose AMLO and his national development projects, especially the Mayan train. They accuse the government of supporting violence against indigenous communities in the southern Mexican state of Chiapas.

    Prospects for the New Year

    Independence from the hegemon to the north, regional integration, and international cooperative relations are on the agenda for the new year.

    China is now the second largest investor in Latin America and the Caribbean, which “reduce[s] US dominance” according to the US Congressional Research Service. Economic cooperation with China and to a lesser extent with Russia and Iran have been a lifeline for countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua under regime-change siege by the US. In late December, Nicaragua broke relations with Taiwan and normalized them with the People’s Republic of China. The new government in Honduras has indicated they may soon follow suit. China intends to invest over $250 billion in the region, providing an alternative to dependence on Yankee capital for national development “south of the border.” If the inter-ocean canal project with Chinese backing in Nicaragua were resuscitated, it would be a geopolitical game-changer.

    The anti-Venezuela “Lima Group,” a US-Canada initiative, is now moribund with defections of key countries. Likewise, the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) is an increasingly discredited tool of US imperialism as evidenced by its complicity in the Bolivian coup. Cuba and Venezuela are not members of the OAS, and Nicaragua recently announced its withdrawal.

    The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) includes all the hemisphere except the US and Canada. CELAC is being revived as an independent regional alternative by Mexican President López Obrador and others.

    2022 promises continued left advances with favorable prospects for the Colombian and Brazilian presidential elections in May and October respectively. Overall, the pink tide is again rising with some 14 countries on the left side of the ledger and the revolt against neoliberalism intensifying from Haiti to Paraguay.

    The post 2021 Latin America and the Caribbean in Review: The Pink Tide Rises Again first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Imagine if Nicolás Maduro’s vice president quit and called for his government to be disbanded. Or if Venezuela’s opposition won a landslide in regional elections or if 90% of member states voted against the government’s UN credentials. The Canadian media would have splashed this news on front pages, but the shoe was on “our guy’s” foot so they’ve been silent.

    The dominant media has all but ignored the collapse of Canada’s unprecedented bid to create an international coalition to support a parallel Venezuelan government. It’s quite a turnaround from when the media published puff pieces about Ottawa’s central role in Juan Guaidó’s rise and CTV News’ Don Martin asked foreign minister Chrystia Freeland whether Maduro was “any step closer to being kicked out of office as a result of this meeting today?”

    A search of major Canadian media found almost no mention of the following developments over the past month:

    • Two weeks ago Julio Borges resigned as Guaidó’s “foreign minister” and called for his parallel government to “disappear completely”. That Borges abandoned a sinking ship is embarrassing for the Trudeau government because he’s been close to Canadian officials. Borges met foreign minister Chrystia Freeland on multiple occasions and Canadian officials facilitated a meeting for him with Caribbean community officials. Borges is listed in several press releases on Global Affairs website. In one of them the Canadian-sponsored Lima Group “recognizes the work that Julio Borges has been doing to restore democracy in Venezuela” and said his appointment as Guaidó’s ‘foreign minister’ “will result in an increase in international support for the end of the usurpation of the presidency and the beginning of a peaceful transition to democracy in Venezuela.” Borges is one of three individuals cited in the Canadian Press article Quiet Canadian diplomacy helped Guaidó’s anti-Maduro movement in Venezuela”. The January 2019 story details Ottawa’s role in rallying international forces and the Venezuelan opposition behind Guaidó’s move to declare himself president in a Caracas park.
    • On December 6 the United Nations General Assembly voted to recognize the credentials of the Maduro government as the legitimate representative of Venezuela. While the US and Canada were previously able to marshal nearly 60 UN member states against Maduro, only 16 of 193 countries voted against Caracas this time.
    • Another story that warranted coverage was the November 21 regional and municipal elections. Maduro’s PSUV party won at least 212 of 335 mayoralties and 19 of 23 governorships. The opposition’s inability to unite behind joint candidates contributed to their poor showing. So did some opposition figures support for Guaidó and devastating international sanctions against their country. Canada adopted four rounds of sanctions against Venezuela and is a leading promoter of Guaidó.

    Borges’ resignation is a special blow to Ottawa’s policy and definitely worthy of coverage by any sort of truly independent media. Instead, our corporate-owned newspapers, TV and radio either cheerlead for this country’s foreign policy or criticize it from the right.

    The media has largely gone silent on Venezuela since it became clear Canada’s campaign to oust the government was a failure. This includes ignoring the withdrawal of Lima from the Lima Group of countries seeking to overthrow Venezuela’s government. In August a new Peruvian government’s foreign minister said, “the Lima Group must be the most disastrous thing we have done in international politics in the history of Perú.”

    In fact, the Lima Group has lost other members and is now dormant. Where are the columnists analyzing this demise as yet another blow to Trudeau’s foreign policy? Ottawa founded Lima Group with Peru in 2017 as a structure outside of the Organization of American States largely because that organization’s members refused to back Washington and Ottawa’s bid to interfere in Venezuelan affairs, which they believed defied the OAS’ charter. The media previously reported glowingly about these Trudeau government policies.

    But now that the American bull and the Canadian steer have ravaged the South American china shop yet again, there’s no mention of the destruction caused in Venezuela and elsewhere by the blatant interference in other countries’ internal affairs. Or even of the failure of a major Trudeau/Freeland foreign policy plank.

    It’s time the media pressed the Liberals to drop their Juan Guaidó charade.

    The post Why the media silence about Trudeau’s worst foreign policy failure first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Mexico City, Mexico, December 20, 2021 – The United Kingdom’s highest court issued a ruling on Monday favoring opposition figure Juan Guaidó and his efforts to wrest control of US$1.7 billion worth of Venezuelan gold stored at the Bank of England (BoE).

    The Monday decision is the latest episode in the legal struggle by the democratically-elected Nicolás Maduro government to regain access to the reserves. Following what the court described as the “one voice principle,” the court ruled that under the UK’s constitutional arrangements political recognition of foreign states falls to the country’s executive.

    In 2019, Conservative UK Prime Minister Theresa May recognized Guaidó, then president of the National Assembly, as “interim president” as part of the US-led effort to oust the Maduro government.

    The post UK Gold Ruling Based On ‘Illegal Interference’ In Venezuela appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Donald Trump thinks he’s still president according to no more reliable a source than Rachel Maddow on her February 5th show. This was confirmed in May by Vanity Fair.  Right-wing conspiracy theorists echo this analysis as recently as this month. Left-liberals are smugly confident that Kamala Harris’s running mate is in the White House, snoozing in the presidential bedroom. Inquiring minds ask what is the evidence nearly a year into the alleged Biden presidency that there has been a change of guard in Washington?

    +The Obama-Biden union card check proposal was not on Mr. Trump’s political horizon, nor is it on that of the current occupant in the White House.

    +The current occupant is ramping up Trump’s unhinged Sino-phobic hallucinations, sanctioning 34 Chinese entities for development of “brain-control weaponry.” Not that the Chinese have been angels. In an egregious suppression of freedom of information, the inscrutable Orientals have made it more difficult for US spies to operate in their country.

    +The current occupant nominally withdrew US troops from Afghanistan as negotiated by Mr. Trump, presumably reducing overall military costs. Yet, he continues the Trump-trajectory of lavishing billions of dollars more on the military than even the Pentagon requests.

    +Given his priority to feed the war machine, the new occupant is having a hard time finding sufficient funds for Biden-promised student debt forgiveness. Ditto for making two years of community college tuition-free.

    + President Trump slashed the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%; candidate Biden vowed to raise it to 28%; the current occupant proposed a further cut to 15%.

    Biden, while campaigning in 2019, pledged to wealthy donors that “nothing would fundamentally change” if he’s elected. And nothing has changed despite recent drama in the Senate over Build Back Better. Trump’s $4.5 trillion corporate-investor tax cut still appears secure.

    +Raising the federal minimum wage to $15-an-hour from $7.25, where it has languished since 2009, was a big selling point for the Biden campaign. Now it is on hold, while billionaire fortunes balloon, leaving the working class broke but woke under the current administration.

    +The Obama-Biden nuclear deal with Iran was gutted by Trump. The current occupant, contrary to Biden’s campaign utterances, has not returned to the conditions of the JCPOA. Rather, he has continued Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy against Iran.

    +Candidate Biden, calling for a foreign policy based on diplomacy, criticized Trump’s dangerous and erratic war mongering. Yet only a month after his inauguration, the new president capriciously bombed “Iranian-backed militias” in Syria who were fighting ISIS terrorists and posed no threat to the US.

    The new president went on to authorize further “air strikes” on “targets” around the world such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Now, the undiscriminating reader might think these are acts of war. But war, according to the “rules-based order” of the new occupant, is best understood as a conflict where US lives are lost rather than those of seemingly more expendable swarthy-skinned foreigners.

    +The Obama-Biden normalization of relations with Cuba and easing of restrictions were reversed by Trump. Presidential candidate Biden had signaled a return, but the current occupant has instead intensified the US hybrid war against Cuba.

    +Candidate Biden pledged to review Trump’s policy of US sanctions against a third of humanity. The presumptive intention of the review was to ameliorate the human suffering caused by these unilateral coercive measures. Sanctions are a form of collective punishment considered illegal under international law. Following the review, the current occupant has instead tightened the screws, more effectively weaponizing the COVID crisis against countries such as Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela, while adding Ethiopia and Cambodia to the growing list of those sanctioned.

    +Among Trump’s most ridiculous foreign policy stunts (and it’s a competitive field) was the recognition of Juan Guaidó as president of Venezuela in 2019. The then 35-year-old US security asset had never run for a nationwide office and was unknown to over 80% of the Venezuelans. Contrary to campaign trail inuendoes that Biden would dialogue with the democratically elected president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, the new guy in the White House has continued the embarrassing Guaidó charade.

    +The current White House occupant has also continued and expanded on some of the worse anti-immigrant policies of the xenophobe who preceded him. Asylum seekers from Haiti and Central America – fleeing conditions in large part created by US interventions in their countries – have been sent packing. Within a month of assuming the presidency, migrant detention facilities for children were employed, contradicting statements made by candidate Biden who had deplored locking kids in cages.

    +President Trump was a shameless global warming denier. Candidate Biden was a refreshing true believer, boldly calling for a ban on new oil and natural gas leasing on public land and water. But whoever is now in the Oval Office opened more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for fossil fuel drilling.

    Perhaps the strongest evidence that Trump is practically still in office is the political practice of his left-liberal detractors who solemnly promised to “first dump Trump, then battle Biden.” However, these left-liberals are still obsessing about dumping Trump. Instead of battling Biden, they are fanning the dying embers of the fear of another January 6 insurrection, giving the Democrats a pass.

    Of course, the Democrats occupy the executive branch along with holding majorities and both houses of Congress. Yet, despite campaign pledges and spin, the continuity from one administration to the next is overarching as the preceding quick review documented.

    The partisan infighting theatrics of the “dysfunctional Congress” is in part a distraction from an underlying bedrock bipartisan consensus. Congress is dysfunctional by design on matters of social welfare for working Americans. It is ruthlessly functional for matters of concern for the ruling elites, such as the military spending, bank bailouts, corporate welfare, and an expansive surveillance state.

    The Democrats offer an empty “we are not Trump” alternative. The bankrupt left-liberals no longer stand for substantial improvements to the living conditions of working people, a “peace dividend,” or respite from war without end. Instead, they use the scare tactic that they are the bulwark against a right popular insurgency; an insurgency fueled in the first place by the failure of the two-party system to speak to the material needs of its constituents.

    The post Trump Thinks He’s Still President: What Is the Evidence? first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A few days ago I was out grocery shopping when I heard a man tell his friend that Venezuela was the only country in the world with two presidents but where everything was still screwed up.

    This has become a running joke among Venezuelans. However, some three years ago, when Juan Guaidó proclaimed himself “interim president” and was instantly backed by the United States and the European Union, things didn’t seem so funny.

    The government and its support base feared this was the opening act ahead of a US military invasion. Opposition activists weren’t totally clear as to what was going on, but their leaders were quick to fall in line behind Guaidó, and the initial rallies created a lot of expectation.

    But that did not last.

    The post Tales Of Resistance: Guaidó’s Pie appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Protest by students in Thailand. AP

    President Biden’s virtual Summit for Democracy on December 9-10 is part of a campaign to restore the United States’ standing in the world, which took such a beating under President Trump’s erratic foreign policies. Biden hopes to secure his place at the head of the “Free World” table by coming out as a champion for human rights and democratic practices worldwide.

    The greater possible value of this gathering of 111 countries is that it could instead serve as an “intervention,” or an opportunity for people and governments around the world to express their concerns about the flaws in U.S. democracy and the undemocratic way the United States deals with the rest of the world. Here are just a few issues that should be considered:

    (1)  The U.S. claims to be a leader in global democracy at a time when its own already deeply flawed democracy is crumbling, as evidenced by the shocking January 6 assault on the nation’s Capitol. On top of the systemic problem of a duopoly that keeps other political parties locked out and the obscene influence of money in politics, the U.S. electoral system is being further eroded by the increasing tendency to contest credible election results and widespread efforts to suppress voter participation (19 states have enacted 33 laws that make it more difficult for citizens to vote).

    A broad global ranking of countries by various measures of democracy puts the U.S. at # 33, while the U.S. government-funded Freedom House ranks the United States at # 61 in the world for political freedom and civil liberties, on a par with Mongolia, Panama and Romania.

    (2)  The unspoken U.S. agenda at this “summit” is to demonize and isolate China and Russia. But if we agree that democracies should be judged by how they treat their people, then why is the U.S. Congress failing to pass a bill to provide basic services like health care, child care, housing and education, which are guaranteed to most Chinese citizens for free or at minimal cost?

    And consider China’s extraordinary success in relieving poverty. As UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said, “Every time I visit China, I am stunned by the speed of change and progress. You have created one of the most dynamic economies in the world, while helping more than 800 million people to lift themselves out of poverty – the greatest anti-poverty achievement in history.”

    China has also far surpassed the U.S. in dealing with the pandemic. Little wonder a Harvard University report found that over 90% of the Chinese people like their government. One would think that China’s extraordinary domestic achievements would make the Biden administration a bit more humble about its “one-size-fits-all” concept of democracy.

    (3)  The climate crisis and the pandemic are a wake-up call for global cooperation, but this Summit is transparently designed to exacerbate divisions. The Chinese and Russian ambassadors to Washington have publicly accused the United States of staging the summit to stoke ideological confrontation and divide the world into hostile camps, while China held a competing International Democracy Forum with 120 countries the weekend before the U.S. summit.

    Inviting the government of Taiwan to the U.S. summit further erodes the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, in which the United States acknowledged the One-China policy and agreed to cut back military installations on Taiwan.

    Also invited is the corrupt anti-Russian government installed by the 2014 U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine, which reportedly has half its military forces poised to invade the self-declared People’s Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine, who declared independence in response to the 2014 coup. The U.S. and NATO have so far supported this major escalation of a civil war that already killed 14,000 people.

    (4)  The U.S. and its Western allies—the self-anointed leaders of human rights—just happen to be the major suppliers of weapons and training to some of the world’s most vicious dictators. Despite its verbal commitment to human rights, the Biden administration and Congress recently approved a $650 million weapons deal for Saudi Arabia at a time when this repressive kingdom is bombing and starving the people of Yemen.

    Heck, the administration even uses U.S. tax dollars to “donate” weapons to dictators, like General Sisi in Egypt, who oversees a regime with thousands of political prisoners, many of whom have been tortured. Of course, these U.S. allies were not invited to the Democracy Summit—that would be too embarrassing.

    (5)  Perhaps someone should inform Biden that the right to survive is a basic human right. The right to food is recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights as part of the right to an adequate standard of living, and is enshrined in the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

    So why is the U.S. imposing brutal sanctions on countries from Venezuela to North Korea that are causing inflation, scarcity, and malnutrition among children? Former UN special rapporteur Alfred de Zayas has blasted the United States for engaging in “economic warfare” and compared its illegal unilateral sanctions to medieval sieges. No country that purposely denies children the right to food and starves them to death can call itself a champion of democracy.

    (6)   Since the United States was defeated by the Taliban and withdrew its occupation forces from Afghanistan, it is acting as a very sore loser and reneging on basic international and humanitarian commitments. Certainly Taliban rule in Afghanistan is a setback for human rights, especially for women, but pulling the plug on Afghanistan’s economy is catastrophic for the entire nation.

    The United States is denying the new government access to billions of dollars in Afghanistan’s foreign currency reserves held in U.S. banks, causing a collapse in the banking system. Hundreds of thousands of public servants have not been paid. The UN is warning that millions of Afghans are at risk of starving to death this winter as the result of these coercive measures by the United States and its allies.

    (7)  It’s telling that the Biden administration had such a difficult time finding Middle Eastern countries to invite to the summit. The United States just spent 20 years and $8 trillion trying to impose its brand of democracy on the Middle East and Afghanistan, so you’d think it would have a few proteges to showcase.

    But no. In the end, they could only agree to invite the state of Israel, an apartheid regime that enforces Jewish supremacy over all the land it occupies, legally or otherwise. Embarrassed to have no Arab states attending, the Biden administration added Iraq, whose unstable government has been racked by corruption and sectarian divisions ever since the U.S. invasion in 2003. Its brutal security forces have killed over 600 demonstrators since huge anti-government protests began in 2019.

    (8)  What, pray tell, is democratic about the U.S. gulag at Guantánamo Bay? The U.S. Government opened the Guantanamo detention center in January 2002 as a way to circumvent the rule of law as it kidnapped and jailed people without trial after the crimes of September 11, 2001. Since then, 780 men have been detained there. Very few were charged with any crime or confirmed as combatants, but still they were tortured, held for years without charges, and never tried.

    This gross violation of human rights continues, with most of the 39 remaining detainees never even charged with a crime. Yet this country that has locked up hundreds of innocent men with no due process for up to 20 years still claims the authority to pass judgment on the legal processes of other countries, in particular on China’s efforts to cope with Islamist radicalism and terrorism among its Uighur minority.

    (9)  With the recent investigations into the March 2019 U.S. bombing in Syria that left 70 civilians dead and the drone strike that killed an Afghan family of ten in August 2021, the truth of massive civilian casualties in U.S. drone strikes and airstrikes is gradually emerging, as well as how these war crimes have perpetuated and fueled the “war on terror,” instead of winning or ending it.

    If this was a real democracy summit, whistleblowers like Daniel Hale, Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange, who have risked so much to expose the reality of U.S. war crimes to the world, would be honored guests at the summit instead of political prisoners in the American gulag.

    (10)  The United States picks and chooses countries as “democracies” on an entirely self-serving basis. But in the case of Venezuela, it has gone even farther and invited an imaginary U.S.-appointed “president” instead of the country’s actual government.

    The Trump administration anointed Juan Guaidó as “president” of Venezuela, and Biden invited him to the summit, but Guaidó is neither a president nor a democrat, and he boycotted parliamentary elections in 2020 and regional elections in 2021. But Guaido did come tops in one recent opinion poll, with the highest public disapproval of any opposition figure in Venezuela at 83%, and the lowest approval rating at 13%.

    Guaidó named himself “interim president” (without any legal mandate) in 2019, and launched a failed coup against the elected government of Venezuela. When all his U.S.-backed efforts to overthrow the government failed, Guaidó signed off on a mercenary invasion which failed even more spectacularly. The European Union no longer recognizes Guaido’s claim to the presidency, and his “interim foreign minister” recently resigned, accusing Guaidó of corruption.

    Conclusion

    Just as the people of Venezuela have not elected or appointed Juan Guaidó as their president, the people of the world have not elected or appointed the United States as the president or leader of all Earthlings.

    When the United States emerged from the Second World War as the strongest economic and military power in the world, its leaders had the wisdom not to claim such a role. Instead they brought the whole world together to form the United Nations, on the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, a universal commitment to the peaceful resolution of disputes and a prohibition on the threat or use of force against each other.

    The United States enjoyed great wealth and international power under the UN system it devised. But in the post-Cold War era, power-hungry U.S. leaders came to see the UN Charter and the rule of international law as obstacles to their insatiable ambitions. They belatedly staked a claim to universal global leadership and dominance, relying on the threat and use of force that the UN Charter prohibits. The results have been catastrophic for millions of people in many countries, including Americans.

    Since the United States has invited its friends from around the world to this ”democracy summit,” maybe they can use the occasion to try to persuade their bomb-toting friend to recognize that its bid for unilateral global power has failed, and that it should instead make a real commitment to peace, cooperation and international democracy under the rules-based order of the UN Charter.

    The post Ten Contradictions That Plague Biden’s Democracy Summit first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The trial against the Venezuelan diplomat, Alex Saab, in the Court of the US Southern District of Florida, was suspended due to the ongoing appeal for his diplomatic status. The appeal was filed in April of 2021, reported FuserNews. The current complaint in regards to the recognition of his diplomatic status, which would confer immunity for Ambassador Saab, has been fought in the Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit of Atlanta, Georgia, since April 1, 2021 when the defense team requested that the court “annul the order conferring the status of fugitive.”

    The post Alex Saab’s Diplomatic Immunity Ruling Freezes his Court Case In Florida appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Jorge Arreaza is the Minister of Industries and National Production in Venezuela. Red Nation Podcast co-host Nick Estes spoke to him in Caracas in late November 2021.

    The post Nick Estes In Conversation With Jorge Arreaza appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  •  

    NYT: In Venezuela’s Flawed Vote, Maduro Shows One Way to Retain Power

    The main “flaw” identified by the New York Times (11/23/21) in the recent Venezuelan elections is that the wrong party won.

    Corporate media’s coverage of Venezuela has been constantly biased over the past 20 years, but especially when reporting on elections (FAIR.org, 11/27/08, 5/23/18, 1/27/21).

    The latest flurry of dishonesty and faithful stenography came as Venezuelans voted for new regional and local authorities on November 21. The ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) won resoundingly, securing 19 of 23 governorships and 212 of 335 mayoralties. Pundits who are happy to equate “democracy” with elections are not so keen on people voting when Washington’s enemies are poised to win (Washington Post, 11/22/21).

    The hardline Venezuelan opposition made life easy for the media establishment in recent years by boycotting elections altogether. Outlets could then just echo the ever baseless “fraud” allegations from US officials and move on (NPR, 5/21/18; BBC, 5/21/18; Reuters, 5/20/18; Bloomberg, 5/7/18; New York Times, 5/17/18).

    However, this time around, these right-wing actors returned to the ballot. Corporate journalists, having paid little attention to Venezuela in recent months as US-backed regime change efforts floundered, had to scramble to explain and discredit the events. Unable to reheat the “fraudulent” label, there was a return of classics such as “rigged” (CNN, 11/24/21) or “flawed” (New York Times, 11/23/21), which happened to be the State Department’s choice too.

    ‘Flawed’ reporting

    There was already a sense that the US-favored parties would not do so well on their return to the electoral path. Reports talked of a “skeptical” opposition (Al Jazeera, 11/19/21; AFP, 11/19/21) to dampen expectations, after building the myth that anti-government parties had overwhelming support in the country.

    Reuters: With catchy jingles and cautious optimism, Venezuela opposition returns to the ballot

    Reuters (11/22/21): “Some Maduro opponents fear the freedom being given to the opposition to campaign is part of a government strategy to deliberately lower political tensions and so discourage participation.”

    Beyond managing expectations, there were less-than-convincing efforts to explain the change of course. Reuters (11/22/21) claimed that, in justifying boycotts, the opposition argued “a fair ballot was impossible because of interference from President Nicolas Maduro’s government and violent gangs loyal to him.” But then the same piece ends up undermining the thesis that the boycott was all about “fair” conditions. In saying that the return to the ballot happened “amid frustration over the failure of US sanctions to dislodge Maduro,” there’s an unwilling confession that opposition forces hoped US intervention would rid them of Venezuela’s democratically elected government.

    It was not the first time that Reuters ran the “interference and gangs” line (11/17/21). But then to explain how “cautiously optimistic” opposition politicians were able to campaign free from intimidation, the explanation was that the hillside barrios of Caracas no longer “belong to Chavismo.” Journalists Vivian Sequera and Mayela Armas could not hide their disdain for the poor and working class who identify with the Bolivarian Process, referring to popular neighborhoods as “fiefdoms of former president Hugo Chavez and…Maduro.” For what it is worth, Chavista candidate Carmen Meléndez secured the Caracas mayoralty with 59% of the vote, performing even better in those very barrios.

    Making use of EU

    The opposition’s electoral defeat prompted some outlets to publish sobering headlines, suggesting that the opposition needed to “regroup” (NPR, 11/25/21), “rebuild” (Reuters, 11/22/21) or “lick wounds” (Financial Times, 11/25/21). But others doubled down on propaganda.

    The New York Times (11/23/21) led the way, as Isayen Herrera and Anatoly Kurmanaev argued that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro had found a “way to retain power”: winning elections. In a hyperbolically dramatic tone, the Times charged Maduro with “subverting the vestiges of democratic institutions” and “perfect[ing] a political system” that ensures success.

    The paper of record flagrantly distorted the conclusions of the European Union’s electoral observation mission. The article’s teaser says “European observers said the elections were neither free nor fair.” But that was not the case. Rather, the mission’s chief, Isabel Santos, when repeatedly asked the question, declined to answer, which other reports made clear (Reuters, 11/23/21). To assume this means the mission declared the elections not to be free or fair is disingenuous, to say the least.

    WaPo: E.U. observers say Venezuelan elections show major improvement, but uneven playing field remains

    Oddly, US sanctions designed to force out the Venezuelan government by destroying the nation’s economy were not mentioned by the Washington Post (11/23/21) as part of an “uneven playing field.”

    Most corporate outlets clung to EU conclusions that pro-government candidates allegedly spent state resources in campaigning, or were favored in public outlets (Washington Post, 11/23/21; Financial Times, 11/25/21; Bloomberg, 11/23/21). Of course, opposition forces getting foreign resources (Financial Times, 7/18/19) or being favored in private media (FAIR.org, 5/20/19) has never been a concern.

    Corporate journalists conveniently downplayed the mission’s endorsement of the reliability of Venezuela’s voting system, seriously undermining past and future “fraud” claims. Indeed, Washington, the Post (11/8/21) admits,  was “not amused” by its European partners actually wanting to witness the process. US officials even wanted to impose the report’s findings ahead of time.

    The coverage likewise suggests the European presence by itself meant improved conditions and a previously absent level of international scrutiny, when in fact the EU had been repeatedly invited to send electoral delegations. Not just that, all Venezuelan elections have had numerous international monitoring missions, only not from close US allies (Venezuelanalysis, 5/31/18, 12/9/20).

    The ‘divided’ opposition

    There was an overriding consensus that opposition disunity proved costly. The results speak for themselves, with the PSUV securing most offices, despite having less than 50 percent of the vote. However, instead of scrutinizing why opposition parties could not get on the same page, many outlets found it easier to just blame Maduro.

    The New York Times (11/23/21) accused the seemingly all-powerful Venezuelan president of “dividing opposition parties” to compete against “carefully calibrated opponents.” Times journalists accused the non-hardline candidates of adopting “a softer line against the president,” when in fact the key difference is that moderate opposition sectors condemn US sanctions and US-endorsed coup attempts. Corporate journalists will accept nothing less than absolute loyalty to Washington’s designs.

    Reuters (9/23/21) had set the tone in the build-up to the elections by referring to non-US-backed figures as “spoiler candidates,” with possible “disguised ties” to the government. They were said to pose a threat to the “opposition,” meaning that reporters Vivian Sequera and Brian Ellsworth took it upon themselves to decide who qualified as “opposition.” In fact, the “spoilers” had promising candidates in a number of races, and it was the US-backed Democratic Unity Roundtable (known in Spanish as MUD) that cost them victory by fielding their own.

    One of the highest-profile cases of opposition infighting happened in the state of Miranda, where candidates Carlos Ocariz and David Uzcátegui traded barbs and accusations. Ocariz did finally drop out, and as the Washington Post (11/21/21, 11/23/21) reported more than once, “the electoral council ruled it was too late” to take his name off the ballot. The Bezos-owned newspaper makes this sound like an arbitrary decision by a pro-government body, when the electoral calendar had been published months before. And Ocariz knew it, since he was posting messages on social media announcing “there is X time left to reach an agreement.”

    The cardboard ‘interim president’

    The Western media’s sudden scrutiny of election rules and opposition candidates contrasts with its laissez-faire attitude towards the self-proclaimed “interim president” Juan Guaidó. The opposition leader’s made-up post never had a constitutional leg to stand on, but the Washington Post (11/23/21) is happy to let him talk about his “constitutional mandate.”

    The Post  (11/21/21) likewise remains wedded to the idea that “50 other countries” recognize Guaidó, when this number is probably closer to single digits after the European Union withdrew its recognition earlier this year. In contrast, it is refreshing to see some outlets stop pretending and just admit that in their view it is up to the US to decide who is the legitimate (parallel) leader of Venezuela (Financial Times, 11/25/21; Bloomberg, 11/22/21).

    Juan Guaido watches cardboard presidential shield fall off set.

    Pretend president Juan Guaidó watches as a cardboard presidential seal falls off the backdrop behind him during a news conference (Twitter, 11/22/01).

    For his part, Guaidó recently had an unfortunate episode as a presidential shield made of cardboard fell to the floor behind him in the middle of a press conference. It is not hard to imagine how the symbolism of the affair would have stolen headlines had it involved Maduro or any other official enemy. But the corporate media chose to look the other way, just as it does concerning a string of scandals that have seen the opposition leader jeopardize billions worth of state assets under his control, leaving them at the mercy of corporate predators (Venezuelanalysis, 9/25/21; 10/4/21; 10/23/21).

    All in all, the latest elections have shown how, like the US State Department under Biden, media will not change their tune on Venezuela. Rather than correcting past biases, corporate journalists continue to look for ever more creative ways to push the official line coming from the White House, even if that means propping up a discredited con artist like Guaidó or, worse, whitewashing  policies that kill tens of thousands (FAIR.org, 6/4/21). And a self-declared commitment to democracy rings very hollow alongside such efforts to discredit elections because the US empire did not like the results.

    The post Western Media: Venezuelan Elections Must Be Undemocratic, Because Chavismo Won appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Cuban opponent of the system, Yunior García Aguilera, has announced a “strategic alliance” of opposition forces in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. This “alliance” of activists “confronting the same dictatorship” could help “change the reality in Cuba”, he declared in a report published by the Europa Press news agency on Saturday. After meeting with representatives of Spain’s fascist Vox party and the post-Franco Popular Party (PP), the co-founder of the “Archipelago” platform, who landed in Madrid on November 18, also met late last week with right-wing opposition politician Leopoldo Lopez, who fled Venezuelan justice to Spain a year ago.

    The post The Cuban Guaidó Wannabe appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On Wednesday, November 24, MintPress News Editor in Chief Mnar Adley sat down to speak with Camila Saab, the wife of imprisoned Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab.

    Saab was on a diplomatic mission to Iran in June 2020, where he was tasked with securing deals for food, medicine and personal protective equipment. His plane stopped off in Cabo Verde — a group of islands off the west coast of Africa — for a routine refueling.

    He would never finish his journey, as, on orders from the United States government, local authorities stormed the vehicle, forcing him off the plane — an event that would begin his 18-month detention. “I never imagined that Cabo Verde was going to kidnap a diplomat,” said the Italian-born former model and mother of two.

    The post Interview: Wife Of Venezuelan Diplomat ‘Kidnapped’ By The US appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • After years of boycotting previous votes, Venezuela’s right-wing opposition parties agreed to participate in these elections, through a series of negotiations that were held in Mexico and sponsored by Norway and the Netherlands.

    A delegation of US National Lawyers Guild members traveled to Venezuela to monitor the elections, visiting 12 voting sites in Caracas and other states. They reported, “We observed a balanced and transparent voting process which voters expressed confidence in.”

    “From a technical point of view, we observed an electoral system that was fundamentally transparent and facilitated by a workforce (poll workers, coordinators, table presidents) with strong technical competence regarding the functioning of the machines and the integrated election systems,” the National Lawyers Guild members wrote.

    The post Venezuela’s Socialists Win Elections In Landslide appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • UN Special Rapporteurs estimate that 100,000 people have died in Venezuela in the last decade because of the lack of medicine brought on by U.S. sanctions. Nearly 60% of those deaths took place under the Trump administration after Washington escalated its economic warfare on the Bolivarian state. During the Trump era, Jorge Arreaza served as Venezuela’s foreign minister and spent years building diplomatic ties with other nations amid Washington’s aggressive hybrid war.

    The post Jorge Arreaza On Venezuela Recovering From Sanctions In New Post-Petro Economic Plan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The United Socialist Party (PSUV) landed a comprehensive victory in Venezuela’s regional and local elections on November 21, winning 83% of the governorships, reports Paul Dobson.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • For the first time in four years, every major opposition party in Venezuela participated in elections. For the fifth time in four years, the left won in a landslide. Voters elected 23 governors, 335 mayors, 253 state legislators and 2,471 municipal councilors. The governing United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) won at least 19 of 23 governorships (one race remains too close to call) and the Caracas mayoralty in the November 21 “mega-elections.” Of the 335 mayoral races, the vote count has been completed in 322 of them, with PSUV and its coalition taking 205, opposition coalitions 96 and other parties 21. Over 70,000 candidates ran for these 3,082 offices, and 90% of the vote was counted and verified within hours of polls closing.

    The post Five Reasons Why The Left Won In Venezuela appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) President Pedro Calzadilla reported a 41.80 percent turnout in Sunday’s Subnational elections.

    Having counted 90.21 percent of the ballots cast in the elections, Calzadilla reaffirmed that the elections took place in a peaceful environment.

    The United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) candidates hold leads in 20 out of 23 states for the governor’s race.

    Meanwhile, the opposition coalition United Democratic Table (MUD) candidates secured a lead in the Cojedes and Zulia states. Neighbors Force (FV) party secured the other governor post for opposition sectors in the Nueva Esparta State.

    “Nothing disturbed the electoral process … International observers move freely throughout the country to verify the electoral process… It is a victory for the humble people, the noble people of Venezuela, who have endured a brutal war,” President Nicolas Maduro stressed.

    The post Venezuela: Chavismo Wins Governorships In 20 Of 23 States appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Voters wait to vote at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.

    The United Socialist Party of Venezuela secured a resounding victory in Sunday’sregional and local elections, which were defined by the return of obstinate far-right political parties to Venezuela’s democratic process after years of United States-backed destabilization efforts and violent regime-change plots.

    Preliminary results from the country’s electoral authority showed Chavistaswinning up to 20 of the 23 governorships that were up for grabs. The results cemented the ruling socialists’ dominance over a political opposition that has struggled to unite under a cohesive strategy and banner after years of violent political schemes that failed to oust President Nicolás Maduro from power despite the opposition having considerable bipartisan support from the U.S. political establishment, which maintains a punishing sanctions regime on the country.

    United Socialist Party of Venezuela supporters and sympathizers celebrated their victory, taking to the streets even before results were announced.

    “We believe it is significant that we won 20 of 23 of the state contests — the math does not lie,” said Abril Viscaya, a political organizer and member of FrenteRevolucionario Artístico Patria o Muerte (or “Homeland or Death Revolutionary Artistic Front”), in an interview with Truthout. “We must remain on this pathway of participation; we are a people that are not willing to surrender in the face of unilateral coercive measures by the United States government.”

    A Venezuelan voter searches for his name on the voter list at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A Venezuelan voter searches for his name on the voter list at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.

    These elections saw races for 3,082 public offices, including 23 state governors, 335 local mayors, 253 regional legislators and 2,471 local councilors, and were accompanied by more than 300 international visitors invited by the National Electoral Council and political parties in Venezuela, as well as delegations from the European Union, the Carter Center and the Latin American Council of Electoral Experts (CEELA).

    Martin Sereno, a regional lawmaker from the province of Misiones, Argentina,who accompanied the electoral process told Truthout that the vote was well organized, peaceful and marked by a festive atmosphere. “We also saw many adults and seniors that came to vote, and that speaks to the enthusiasm of the people to be able to elect their representatives and authorities,” said Sereno.

    Nicanor Moscoso, head of the CEELA delegation, praised the organization of the election and said in a press conference that the process met international standards.

    Venezuela has a rigorous system to prevent fraud, with voters having to present their identification, have their fingerprints scanned, and both sign and leave a thumbprint on a paper record. The South American country is one of few in the world that has an entirely electronic voting system which automatically produces a paper record that is then deposited into a ballot box in case of an audit. Political parties are also invited to have a representative at every polling location to supervise the process and the count.

    Cybel González, one of the citizens tasked by the electoral authority with supervising a voter center in the municipality of Carrizal in the state of Miranda, told Truthout that in her center the process had taken place without incident with representatives from four political organizations present to scrutinize the vote.

    Carlos Ruiz Patiño, a voter in the city of Los Teques, just outside the capital of Caracas, said he found the organization of the election to have been excellent, despite the additional safety protocols implemented in light of the pandemic.“Going out to vote is the most important thing,” said Ruiz.

    Voters await their turn to vote, abiding by health protocols, inside the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    Voters await their turn to vote, abiding by health protocols, inside the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A Venezuelan voter walks past a sign instructing people how to vote at a voting location in Carrizal, Miranda, Venezuela on November 21, 2021.
    A Venezuelan voter walks past a sign instructing people how to vote at a voting location in Carrizal, Miranda, Venezuela on November 21, 2021.
    A ballot box sits awaiting the next voter at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A ballot box sits awaiting the next voter at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.

    The End of Violence in Venezuelan Politics?

    With a history of sabotage by political forces interested in disrupting elections and rumors of potential violence, Venezuela mobilized a significant number of state security forces to provide security at the voting centers.

    Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López, visiting one of the polling locations in the Coche Parish in Caracas, told Truthout that there had been no significant incidents in the country. “The people are the ones who will be the protagonists on this day, and they are doing it. The people of Venezuela have always demonstrated their civic duty,” said Padrino.

    Certain elements of the political opposition, particularly those close to self-declared “interim” President Juan Guaidó and his Popular Will party, have in the recent past staged months-long violent street protests known as guarimbas. Guaidóhimself, along with his mentor, former Chacao Municipality Mayor Leopoldo López, unsuccessfully tried to stage a military coup.

    The insurrectionary strategy proved unsuccessful, being largely rejected by the Venezuelan people, leading Guaidó to tepidly endorse a return to an electoral strategy, with other hardline parties more emphatically calling for an end to violent tactics.

    “The people of Venezuela have said ‘no’ to that violence and have come out in massive numbers to vote,” said Padrino. “They have said ‘no’ to interventionism, ‘no’ to political violence, ‘yes’ to democracy, ‘yes’ to harmony, ‘yes’ to coexistence, and this is another example of what the Venezuelan people want.”

    Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López visits the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López visits the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    Voters await to be called to enter the voting booth in order to maintain social distancing at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    Voters await to be called to enter the voting booth in order to maintain social distancing at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A woman signs her name as part of the voting process to prevent fraud at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A woman signs her name as part of the voting process to prevent fraud at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.

    A sizeable portion of the opposition had, until recently, opted for the insurrectionary strategy and called on their supporters to boycott the election over the past three electoral cycles, which played a role in a drop in voter turnout.

    As a result, with the return of nearly all of the political parties, much attention was paid to the voter turnout in these elections. The National Electoral Council reported a turnout of nearly 42 percent, a figure in line with turnout in previous regional elections in Venezuela and notably, higher than the turnout in presidential elections in neighboring Chile, which also held its vote on Sunday.

    The return of the hardline political opposition was the product of complex negotiations between the government and opposition. The efforts to bring the political opposition back to the democratic process facilitated the participation of an election observation mission from the EU, which had not accompanied Venezuelan elections since 2006.

    The participation by nearly 100 EU observers is widely considered a first step for the lifting EU sanctions, which together with U.S. sanctions, have significantly contributed to rising poverty and hunger in the country as the government struggles to sell oil, Venezuela’s single most important export commodity.

    Nonetheless, ahead of the vote there was significant tension between Venezuelan politicians and Josep Borrell, the high representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, with President Maduro and even representatives of the moderate opposition Democratic Alliance emphasizing that Venezuelan elections are sovereign processes, and that their legitimacy would not derive from the EU or its mission.

    Those tensions largely dissipated during Sunday’s vote with the head of the EU mission, Isabel Santos, saying the vote was proceeding “calmly” and Maduro noting that the mission had respected the Venezuelan constitution. The EU is expected to release its full report this week.

    Argentine lawmaker Martin Sereno chats with a group of Venezuelans at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    Argentine lawmaker Martin Sereno chats with a group of Venezuelans at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A Venezuelan woman checks to see what table she must vote at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A Venezuelan woman checks to see what table she must vote at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A worker notes a voter’s details as part of the voting process to prevent fraud at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    A worker notes a voter’s details as part of the voting process to prevent fraud at the Liceo Pedro Emilio Coll in the Coche Parish in Caracas, Venezuela during elections on November 21, 2021.
    Election worker Cybel González talks with a Mexican election observer on November 21, 2021 at a voting location in Carrizal, Miranda, Venezuela.
    Election worker Cybel González talks with a Mexican election observer on November 21, 2021 at a voting location in Carrizal, Miranda, Venezuela.

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned the vote, saying that the Venezuelan government “deprived Venezuelans yet again of their right to participate in a free and fair electoral process” but did not point to any flaws in the voting process. Instead, he alleged the government “grossly skewed the process.”

    Blinken also reaffirmed U.S. support for Popular Will opposition leader Guaidó’s claim to the presidency and gave no indication there would be any easing of sanctions. The statement also pinned the blame for the lack of opposition unity on Maduro. The Venezuelan opposition is notorious for its infighting, a fact made evident by an incident just days before the vote with an opposition activist assaulting a rival candidate in the state of Bolívar.

    The disappointing result for the opposition and the U.S.’s affirmation of support for Guaidó’s claim despite a lack of support inside Venezuela paints a grim picture for the opposition’s future. With part of the opposition betting on participating in elections and the Guaidó camp clinging to its claim to the presidency despite not exercising any real power, the opposition continues to send contradictory messages to its supporters.

    Meanwhile, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela has emerged from this contest all the more stronger.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The government of the United States ratified its seditious policy against Venezuela by continuing to recognize former deputy Juan Guaidó as the interim president of Venezuela. On Tuesday, November 16, the Undersecretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Brian Nichols, confirmed that the US still recognizes former deputy Juan Guaidó “and his government.” The statement was made during Nichols’ appearance before the Foreign Subcommittee of the Chamber of Deputies, in which Nichols was asked whether the US administration plans to recognize the President of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.

    The post Washington Maintains Seditious Agenda Against Venezuela appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    “Let there be no mistake – Sunday’s regional and municipal elections in Venezuela are nothing more than a sham,” reads a recent statement authored by Republican US Senators Jim Risch and Michael McCaul. “The illegitimate Maduro regime has taken drastic measures to dismantle or control every independent institution in the country, including hijacking political parties and the National Electoral Council to ensure state-sponsored electoral fraud.”

    “Today’s elections in Venezuela are as illegitimate as Maduro’s tyrannical regime,” reads a tweet by Republican Senator Rick Scott. “The Venezuelan people deserve free and democratic elections NOW. The U.S. and all freedom-loving nations must stand up, condemn these sham elections and support the people in their fight for freedom.”

    The imperial media are lining up behind the official US government line on Venezuela’s gubernatorial and mayoral elections, with The New York Times assuring us that conditions “are far from freely democratic” and The Washington Post reporting that opposition parties “say the elections have been stacked against them by the socialist government of President Nicolás Maduro,” who sees the elections as “a chance to reassert strength while projecting a veneer of legitimacy.”

    This level of intrusiveness into Venezuela’s heavily internationally monitored democratic process is typical of what we’ve been seeing from the US political/media class with regard to electoral contests in empire-targeted Latin American nations like Bolivia and Nicaragua. Which is really silly, because the US has no more moral authority over the legitimacy of democratic processes than a totalitarian monarchy like Saudi Arabia.

    US elections are of course corrupt and fraudulent, entirely dominated at the federal level by legalized oligarchic bribery in the form of campaign contributions, manipulated primaries, gerrymandering, voter suppression, shutting out third parties, and the worst voting system in the western world.

    More than this, though, the United States is also the world’s single most egregious offender when it comes to interfering in foreign elections. As Claire Bernish has observed in The Free Thought Project, the US government’s own data shows that it interfered in no fewer than 81 foreign elections just between the years 1946 and 2000. You’d never know it from the shrieking of the political/media class post-2016, but this would also include brazenly interfering in Russia’s elections in the nineties to ensure the presidency of Washington lackey Boris Yeltsin.

    And that’s just election interferences. It doesn’t include more brazen interferences in who governs foreign nations like direct military invasions, staged coups, color revolutions and proxy wars.

    https://twitter.com/GramsciFag/status/1462542388094590981?s=20

    As a completely undemocratic country whose government is also far and away the world’s single most aggressive saboteur of democracy, it is fair to say that US institutions are the absolute least qualified to comment on the validity of any nation’s elections on the entire planet.

    Everyone would laugh if Saudi Arabia’s psychopathic crown prince Mohammed bin Salman began opining on the quality of various nations’ democratic processes, especially if those criticisms were directed at the so-called liberal democracies of the west. But this same scrutiny of a power structure who has no business commenting on electoral integrity never gets directed at the United States, whose institutions issue such criticisms on a daily basis despite being no more morally qualified to do so than the House of Saud.

    If you think about it, Saudi Arabia is nothing other than a more honest version of the United States. Its oligarchs and its official government are the same people, it doesn’t pretend that its warmongering is humanitarian, when it wants to kill a journalist it just dismembers him with a bone saw rather than trying to squeeze him to death with lawfare in a maximum security prison, and it makes no pretense about being a democracy.

    The more I observe its behavior on the world stage the more hilarious it gets to see US political and media figures criticizing the democratic processes of foreign nations. It’s like McDonald’s evaluating whether mom and pop restaurants are sufficiently eco-friendly and vegan.

    Very silly stuff, mate.

    _______________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on FacebookTwitterSoundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fiPatreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • Venezuela goes to the polls again on  N21ovember in ‘mega elections.’ The dialogue that began in late summer between the Venezuelan government and sections of the hard right-wing opposition had been going well, with some definite outcomes. These include the decision by some right-wing opposition parties that have boycotted elections for years to take part in the elections. But the US’s illegal extradition from Cape Verde of Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab, who was en-route to Iran to broker a trade deal to bring fuel, food and medicines to Venezuela, has threatened to sabotage both the talks, as the US did before in 2018 and 2019, and the elections.

    The post Briefing: Venezuelan Elections November 2021 appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Why do Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela pose such an existential threat to the U.S.? Why are they able to unite all the wings of the democrat party and the republican party against them? It boils down to two factors. First, the power of their example in attempting to build independent, self-determining projects that center the material needs and interests of the people over those of capital. Second, the class warfare politics of the U.S. state.

    The post Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela as Existential Threats to the US appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Why do Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela pose such an existential threat to the U.S.? The promise of socialism and their resistance to US class warfare.

    One of the extreme ironies of the latest attack by the settler-colonial regime of the United States against the national democratic project of Nicaragua is that in Nicaragua, the second poorest nation in the Americas, universal healthcare and education are guaranteed to the population as a human right, while in the U.S. those kinds of basic human rights are distant dreams.

    The day after the so-called progressive block of legislators in the U.S. House of Representatives surrendered to President Joe Biden and the right-wing corporate wing of the party on the Build Back Better legislation that offered some minor and temporary relief for workers and the poor, many of those same “progressives” voted for the RENACER Act. The RENACER Act is a vicious piece of legislation meant to undermine the ability of the Nicaragua government to protect the human rights of its people and to punish the people for having the temerity to support their government and their anti-colonial project.

    Why do Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela pose such an existential threat to the U.S.? Why are they able to unite all the wings of the democrat party and the republican party against them? It boils down to two factors. First, the power of their example in attempting to build independent, self-determining projects that center the material needs and interests of the people over those of capital. Second, the class warfare politics of the U.S. state.

    The reassertion of the racist Monroe Doctrine by the former US National Security Advisor John Bolton was not repudiated by the Biden administration because it is also the guiding framework for its policies. The reference to the Monroe Doctrine was nothing more than connecting that doctrine to its contemporary policy expression reflected in the doctrine of “Full Spectrum” dominance that has been bipartisan U.S. foreign policy for twenty years. The thrust of this policy  is that any nation that attempts to defy the U.S. and build an independent project that threatens U.S. hegemony in any region of the world will be destroyed.

    The fact that Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela are not only attempting to build independent projects but build socialism makes their example even more of a threat.

    But there is also a domestic ideological component to this as well. The very existence of these nations at this historical moment, a moment characterized by the deepening and irreversible contradictions and current crisis of the capitalist order poses a potentially serious ideological threat. If these relatively poor nations can build public housing and eliminate homelessness, offer free education and universal healthcare, guarantee that no one will be allowed to go hungry, can build democratic structures with the protected right of popular participation, the question as to why these kinds of human rights are unrealizable for the people of the U.S. is a destabilizing one that must be avoided at all costs.

    For the U.S. it has never been about human rights but hegemony

    Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela are attempting to build a socialism that is committed to a framework of social justice that we refer to as People(s)-Centered Human Rights (PCHRs). PCHRs are informed by the theoretical social practice of the African American radical human rights tradition and have emerged as the flip side of the same coin from People(s)-centered development. Unlike the liberal, individualist, state-centric and legalistic conception of human rights, PCHRs are defined as:

    Those non-oppressive rights that reflect the highest commitment to universal human dignity and social justice that individuals and collectives define and secure for themselves through social struggle.

    This approach to human rights views human rights as an arena of struggle that when grounded and informed by the needs and aspirations of the oppressed, becomes part of a unified comprehensive strategy for de-colonization and radical social change.

    U.S. President Joe Biden declared that Nicaragua president Daniel Ortega was “no different from the Somoza family that Ortega and the Sandinistas fought four decades ago.” He went on to say that “the United States, in close coordination with other members of the international community, will use all diplomatic and economic tools at our disposal to support the people of Nicaragua and hold accountable the Ortega-Murillo government and those that facilitate its abuses.”

    Biden forgot to mention that the U.S. placed Somoza in power and supported him until he was overthrown by the Sandinistas in 1979.

    The idea that the U.S. is concerned about democracy or human rights anywhere in the world is an insult to all thinking persons. I will not list once again the litany of crimes that support that assertion except for two. The Biden administration and their ideological lackeys in the media and even among some elements of what is referred to as a left question the 65 percent turn-out for the elections in Nicaragua. But when it was objectively verified that less than one quarter of the voting population turned out for the phony election of the Clinton imposed president of Haiti Martel Martelly, or equally phony election of Jovenel Moise with less than twenty-percent turnout, where were the questions from the New York Times, Washington Post and all the other propaganda outlets posing as news operations?

    What was Joe Biden’s position in the administration when his boss President Obama gave the green light to overthrow the democratically elected government of Manuel Zelaya in Honduras? Did he oppose it?

    Criminality is a core characteristic of all settler-colonial states because they are born out of systematic, terroristic, and genocidal violence against indigenous populations, and even more so when, as in the case of the U.S., they become global empires. Democracy and human rights are no more than ideological props to obscure the real interests and intentions of the rulers and to build domestic support for whatever criminal activity the state has embarked on.

    Subversion in Haiti, sanctions and attacks on Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela and the ongoing wars launched from the over 800 U.S. military bases world-wide continues and will continue as long as the U.S. public is confused, disorganized, and diverted from understanding that the interests of the capitalist oligarchy are not their interests.

    Slowly that shift in consciousness is happening in the U.S. The economic crisis of the last year and half, coming on the heels of the devastating crisis of 2008-9, has created a legitimation crisis and a new understanding of the real interests of the rulers that will not be reversed. The precarity of workers and the poor are forcing them to eliminate any and all illusions about their government and the economic system.

    Debate around the Build Back Better legislation and the elimination of provisions that could have had a material impact on the lives of workers, in particular women of color workers, exposed the legislation as a cynical public relations stunt.

    Compared to the attempts by states attempting to move toward socialism, the provisions in the bill even before it was stripped of most of its progressive provisions, still did not offer a real minimum floor for the protection of the fundamental human rights to social security, the right to an adequate income, housing, education, the right to participate in governance with the right to vote as a minimum, and healthcare, to name a few of the rights denied the population in the U.S., and even more so for its racialized and colonized captives.

    That is why the idea of socialism and the possibility of an alternative to the barbarity of capitalism has been attacked. The U.S. intends to turn Nicaragua into Haiti, Cuba into Honduras, and Venezuela, which is key for liberation movements in the region, into Libya – the U.S. and European latte-left is helping.

    But as brother Netfa Freeman stated, Black anti-colonial revolutionaries will stand with Nicaragua and all the struggling peoples of the planet against the number one threat to international peace and human rights – the United States of America. In that position, there is no compromise and no retreat!

    The post Class Warfare and Socialist Resistance: Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela as Existential Threats to the US first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • America’s interference in the electoral process in Venezuela is laid bare in a series of files that reveal how Washington provided significant investment to train political activists in campaigning effectively online. Documents released to researchers under the US Freedom of Information Act have revealed how US intelligence fronts weaponized social media to promote Venezuela’s right-wing opposition, and assist their election to parliament, thus laying the foundations for Washington’s appointment of Juan Guaido as the country’s leader in January 2019.

    The post Newly Released Documents Expose US Intelligence Meddling In Venezuelan Elections Via Social Media appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On Monday, November 1, the US Department of Justice dismissed seven charges of money laundering against Venezuelan diplomat Alex Saab, leaving only one charge of conspiracy to commit that crime. The motion was presented by the prosecutor Kurt Lunkenheimer, the day a hearing was scheduled in which the eight charges were to be read to Saab, a procedure that was postponed to next November 15, reported  EFE news agency.

    The post US ‘Justice’ Dismisses 7 Of 8 Charges Against Venezuelan Diplomat Alex Saab appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Members of the Bolivarian Circle in Miami and Trokia Kollective chant “free Alex Saab” outside Miami’s Clyde Atkins Courthouse on Monday, Nov 1st – the day originally scheduled for Venezuelan Diplomat Alex Saab’s arraignment. Despite the disappointing delay of his arraignment to November 15th, his supporters are energized as they stand witness outside Ambassador Saab’s prison, the Miami Federal Detention Center (FDC). They are resolute in their commitment to Diplomat Saab for breaking through the crippling illegal U.S. unilateral economic sanctions imposed on the people of Venezuela.

    The post Protest In Miami In Support Of Alex Saab appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Cuba will always remember your expressions of support, your permanent call for the lifting of the embargo…[My invitation to attend the Independence Day celebrations] has an immeasurably greater value in times in which we are suffering the ravages of a multidimensional war, with a criminal blockade opportunistically intensified in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic with 240 [new] measures…In parallel, we are facing an aggressive campaign of hate, disinformation, manipulation, and lies assembled on the most diverse and influential digital platforms that ignore all ethical limits…Under the fire of this total war, the solidarity of Mexico with Cuba has awakened in our people greater admiration and the deepest gratitude. Viva México! Long live the friendship between Cuba and Mexico.

    — Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel, Mexico City, September 16, 2021 Mexican Independence Day Celebration

    Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez

    Cuba’s Advances Against COVID-19 is Political Problem for Biden and Blinken

    In recent weeks, “communist” Cuba has begun to steadily and sharply reduce the rates and numbers of both new infections and deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic. This unfolding turnaround is from the worst period from July to September 2021.

    Cuba now is well on the road to the near-total full vaccination of the entire island population of 11.3 million people, including children over two, with its three-dose — domestically designed and produced — program in the remaining months of 2021. Furthermore, the Cuban government and Ministry of Tourism is now able to project the reopening (formally on November 15, 2021) and steady recovery of its crucial tourism industry which had been shuttered by some 95.5%, with a devastating drop in foreign exchange, compounding the cruel US economic war under the Donald Trump Administration through Biden with seamless continuity.

    (See excellent 10-5-21 article by Helen Yaffe, “Cuba Accelerates Vaccine Drive.”)

    The socialized (and state-of-the-world) Cuban scientific, bio-technology, epidemiological, and pharmaceutical industry, as a whole, is now in a stronger position to carry out the production of its highly efficacious vaccines with increasing availability (through sales or donations) to other nation-states and international health organizations within the huge worldwide demand. Cuban production, which is hindered by US sanctions, will be independent of the price-gouging and arbitrary distribution of the pharmaceutical oligopolies centered in the advanced capitalist countries who lord over grotesque inequality in access to vaccines worldwide.

    Perversely this creates a serious political conundrum for US policymakers who are enforcing and deepening the cruel, bipartisan extraterritorial embargo (the blockade) under the Joseph Biden White House and State Department.

    Heroic Cuban Resistance 

    It is the heroic resistance led by the Cuban government and revolutionary mass organizations, including the Committees in Defense of the Revolution (CDR); the Federation of Cuban Workers (CTC), Federation of Cuban Women (FMC); student, and farmers organizations under the umbrella and power of Cuba’s medical and scientific industry that is propelling these advances in the teeth of US aggression. This heroic Cuban resistance has been manifested even amidst the shortages, stresses, and long lines from the tightened US economic war, which was its purpose.1

    This has been supplemented by an outpouring of international solidarity that has been instrumental in countering and beginning to conquer the short-term, but devastating, economic and human impact of US asphyxiation policies.

    These anti-Cuba policies have been deepened precisely as the 2020-21 tourism collapse combined with a spike in Delta-variant infection that landed in Cuba, spread, and set in. This was exploited by Biden’s White House, and bipartisan Washington as a whole, leading up to the highly orchestrated July 11 events.

    Some three months later we can say that unintended consequences for the Biden Administration are mounting alongside Cuba’s medical advances against the pandemic.

    All of these accelerating developments amount to a turning point and new political reality in the decades-long struggle to defeat the US blockade.

    Mexico Stands Up

    The Biden Administration is going to find it difficult in the coming months to separate their aggressive anti-Cuba policy from the overall challenges to US policies across the Americas. This was underlined in very sharp terms by the public initiative of President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador’s Mexican government to expedite – in the teeth of the Biden-led anti-Cuba propaganda campaign – significant material aid to Cuba in three Mexican naval vessels filled with medical, energy, and food aid in the summer of 2021.

    Cuba’s Minister of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment Rodrigo Malmierca delivers a speech next to Mexico’s Navy multipurpose ship Arm Libertador Bal-02, that just arrived with humanitarian aid at the port of Havana, Cuba, July 30, 2021. REUTERS/Alexandre Meneghini

    From June 23 to July 11 to November 15

    On June 23, 2021 for the 29th straight year, by an overwhelming 184-2 with three abstentions (non-binding) vote, the United Nations General Assembly condemned the “economic, commercial, and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” Washington’s utter political isolation in its anti-Cuba policies was again illustrated. Rather than concede this and change, Biden and his team consciously chose to orchestrate, exploit, and manipulate the events of July 11, 2021 and recruit allies.

    After the isolation of the June 23 UN General Assembly vote, leading up to the July 11, Biden and Blinkin scraped the globe, actively seeking allies and recruits. They managed to scrape together a group of 20 lackeys for a narrow anti-Cuba statement. 2

    Biden and his team have deepened US bellicosity and sanctions since the highly orchestrated July 11 “events” in Cuba and the accompanying US government and big-business media (and social media) anti-Cuba propaganda blitzkrieg.

    Now the US government, under the direction of Biden and his team, is attempting to step up their subversion and provocations with another round of “protests” on November 15 in an effort to revive and activate Washington’s agents and clients on the ground. It is consciously aimed, in the November 15 date chosen, at disrupting the reopening of tourism amid Cuba’s amazing turnaround with COVID-19 amid mass vaccinations.

    Post-Afghanistan Challenges and Pressures Coming for Biden

    Amid the political hand-wringing and jockeying that accompanied Washington’s bipartisan decades-long intervention, invasion, war, and endgame in Afghanistan at the end of August 2021, the broader question of the international political consequences for US policymakers and the Joseph Biden Administration is more sharply posed. Will Washington’s blink-of-the-eye, post-Afghanistan-defeat mode make the US rulers more constrained or more coiled to act along the course of combining devastating economic sanctions with threats of military aggression?

    In an August 21, 2021 column, written in the wake of Washington’s Afghan defeat, Andres Oppenheimer, Miami Herald columnist and veteran voice of virulent opposition to the Cuban Revolution and Washington-Havana normalization, argued that the debacle need not be accompanied by any easing up on anti-Cuba policies. (“Biden might take harder line in Cuba, Venezuela to make up for bungled exit from Afghanistan”, 8-21-21).3

    How likely is Oppenheimer’s “against the conventional wisdom” self-proclaimed “prediction?” Certainly, Biden and Co. have been implementing a policy that was settled on many months ago — consciously deciding against any amelioration of US sanctions and the extraterritorial embargo — and they seem compelled to stick with it for now. The question is how sustainable Washington’s bipartisan anti-Cuba policies will be in the coming months.

    Toe the Line!

    US anti-Cuba policy under Biden, Harris and Blinken remains focused on increasing economic stress, disruption, and shortages – especially in food, energy, and medical supplies – that will lead to enough accumulated suffering to render more effective US-organized subversion and “regime-change” efforts. This was articulated early in US anti-Cuba subversion and aggression in the infamous 1960 “Mallory Memorandum” shortly before the US-mercenary invasion at the Bay of Pigs. 4

    But it is also very clear that a major purpose of the mendacious anti-Cuba capitalist media extravaganza after July 11 (that followed the lead of the Biden Administration) was to force into line, up and down the line, any Democratic or Republican politician or elected official who might be tempted to promote legislation to ameliorate or end US economic, commercial, and travel sanctions against Cuba.

    This has been basically accomplished so far for now. Even the few timid statements issued formally against the embargo by elected officials in Washington, DC after July 11 were prefaced with obligatory sophistry about “human rights” and “freedom of assembly” in Cuba and bogus charges directed against the Cuban government.

    More directly, the best of such statements are contemptuous of the mobilized large majority of the Cuban working class and entire sovereign people who are defending their country and their Revolution from US-orchestrated subversion and intervention. This is called “repression” in the US capitalist media and social media, echoing the bipartisan state policy of US imperialism. Revolutionary and socialist Cuba has a right to defend itself! Why is Cuba obligated to tolerate paid agents and clients of a foreign power — with the rich US history and continuity of violent intervention since the turn of the 19th Century! — openly engaged in “regime change” policies by any and all means possible?

    False Premises

    Accepting the false premises rationalizing a US anti-Cuba sanctions and bellicosity you claim to oppose is the exact opposite of how to effectively oppose the policy. This should be crystal clear from the history over 13 White Houses and on Capitol Hill — whether the House and Senate majorities and leadership were Democratic or Republican — since the triumph of the 1959 Cuban Revolution.

    US anti-Cuba policy, once motivated as anti-Soviet, of course, continued through the collapse of the Soviet Union. It continued through the passing of Fidel Castro, through the revolutionary governments led by Raul Castro, to this very day under President Miguel Diaz-Canel. There was the brief interlude of a positive shift under President Barack Obama (while US economic, commercial, and financial sanctions and regulated travel continued), which was largely reversed under Donald Trump and been still-further deepened under Biden.

    Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D. NY) gave perhaps the “best” of the few statements opposing the blockade from any elected officials in the wake of the July 11 events. She condemned as “absurdly cruel” Biden’s “defense of the embargo.” And yet her first three sentences (see below) are full of lies and disingenuous half-truths that ensure no political way forward.

    The fact is that even before July 11, the individual figures on Capitol Hill who have been most outspoken against US policy and sanctions had been unable to move legislation toward public consideration and vote. Since the 1996 Helms-Burton legislation anti-embargo in general or even anti-travel sanctions legislation is generally blocked in Committee, not even, or ever, allowed to the House and Senate floor for vote. (The Helms-Burton legislation signed in 1996 by the William Clinton White House makes Congressional legislation the only legal route to end US sanctions and their extraterritorial nature.)

    To distract from this obvious David v. Goliath reality, Washington throws dust in people’s eyes with deeply, purposely outrageous prattle, hypocrisy, and diversions around “human rights” and “democracy.”

    It follows that, for the time being at least, openings in the legislative field, especially on the federal level, to ameliorate or limit the blockade, will themselves be limited if not precluded for now. But it is also true that there remain more promising prospects and results – despite inevitable counter-pressures from pro-blockade, pro-US intervention forces — for Resolutions from City Councils, trade unions, religious bodies and denominations, and other institutions. Over 30 City Councils from coast-to-coast have already passed such Resolutions.  (See excellent statement from US Presbyterian Church here.)

    Statements or Resolutions from labor, African American, women’s rights forces, civic, medical, scientific, academic bodies, or anyone with the courage to speak out are more urgent than ever. These can complement street actions such as the monthly Bridges of Love Cuba Caravans initiated by Cuban American families, social media action, and continuing to build the US-Canadian and international movements.

    Magnificent Victory of Syringes for Cuba Campaign!

    Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the early months of 2020, the international Cuba solidarity movement has made important advances. This is particularly the case in the critical North American arena where the power and political weight of US anti-Cuba policy is centered.

    Launched in May 2021 by the Saving Lives Campaign under the auspices of the National Network on Cuba (NNOC), the Canadian Network on Cuba (CNC), and La Table de Concertation et de Solidarite Quebec-Cuba (La Table) and coordinated by Global Health Partners, the united North American Cuba solidarity and anti-blockade movement as a whole completed the very successful Syringes for Cuba Campaign, raising over the $650,000 (the initial goal was $75,000!). Six million syringes were purchased and delivered. And are now being used in Cuba’s stepped-up vaccination drive with the home-grown, highly efficacious Cuban vaccines Soberana 2, Abdala, and Soberana Plus. (Sisters and brothers from the Canadian Network on Cuba, successfully delivered an additional two million syringes to Cuba.)

    This magnificent victory made a real material difference in Cuba! It helped inspire worldwide efforts and political campaigns for international humanitarian solidarity aid to Cuba that are themselves acts of defiance against the cruel US blockade. The saving Lives Campaign is now shifting to raising funds to deliver medical supplies and especially PPE to the island and working with Cuban Americans with Project El Pan.

    Benefits of a Non-Sectarian United Front

    This effort registers the benefits from a non-sectarian united front to fight the blockade drawing all the different political orientations and organizations in the broader movement, including Cuba solidarity organizations and political parties and tendencies that identify strongly with the Cuban socialist revolution. It should be noted that there is hardly an issue in US politics today that has conquered such a united front within the generally fractious “US Left.”

    End of an Illusion

    If Cuba solidarity activists and opponents of US policy all took a multiple-choice question at the time of Biden’s assumption of Executive Branch power on January 20, 2021 (with Trump kicking and screaming all the way), along the lines of: What will Biden-Harris and Blinken actually do with US anti-Cuba policy in its first 6 months? And the choices were:

    1. A) Reverse all or many of Trump’s anti-Cuba Executive Orders;
      B) Reverse some of Trump’s anti-Cuba measures while maintaining a contentious political-diplomatic posture;
      C) Maintain full continuity with Trump and bolster “regime change” efforts

    I’m sure a majority would have chosen A or B.

    There were no doubt hopes, if not illusions and wishful thinking, in the Cuba solidarity movement and broader anti-embargo forces and activists that Biden-Harris, Blinken would at least ameliorate some aspects of the blockade that steadily accumulated under Trump. There was also anticipation in some circles that Biden and Blinkin would move to reverse or obviate some, all, or any of Trump’s anti-Cuba measures that were Executive Orders (EOs), as he did with other Trump EOs.

    While US Cuba normalization was not an issue that was elevated by the Biden-Harris campaign, the formal language put forward in the 2020 Presidential election campaign indicated that the direction would be to revert to the Obama period shift of 2014-2015, and the limited retreat of US anti-Cuba policies that released the remaining Cuban 5 prisoners, established formal Washington Havana diplomatic relations, and expedited the removal of Cuba from the “terrorist” list of the State Department, and some loosening of travel regulations.

    (Why Obama led this US shift and retreat and why the situation decisively reversed under Trump, with Democratic acquiescence and support, is a question I will return to.)

    Biden and Blinken’s team also leaked stories that indicated they would pick off some of the “low-hanging fruit” of Trump’s 243 anti-Cuba EOs and directives such as restoring family remittances and a loosening of travel regulations and restrictions. Other signals were sent, or stories planted in top corporate media, that there might be some re-staffing of routine embassy and consular offices and services that could expedite family reunifications and mutual people-to-people exchanges between the US and Cuba, and also have more US agents on the ground for subversive campaigns and projects such as the November 15 provocations. This latter idea is apparently moving forward according to the Miami Herald.

    Biden’s Blockade

    After nine months in office, Biden has made it difficult to have any serious illusions in him on the “Cuba Question,” which, whether Washington likes it or not, has a political resonance and even centrality to other hemispheric questions. The brutal line of the Biden team — for now – is clearly set. This is now Biden’s blockade!

    But this does not mean the political framework for sustaining the US blockade will be static or that Biden and Blinken’s policy is sustainable.

    During the long anomalous transition to Biden’s government which unfolded after the election results were ratified, there were regular discussions in the International US-Cuba Normalization Conference Committee zoom meetings, repeated within all the growing forces uniting the broader Cuba solidarity movement, and within and between the numerous self-defined socialist, communist, and national-liberationist political parties, tendencies, and organizations that explicitly defend and support the Cuban Revolution. There is a remarkable degree of unity in this latter category that has so far eschewed sectarian divisions within the growing movement. All of us asked:

    What would now happen? What would Biden and his team actually do with the political hot potatoes of US anti-Cuba policy; the repeated debacles on Venezuela and Bolivia under Trump and the Organization of American States (OAS); and the accelerating crises in Latin America under the whip of the COVID-19 pandemic. The answer so far has been the continuity of bipartisan US state policy.

    Venezuela and Bolivia

    This shift during the Trump period away from the “halcyon days” of 2014-16 under Barack Obama has always been politically connected to the renewed efforts, over the course of Trump’s four years in the White House, to sanction and overthrow the Nicolas Maduro-PSUV government in Venezuela and also subvert and destabilize the Evo Morales-MAS government in Bolivia. Overall, Trump and his team organized a series of debacles trying to overthrow the governments of both countries.

    In Bolivia, Trump and his team oversaw a US-Canada-OAS-backed bloody police and military coup in November 2019. The coup regime fronted by Jeanine Añez was finally ousted in May 2020 after mass popular resistance forced the scheduling of presidential and parliamentary elections that were subsequently swept by MAS.

    Again, around these momentous events in Bolivia, the Democratic Party leadership, elected representatives in the House and Senate, and leading candidates during the presidential primary campaigning, mostly stayed silent, with a few low-keyed exceptions like Bernie Sanders, and certainly did nothing to stop it.

    Throughout this period – while otherwise furiously tangling with Trump – the Democratic Party leadership was no less effusive than Trump minions like John Bolton and Elliot Abrams in their praise for the neocolonial Venezuelan flunkey Juan Guaido and the pro-imperialist opposition (now badly fractured and increasingly demoralized inside Venezuela) that he fronted for. These Washington interventionist machinations took place following the collapse of world oil prices plus US sanctions and pressures led to calamitous economic conditions and the generation of massive migrations in Venezuela.

    With hardly a whiff of dissent, there was broad bipartisan support for Guaido’s preposterous declaration (falsely claiming to be based on the Hugo Chavez-era Constitution these same forces furiously op+-posed at the time!) of being the legitimate Venezuelan head-of-state. This was the cover for various failed covert operations led from Trump’s Washington in 2019 and 2020.5

    Juan Guaido with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

    There was more than enough bipartisan support for all the accumulating anti-Venezuela sanctions, the “legal” theft of Venezuelan assets such as CITGO gas stations, ratified in US courts, as well as the funneling of funds and mercenary advisors to Venezuelan clients, agents, and allies. Obviously, without too much of an effort to cover their trail, all roads in this hemispheric subversion lead to Washington!

    Washington’s bipartisan antipathy to Venezuelan sovereignty transferred easily into attempts to blackmail or threaten to break Cuba (and Bolivia’s) anti-imperialist solidarity with the sovereign Maduro-PSUV government. This became a demand and precondition to end Trump’s (and now Biden’s) deepening of the blockade and a pretext and cover to maintain and deepen the US economic war. It was a thoroughly bipartisan attempt in Washington to promote “regime change” in Venezuela as a priority of US state policy.

    Clearly Cuba’s solidarity with Venezuela and refusal to acquiesce to a US-directed installation of the hapless Guaido foreshadowed and anticipated the actual fact that, despite Biden’s campaign language of returning to President Barack Obama’s relative expansion of US-Cuba relations, Venezuela would likely continue to be the peg by which bipartisan Washington would squeeze Cuba.

    While the successive debacles in Venezuela and Bolivia under the Trump team’s direction from 2018-2020 certainly did not thrill them, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer’s corner and piece of Washington were no less advocates for US “regime change” policies and sanctions than Republican leaders Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell. And remain so under the Biden White House and State Department. Below is a mealy-mouthed form letter sent by Schumer to New York State “constituents” protesting US sanctions and in favor of US-Cuba Normalization.

    Dear Ms. Feely-Nahem:

    Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns with the U.S. sanctions against Cuba and for expressing your support for improving the U.S.-Cuba relationship.

    Under the oppressive communist regime led by President Miguel Díaz-Canel, Cuba has been devastated by political corruption, economic instability and humanitarian crises ranging from physical violence by law enforcement against detainees, to mass unlawful arrests and summary convictions of peaceful protestors without a defense present. Many Cubans continue to be in dire need of food assistance, health services and other basic necessities. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these impacts and needs are exacerbated.

    I strongly believe the U.S. should promote democracy, human rights, and peace efforts in Cuba and around the world. Throughout my career, I have been a strong supporter of ending the embargo on Cuba and believe the best way to bring down the communist regime is to open up Cuba, economically and otherwise. However, I also believe it is important to acknowledge the threat that Cuba poses and that is why a robust sanctions infrastructure is in place. While I understand your serious concerns about the potential impacts of U.S. sanctions on the situation in Cuba-especially in the context of the current pandemic-it is ultimately an area that Congress will need to consistently monitor in order to effectively stand with the Cuban people.

    Again, thank you for contacting me. Please keep in touch with your thoughts and opinions.

    Sincerely,

    Charles E. Schumer
    United States Senator

    Cuba and Africa in the 1970s

    There is nothing new in US Adminstration’s demanding changes in Cuba’s internationalist foreign policy as a precondition for US-Cuba normalization and ending US sanctions and hostility. You have to go back to the late-1970s with Jimmy Carter in the White House to locate the last time, before the Obama shift, when there was any prospect of ending the US embargo before the 1996 Helms-Burton blockade legislation signed by Clinton.

    But Carter’s “offer” to lift all travel and commercial sanctions was very conditional on the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Africa who were fighting US and apartheid South Africa-backed forces and South African troops directly in Angola and southern Africa. This was rejected by the Cuba government and Cuba’s revolutionary armed forces were subsequently decisive in securing the sovereignty of Angola, the independence of Namibia, and the unravelling and defeat of apartheid South Africa. Out of office Carter has spoken out more clearly against US policy.

    Lessons of Obama’s Shift

    Why did Barack Obama carry out the 2014-15 shift and agree to implement the establishment of diplomatic relations? Why did Obama agree to meet the major Cuban preconditions for the December 14, 2014 announcement: the release of the remaining Cuban Five prisoners from US jails and clear motion toward removing Cuba from the State Department’s list of “states” supporting US-defined “terrorism.” The latter carries with it “legal” mandates to sanction and cause harm and widespread hardship for working people. 6

    In actual fact, Cuba made no concessions to any US political demands as Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro announced the reestablishment of diplomatic relations on December 17, 2014. (The concurrent release of US State Department “client” and “contractor” Alan Gross — and allegedly another veteran of decades-past CIA violent anti-Revolution subversion — was not a “concession” since Cuba had long and continuously proposed a swap to get back the Cuban 5 revolutionary heroes. For years Obama preferred to maintain the ludicrous cover that Gross was acting on his own on behalf of Cuba’s small but vibrant Jewish community. That community had nothing to do with Gross’s subversion for the US State Department’s Agency for International Development (USAID). Obama maintained the cover despite pressures from Gross’s family for Washington to take responsibility for its busted agent.

    The first term of the Obama Administration saw basic continuity with the policies of George W. Bush, with the exception of a significant lowering of barriers to Cuban-American travel and exchanges to Cuba, including barriers to direct remittances. These were broadly popular among Cuban-Americans. And such travel and other exchanges greatly increased.

    Advance of the “Pink Tide”

    Obama took office in 2009 at a time when Bush’s policies, particularly against Venezuela and Cuba, were in crisis, turmoil, and political retreat across the Americas. The 2002 attempted military coup against Hugo Chavez had collapsed after mass working-class mobilizations in Caracas and nationwide. Policymakers and notorious anti-Cuba aggressive interventionists such as Otto Reich, Elliot Abrams, and John Bolton were forced out or pushed aside even as Bush 2’s White House came to an end.

    The governments of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales – anti-imperialist, allied with Cuba, and implementing socially progressive policies counter to the neoliberal “Washington Consensus” and the interests of foreign capital survived and consolidated in the face of US subversion and bellicosity. Rafael Correa was elected in Ecuador with a similar anti-imperialist political program and hemispheric perspective as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales. Brazil’s President Luis Ignacio Lula da Silva was a firm opponent of US anti-Cuba policy. Hemispheric bodies such as ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) emerged as political alternatives to the neocolonial OAS.

    Such OAS “Summits” that took place in Obama’s first term were diplomatic battlegrounds on the still-hot post-Bush era‘s terrain. “Unprecedented Latin American opposition to U.S. sanctions on communist Cuba left President Barack Obama isolated at the Summit of the Americas on Sunday and illustrated Washington’s waning influence in the region,” read an April 15, 2002 NBC News account.  (See my 2009 article here.)

    Opposition to US anti-Cuba policy became perhaps the sharpest expression of deepening hemispheric rifts. This was leading to a potential crisis of political legitimacy for the OAS. It got so bad that Obama and his accompanying Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were compelled to hear lectures on the good works of Cuban doctors, etc. from the heads-of-state inside (along with popular anti-imperialist protests outside) at the regular OAS “Summits.”

    There was a united front of sorts of Latin American and Caribbean governments against the US anti-Cuba blockade. This included more conservative governments that maintained normal or friendly relations with a Cuba that had renounced none of its revolutionary socialist and Marxist views and program.

    This was in addition to the regular, overwhelming anti-blockade votes at UN. This was the framework and context for the Obama-led shift which had the public support of his then-former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was preparing her presidential run. Vice-President Biden voiced no opposition to the shift. The consensus decision was to retreat and remove the “Cuba Question” from the “Summit” agendas and salvage the OAS at that conjuncture.

    A Public Lynching in the 21st Century

    Of course, as Cuba emerges from the August 2021 COVID spike, exacerbated by Washington’s cruelty and the mendacious imperialist propaganda campaign after July 11, US policymakers have to be concerned that the Biden-led effort will now start to wobble or even fizzle out as the world comes to Cuba’s political and material support and Cuba opens up to mass tourism.

    What we are seeing is bipartisan Washington pressure on the world to acquiesce in the public lynching of socialist Cuba! In broad daylight! But this is not the opening decades of the 20th Century, the historical epoch where Cuba was transformed into a Yankee neocolony after its War of Independence against Spain.

    Revolutionary, socialist Cuba today has friends and allies. As Cuban Minister of Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment Rodrigo Malmierca put it on Twitter, ”Cuba is not alone.”

    Outside Pressure on Biden

    The main pressure on US anti-Cuba policy is coming and will mount from outside of US bourgeois electoral politics. This pressure will be international and particularly hemispheric in an increasingly polarized Latin America, Central America, and the Caribbean. There is bound to be a mounting and accumulating abhorrence and disgust at US policy that may bring forward some courage among governments and entities around the world that step-up and defy the blockade. This is an international dynamic that coordinated solidarity work must promote.

    It cannot be acceptable for the United States government to openly asphyxiate socialist Cuba in broad daylight! It cannot be acceptable to drown out the truth about the Cuban Revolution and US “regime change” subversion, intervention, and violence over many decades with highly orchestrated lies, half-truths, and grotesque misinformation.

    It seems Biden’s Washington is determined to carry out this interventionist, regime-change line and are convincing themselves it can succeed given the stress and hardship that is precisely the purpose of the blockade. As Malcolm X put it, “I can’t stop you from deluding yourself.”

    If there was ever a Which Side Are You On? moment in US and world politics, this is it! Washington has crude, vulgar force on its side, but we must always grasp that they are nonetheless acting out of clear political weakness. And the counter-offensive in defense of Cuba is starting to get in gear.

    As the Cuban workers state continues to drive down and reverse COVID-19 numbers and deaths, as mass vaccinations kick in, and as basic food and power shortages are addressed and reversed with mass mobilization, mass resistance and mass participation, Cuba is seeing an upsurge in patriotic unity, increased morale and consciousness for the working-class majority inside Cuba that will continue to thwart decisively US subversion and economic warfare.

    1. Over 95% of Cuba’s 11.3 million people have received at least one shot of the three-dose immunization regimen. As of this writing over 60% of Cubans are now fully vaccinated, well ahead of “our World in Data” website global average of 34%. Of course, the most impoverished and destitute nation-states have far lower percentages. And Cuba is the first nation-state to have begun the mass, safe vaccination of children.
    2. See Press Statement issued on July 26, 2021 by Antony Blinken: “United States and Concerned Nations Stand Together for the Cuban People”.
    3. Oppenheimer’s clairvoyant abilities are indicated in the title of his breathless Castro’s Final Hour: An Eyewitness Account of the Disintegration of Castro’s Cuba, published in 1993. The book captured the buoyant, champagne-on-ice mood among counter-revolutionary exiles in their Miami base after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its allied Eastern European governments from 1989-1991 and the onset of the severe economic depression Fidel Castro called “the Special Period” in Cuba.”
    4. 499. Memorandum From the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Mall9ory) to the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (Rubottom), April 6, 1960.
    5. see my “Venezuela Diary:  January 24 to February 23, 2019.”
    6. For the arbitrary in-your-face hypocritical essence of the State Department terrorism list see “The Real Winner of the Afghan War? It’s Not Who You Think,” New York Times, (8-26-21) which states, “Washington’s relationship with Pakistan cooled after Navy SEALS killed Osama bin Laden in 2011 at a safe house located near a Pakistani military academy. Top American officials stopped visiting Pakistan and assistance was reduced. But the Obama administration never said publicly what it suspected: that the Pakistani military knew all along that bin Laden was living with his extended family in Abbottabad, one of Pakistan’s best-known garrison towns. If Washington had declared that Pakistan was harboring bin Laden, then Pakistan would have legally been a state sponsor of terrorism, and subject to mandatory sanctions like Iran, said Mr. Riedel, the former South Asia adviser to the Bush and Obama administrations. That would have forced the Americans to end its support for Pakistan and that in turn, would have led Pakistan to stop American war supplies from transiting Pakistan, increasing the cost of the war.”
    The post Turning Points, Contradictions, and Dynamics first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Ike Nahem.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • United States president Joe Biden’s administration is urging the Venezuelan opposition to participate in the state and local elections slated for November 21, writes Steve Ellner. However, Washington’s change of tack doesn’t mean it won’t continue meddling.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • The US has been targeting China by expressing a concern that China does not or will not act according to a ‘rules-based’ order. This column examines how well the US follows the rules, especially international laws, it played a key role in developing. For example, two key articles in the United Nations Charter stress the importance of non-intervention.

    UN Charter

    Among other points in Article 2 in Chapter I states:

    The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

    and

    Chapter VII of the UN Charter also states that any intervention requires the approval of the UN Security Council. Article 51 of this chapter does allow a nation to promptly act in self defense against an armed attack until the Security Council can act.

    These are some crucial planks of international law describing how nations should relate to one another. The sovereign equality of all nations helps to protect smaller nations from attacks by more powerful nations.

    Shameful US Record

    Unfortunately we have seen numerous occasions when the US has failed to comply with international law, and this failure has often led to disastrous results for the victims of US crimes. William Blum’s powerful and informative 2004 book Killing Hope: US Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War 11 documents over 50 US interventions since 1945. The 2003 US-led attack on Iraq, without support of the UN Security Council, is one of the more egregious 21st-century war crimes committed by the US. This attack led to the destabilization and devastation of much of the Middle East.

    Besides this devastation, US violations have greatly undercut international law and made a mockery the idea of a rules-based order. Making matters worse, the US has faced no punishment for its war crimes, including no requirement to pay just reparations for its wanton destruction of nations.

    Undermining Responsibility to Protect

    Another piece of international law adopted in 2005 is the responsibility to protect people at risk of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This principle calls upon international intervention to pressure an offending nation into stopping the abuses. Unfortunately the legitimacy of the implementation of this law has been weakened due to its politicization by the US and its NATO allies as well as by the horror at the level of devastation wreaked on the targeted nations. Libya and Syria are two appalling 21st-century examples of nations that have been targeted and devastated.

    Unilateral Sanctions

    Even if US forces and drones were not continuing to terrorize peoples around the world, the US would still be at war, conducting lethal and illegal economic warfare through the use of its unilateral sanctions. The US began employing unilateral sanctions before the demise of the Soviet Union, and it continues to commit these crimes with little-to-no concern about the suffering they cause. In fact, 39 countries with about 1/3 of the world’s population are currently sanctioned by the US.

    To sell its sanctions to the public, the US usually claims a humanitarian reason for imposing sanctions against other nations. The US corporate-controlled media dutifully plays its role in the public relations campaign. In addition, due to media dereliction, the public seldom discovers that the real goal of the sanctions program is often to coerce a change in policy or the overthrow of a government that is not sufficiently subservient to US corporate interests.

    Sanctions are often the weapon of choice of the US policy elite. The imposition of sanctions doesn’t require a military intervention and thus it is wrongly viewed as being a peaceful alternative to war. US soldiers don’t get killed and, as a result, the US media and public generally pay little attention to the imposition. In addition, the US public is also kept in the dark about the enormous price civilians in these other nations are paying as a result of the illegal sanctions.

    For example, UN Special Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas visited Venezuela soon after the imposition of U.S. financial sanctions in 2017. “Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns,” De Zayas wrote. “Twenty-first century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees.”  De Zayas’s report recommended that the International Criminal Court should investigate U.S. sanctions against Venezuela as a crime against humanity.

    From an article in the March 18, 2020 Lancet, the authors wrote about the sanctions against Iran during the covid crisis:

    Although sanctions do not seem to be physical warfare weapons, they are just as deadly, if not more so. Jeopardising the health of populations for political ends is not only illegal but also barbaric. We should not let history reAlthough sanctions do not seem to be physical warfare weapons, they are just as deadly, if not more so. peat itself; more than half a million Iraqi children and nearly 40 000 Venezuelans were killed as a result of UN Security Council and US sanctions in 1994 and 2017–18, respectively.

    The global health community should regard these sanctions as war crimes and seek accountability for those who impose them.

    Complicity of Western Media and Human Rights Groups

    The US and other Western media play vital roles in these crimes by hyping US claims of alleged human rights abuses in an attempt to create popular support for these interventions. Disappointingly, human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International also have a very spotty record of calling out alleged abuses of nations the US views as enemies while often downplaying those of the US and its allies.

    As a result of this complicity, the US public in particular is kept in the dark about US war crimes and crimes against humanity. If the US public believes anything, it’s that the US is acting for a good cause in its interventions, whether they be the use of military force, the use of sanctions, the use of threats, or the plotting and implementing coups against non-compliant leaders of other nations.

    People of other nations understand better the criminality and reality of US actions. They also are concerned about the stationing of US troops in a large number of nations around the world. Thus when US political and military leaders and pundits pontificate about the rules-based order, people around the world are not taken in by US hypocrisy. Instead, they view the US as the biggest threat to world peace and as the biggest threat to democracy according to surveys.

    Unless the US public finally learns the truth and forces our leaders to join the community of nations working collaboratively on climate change and the prevention of nuclear war, the future is incredibly bleak.

    The post US undercuts the rules-based order first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.