radiofree.asia

Category: Venezuela

  • Washington Promotes Opposition Candidate Setting the Stage for Delegitimizing the Venezuelan Presidential Election

    Despite continuous US-led hybrid warfare to overthrow the socialist project, this month marks the 25th anniversary of the Bolivarian Revolution. The Venezuelan government of President Nicolás Maduro has successfully forced the US to de facto engage with it, although Washington still maintains the fiction that the defunct 2015 National Assembly is the “last remaining democratic institution” there.

    While still egregiously interventionist, the imperial power has been relegated to vetting candidates for the upcoming Venezuelan presidential election, having failed to achieve outright regime change. The appearance of Venezuelan politician Maria Corina Machado before a US congressional committee is the latest in the empire’s quest for a trustworthy confederate. Hopes are high among Republicans that she is the right collaborator. The Democrats may have another endgame.

    The opposition to the ruling Venezuelan socialist government is composed of many small and fractious sects, usually associated with a dominant personality, such as Machado’s Vente Venezuela party. The US spends millions each year meddling in the internal affairs of Venezuela in what it euphemistically calls “democracy promotion.” USAID alone pledged $50M to “push” the presidential elections, scheduled for later this year.

    Washington’s efforts to force a unified opposition have been so far unsuccessful in Venezuela. But that has not deterred the Yankees from imperiously selecting the candidate they think ought be Venezuela’s leader.

    Farewell to Venezuelan “interim president” Juan Guaidó

     The last contender for the role of the empire’s factotum was the now disgraced Juan Guaidó. Despite his popularity abroad as the “interim president” of Venezuela, the hapless security asset was not as well received at home and was dismissed by his own opposition bloc in 2022.

    The US and its allies gave Guaidó and his cronies illegally seized Venezuelan assets such the Monómeros agrochemical complex in Colombia and the Citgo oil franchise in the US. They used the enterprises to grossly enrich themselves while running them into the ground. According to the Venezuelan attorney general, an estimated $19B was embezzled by Guaidó’s “fictious government.”

    With his deer-in-the-headlights visage and stilted oratory, Guaidó appeared every bit like a puppet. In the case of Mr. Guaidó, appearances did not deceive. In contrast, the new contestant is photogenic and with a quick wit. Besides, Machado speaks fluent English.

    Machado auditions before the “bipartisan roundtable”

    The February 7th House Foreign Affairs Committee “bipartisan roundtable” was entitled “The Fight for Freedom in Venezuela.” Streamed live, committee chair Maria Salazar (R-FL)

    gushed in support of featured guest María Corina Machado as the sole opposition presidential candidate. Salazar asserted that no other opposition candidate will be tolerated: “There is no plan B!”

    In what amounted to an audition, Machado painted a dire picture of today’s Venezuela as the “largest torture center in Latin America.” She accused the Maduro government of “intentionally destroying the quality of life.”

    When asked how she would solve Venezuela’s problems, Machado said she would “open markets.” Not mentioned was that the very US economic sanctions, which she had championed, had closed the markets and imposed an asphyxiating blockade immiserating Venezuela’s less fortunate citizens. Machado comes from one the richest families.

    Alluding to current president Nicolás Maduro and National Assembly leader Diosdado Cabello, Machado said she would not be for “a system of impunity” when she’s president.

    Although no one else had brought Nicaragua up, she pledged to work for a “transition” there too. Statements like this prompted the Perú Libre party, reflecting leftist sentiment throughout Latin America, to warn that Machado “constitutes a threat to continental peace.”

    Machado’s political baggage

     Machado comes with considerable political baggage. In 2002, she signed the infamous Carmona Decree, establishing the short-lived coup government that temporarily deposed Hugo Chávez. Machado received amnesty for supporting that coup, but has continued to be associated in coup attempts. She was active in promoting the violent guarimbas in 2014 and 2017 to overthrow the elected government and has called for a US military invasion.

    In 2014, she was barred from running for public office, in accordance with the Venezuelan constitution, when she served as a diplomat for Panama in order to testify against Venezuela before the Organization of American States. She had initially refused to contest her barring before the supreme court (TSJ), which she regarded as illegitimate. But when Washington wanted to use her electoral disqualification as an excuse for reimposing some sanctions, she obediently complied, though she still remained barred.

    Other congressional initiatives

    Last December, Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) introduced House Resolution 911 designating Machado as the “official presidential opposition candidate.” Besides being a blatant interference in the internal affairs of another country, the resolution is tone deaf to the opposition in Venezuela, which does not recognize Machado as the sole legitimate candidate.

     On January 30, after Machado lost her appeal to have her electoral eligibility reinstated, Republican Senators Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, and Bill Cassidy sent Biden a letter urging him to immediately reimpose sanctions on Venezuela in order to maintain US “credibility.” That same day, the Biden State Department issued a statement revoking sanctions relief on Venezuelan gold sales and threatened to do the same on gas and oil.

    Four days before, the Congressional Research Service reported that US sanctions on Venezuela have “failed” to achieve regime change but have caused profound human suffering. This is the same “humanitarian crisis” that Machado claims was deliberately precipitated by the Venezuelan government.

    How popular is Machado off of Capitol Hill?

     Most knowledgeable analysts identify Machado as the opposition politician in Venezuela with the greatest name recognition and the single most popular one. But she does not command the unanimity of support in Venezuela that she is receiving inside the beltway.

    Venezuelan sociologist Maria Paez Victor, now residing in Canada, reports that Machado is deeply resented by most in the opposition. “She is a hated figure among the people because of her enthusiastic support and plea for more sanctions that have caused such suffering.”

    To begin with, Machado’s much vaunted opposition primary was problematic. Machado swept a crowded field of contestants with a suspicious 92%. The October contest excluded some opposition parties, while others chose not to contend and still others participated but subsequently claimed fraud.

    The primary was not conducted by the national election authority (CNE) as they usually are, but was a private affair run by Machado’s own non-governmental organization Súmate, which has received NED funding. Some of the polling places were in private homes rather than public venues such as schools. And after the ballots were counted manually, they were quickly destroyed so that there was no way to verify the validity of the count.

    Reflecting the primary’s questionable nature, the US press usually refers to it as “an” opposition primary rather than “the” opposition primary, although a close and critical reading is needed to detect the weasel-word usage. Due to the irregularities, the Venezuelan supreme court subsequently suspended the primary results.

    Machado’s prospects

     Although Maduro has yet to announce his candidacy, it is widely believed that the incumbent president will be his party’s choice. For her part, Machado says, “there can be no elections without me.” The European Union agrees, saying they will not recognize the election unless Machado runs.

    The Orinoco Tribune reports that the White House does not especially care who the opposition candidate is in Venezuela. According to Biden official Juan González, “the process and not the candidate” is most important.

    This translates to the White House anticipating a Maduro victory and, accordingly, planning to pronounce the election fraudulent. In the last Venezuelan presidential election, the US took no chances when it declared the contest fraudulent a half a year in advance and even threatened opposition candidate Henri Falcón with sanctions for running.

    The manufactured drama around Machado’s electoral eligibility has a purpose that has little to do with the far-right opposition politician. Washington knew with near certainty that she would not be allowed to run for political office due to manifest past transgressions. That is precisely why she was not named in the Barbados Agreement’s electoral roadmap negotiated between the US and Venezuela. Rather, the charade is being played out to cast doubt and calumny on the upcoming election. If Maduro wins, the US will surely pronounce the contest illegitimate.

    The post Washington Promotes Opposition Candidate Setting the Stage for Delegitimizing the Venezuelan Presidential Election first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Dawn Is Breaking out All Over, and the World Is Waking Up


    Sheroanawe Hakihiiwe (Venezuela), Hema ahu (Spider Web with Dew in the Morning), 2021.

    On 2 February 2024, the people of Venezuela celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Bolivarian Revolution. On that day in 1999, Hugo Chávez took office as the president of Venezuela and began a process of Latin American integration that – because of US intransigence – accelerated into an anti-imperialist process. Chávez’s government, understanding that it would not be able to govern on behalf of the people and address their needs if it remained tied to the 1961 Constitution, pushed for deeper and deeper democratisation. In April 1999, a referendum was held to set up a Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting a new constitution; in July 1999, 131 deputies were elected to the assembly; in December 1999, another referendum was held to ratify the draft constitution; and, finally, in July 2000, a general election was held based on the rules set out in the newly adopted constitution. As I remember, it rained hard on the day that the new constitution was put before the people. Nonetheless, 44% of the electorate turned out to vote in the referendum, with an overwhelming 72% choosing a new start for their country.

    Under the new constitution, Venezuela’s old Supreme Court – which the country’s oligarchy had used as a mechanism to prevent any major social changes from taking place – was replaced by the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia) or TSJ. Over the course of the past quarter century, the TSJ has been disturbed by several controversies, largely stemming from interventions of the old oligarchy, which refused to accept the major changes that Chávez pushed through in his early years. Indeed, in 2002, the judges on the TSJ acquitted the military leaders who attempted a coup d’état against Chávez, an act which outraged the majority of Venezuelans. This ongoing interference eventually led to the expansion of the bench (as US President Franklin D. Roosevelt had done in 1937 for similar reasons) as well as more legislative control over the judiciary, as exists in most modern societies (such as in the United States, where Congressional oversight of the courts is institutionalised through instruments such as the ‘exceptions clause’). Nonetheless, this conflict over the TSJ provided an early weapon for Washington and the Venezuelan oligarchy as they attempted to delegitimise the Chávez government.


    Oswaldo Vigas (Venezuela), Alacrán (‘The Scorpion’), 1952.

    More people will go to the polls across the world in 2024 than in any previous year. About seventy countries, collectively making up almost half of the world’s adult population, have either already held elections or will hold elections this year. Amongst them are India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, the United States, and Venezuela, which is slated for presidential elections in the second half of this year. Well before the Venezuelan government was expected to declare the date for the elections, the country’s far-right opposition and the US government had already begun to intervene, attempting to delegitimise the elections and destabilise the country with the return of financial and trade sanctions. At the heart of the current dispute is the TSJ, which, on 26 January 2024, refused to overturn a June 2023 decision to disqualify far-right political figure María Corina Machado – who has called for sanctions against her own country and for the United States to intervene militarily against Venezuela – from holding elected office in Venezuela until at least 2029 if not 2036. In the proceedings, the TSJ looked at the case of eight individuals who had been barred from holding public office for a variety of reasons. Six of them have been reinstated, and two of them, including Machado, have had their disqualifications upheld.

    The TSJ’s decision evoked fire and brimstone from Washington. Four days after the court decision, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller released a press statement that said that the US disapproved of the ‘barring of candidates’ from the presidential elections and would therefore punish Venezuela. The US immediately revoked General Licence 43, a treasury licence that had permitted the Venezuelan public sector gold mining company Minerven to conduct normal commercial transactions with US persons and entities. In addition, US State Department warned that if the Venezuelan government does not allow Machado to run in this year’s election, it will not renew General Licence 44, which allows Venezuela’s oil and gas sector to conduct normal business and is set to expire on 18 April. Later that day, Miller told the press that ‘absent a change in course from the government, we will allow that general licence to expire, and our sanctions will snap back into place’.


    Elsa Gramcko (Venezuela), R-33 Todo comienza aqui (‘R-33, It All Begins Here’), 1960.

    The United Nations Charter (1945) permits the Security Council to authorise sanctions under chapter VII, article 41. However, it emphasises that these sanctions can only be implemented by way of a UN Security Council resolution. That is why US sanctions on Venezuela, which were first imposed in 2005 and have deepened since 2015, are illegal. As UN special rapporteur on unilateral coercive measures Alena F. Douhan wrote in her 2022 report, these unilateral measures are prone to overcompliance and secondary sanctions as a result of countries’ and firms’ fear of being punished by the US. The illegal measures imposed by the US have resulted in tens of billions of dollars of losses since 2015 and have served as collective punishment against the Venezuelan population (forcing over six million of them to leave the country). In 2021, the Venezuelan government formed the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter to bring countries together to defend the integrity of the charter and stand against the use of these kinds of violent, unilateral, and illegal measures. Trade amongst members of this group has been increasing, and many of them (particularly Russia and China) have provided Venezuela with options other than the financial and trade system dominated by the United States and its allies.


    Jacqueline Hinds (Barbados), The Sacrifice of the Builders of the Panama Canal, 2017.

    Last month, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research published a landmark study, Hyper-Imperialism, and dossier, The Churning of the Global Order, in which we analysed the Global North’s decline in legitimacy, the new mood in the Global South, and the violent mechanisms used by the Global North to desperately hold onto its power. Last year, the governments of the United States and Venezuela met in Bridgetown, Barbados, under the sponsorship of Mexico and Norway to sign the Barbados Agreement. Under the terms of this agreement, Venezuela would allow the disqualification of some opposition candidates to be challenged in the TSJ and the US would begin to lift its embargo against Venezuela. This was an agreement that the US signed not from a position of strength, but due to the isolation that it faces from the newly buoyant OPEC+ (made up of Global South nations that, in 2022, accounted for 59% of global oil production) and due to its failure to fully assert authority over Saudi Arabia. In an effort to hedge these challenges, the US has sought to bring Venezuelan oil back into the world market. After refusing to participate in the terms set by the Barbados Agreement, Machado challenged her disqualification at the TSJ, whose authority she claimed to honour. But when the verdict went against her, Machado and the United States went into their toolbox and found that all that remained was force: a return to sanctions and a return to the threat of military intervention. Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yvan Gil called the US reaction ‘neo-colonial interventionism’.

    Washington’s return to sanctions comes just as the Associated Press published a report based on a secret 2018 US government memorandum that provides evidence that the US sent spies to Venezuela to target President Nicolás Maduro, his family, and his close allies. ‘We don’t like to say it publicly, but we are, in fact, the police of the world’, former US Drug Enforcement Agency official Wes Tabor told the Associated Press in clear disregard of the operation’s violation of international law. This is the attitude of the United States. That kind of thinking, which calls to mind the clichés of Hollywood Westerns, governs the rhetoric of US high officials. It is in this tone that US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin threatens militias in Iraq and Syria, saying that while they might ‘have a lot of capability, I have a lot more’. Meanwhile, Austin declares that the US will respond to the strikes on its military base in Jordan ‘when we choose, where we choose, and how we choose’. We will do what we want. That arrogance is the essence of US foreign policy, which calls upon Armageddon when it feels like it. ‘Target Tehran’, says US Senator John Cornyn, unconcerned about the implications of a US bombardment in Iran or anywhere else.


    Mario Abreu (Venezuela), Mujer vegetal (‘Vegetable Woman’), 1954.

    Of course, there is a fine line between persecuting political opponents and disqualifying those who want their country invaded by a foreign power, in this case ‘the police of the world’. It is true that governments often disparage their opponents by alleging that they are agents of a foreign power (as US Senator Nancy Pelosi did recently to those in the United States who are protesting Israel’s genocide against Palestinians, calling them agents of Russia and asking the Federal Bureau of Investigations to monitor them). Machado, however, has openly made statements calling for the United States to invade Venezuela, which in any country would be considered out of bounds.

    In December 2020, I met with a range of opposition leaders in Venezuela who had turned against the regime change positions of people like Machado. Timoteo Zambrano, a leader of Cambiemos Movimiento Ciudadano, told me that it was no longer possible to go before the Venezuelan people and call for an end to Chavismo, the socialist programme set in place by Hugo Chávez. This meant that large sections of the right, including Zambrano’s social democratic formation, have had to acknowledge that this standpoint could not easily win popular support. The far right, comprised of people like Juan Guaidó and María Corina Machado, do not have the stomach for actual democratic processes, preferring instead to ride into Caracas on the backs of an F-35 Lightning II.

    Not even a few months after promising sanctions relief to Venezuela, the US has returned to its hyper-imperialist ways. But the world has changed. In 2006, Chávez went to the United Nations and asked the world’s peoples to read Noam Chomsky’s Hegemony or Survival and then mused, ‘Dawn is breaking all over… It is that the world is waking up. It is waking up all over. And people are standing up’. On 31 January 2024, Maduro went to the TSJ headquarters, where he said, ‘We do not depend on gringos or anyone in this world for investment, prosperity, progress, advancement, [or] growth’. Channelling Chávez from eighteen years ago, Maduro said, ‘Another world has already been born’.

    The post Dawn Is Breaking out All Over, and the World Is Waking Up first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Redefining US-Latin American Relations: From Outdated Monroe Doctrine to a 21st Century Good Neighbor Policy

    The Trump administration dusted off the 19th century Monroe Doctrine that subjugates the nations of the region to U.S. interests. The Biden administration, instead of reversing course,  followed suite, with disastrous results for the region and a migration crisis that threatens Biden’s re-election.

    It has left most of Trump’s sanctions against Venezuela and Cuba intact and has tightened those against Nicaragua.

    U.S. policy towards Venezuela has been a fiasco. Try as it might, both Trump and Biden were unable to depose President Maduro and found themselves stuck with a self-proclaimed president, Juan Guaidó. U.S. support for Guaidó backfired as he was held responsibility for massive corruption involving Venezuelan assets abroad that were turned over to him. Now Washington is openly siding with presidential hopeful María Corina Machado, who has a long history of engagement in violent disruptions and has called on the U.S. to invade her country. The Venezuelan people have paid a heavy price for the debacle, which has included crippling economic sanctions and coup attempts. The U.S. has also paid a price in terms of its prestige internationally.

    This is only one example of a string of disastrous policies toward Latin America.

    Instead of continuing down this imperial path of endless confrontation, U.S. policymakers need to stop, recalibrate, and design an entirely new approach to inter-American relations. This is particularly urgent as the continent is in the throes of an economic recession that is compounded by low commodity prices, a belly-up tourist industry and the drying up of remittances from outside.

    A good reference point for a policy makeover is Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor Policy” in the 1930s, which represented an abrupt break with the interventionism of that time. FDR abandoned “gunboat diplomacy” in which Marines were sent throughout the region to impose U.S. will. Though his policies were criticized for not going far enough, he did bring back U.S. Marines from Nicaragua, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and scrapped the Platt Amendment that allowed the U.S. to intervene unilaterally in Cuban affairs.

    So what would a Good Neighbor Policy for the 21st Century look like? Here are some key planks:

    An end to military intervention. The illegal use of military force has been a hallmark of U.S. policy in the region, as we see from the deployment of Marines in the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989; involvement in military actions leading to the Guatemalan coup in 1954 and destabilization in Nicaragua in the 1980s; support for coups in Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973 and elsewhere. A Good Neighbor Policy would not only renounce the use of military force, but even the threat of such force (as in “all options are on the table”), particularly because such threats are illegal under international law.

    U.S. military intimidation also comes in the form of U.S. bases that dot the continent from Cuba to Colombia to further south. These installations are often resisted by local communities, as was the case of the Manta Base in Ecuador that was shut down in 2008 and the ongoing opposition against the Guantanamo Base in Cuba. U.S. bases in Latin America are a violation of local sovereignty and should be closed, with the lands cleaned up and returned to their rightful owners.

    Another form of military intervention is the financing and training of local military and police forces. Most of the U.S. assistance sent to Latin America, particularly Central America, goes towards funding security forces, resulting in the militarization of police and borders, and leading to greater police brutality, extrajudicial killings and repression of migrants. The training school in Ft. Benning, Georgia, formerly called the “School of the Americas,” graduated some of the continent’s worst human rights abusers. Even today, U.S.-trained forces are involved in egregious abuses, including the assassination of activists like Berta Cáceres in Honduras. U.S. programs to confront drugs, from the Merida Initiative in Mexico to Plan Colombia, have not stopped the flow of drugs but have poured massive amounts of weapons into the region and led to more killings, torture and gang violence. Latin American governments need to clean up their own national police forces and link them to communities, a more effective way to combat drug trafficking than the militarization that Washington has promoted.  The greatest contribution the U.S. can make to putting an end to the narcotics scourge in Latin America is to control the U.S. market for those drugs through responsible reforms and to prevent the sale of U.S.-made weapons to drug cartels.

    No more political meddling. While the U.S. public has been shocked by charges of Russian interference in its elections, this kind of meddling is par for the course in Latin America. USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), created in 1983 as a neutral sounding alternative to the CIA, spend millions of tax-payer dollars to undermine progressive movements. Following the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998, for instance, NED ramped up its assistance to conservative groups in Venezuela (which became the foundation’s number one Latin American recipient) as a leadup to regime change attempts.

    An end to the use of economic blackmail. The U.S. government uses economic pressure to impose its will. The Trump administration threatened to halt remittances to Mexico to extract concessions from the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador on immigration issues. A similar threat persuaded many voters in El Salvador’s 2004 presidential elections to refrain from voting for the candidate of the left-leaning Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN).

    The U.S. also uses economic coercion. For the past 60 years, U.S. administrations have sanctioned Cuba—a policy that has not successfully led to regime change but has made living conditions harder for the Cuban people. The same is true in Venezuela, where one study says that in just 2017-2018, over 40,000 Venezuelans died as a result of sanctions. With coronavirus, these sanctions have become even more deadly. A Good Neighbor Policy would lift the economic sanctions against Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua and help them recover economically.

    Support trade policies that lift people out of poverty and protect the environment. U.S. free trade agreements with Latin America have been good for the elites and U.S. corporations, but have increased economic inequality, eroded labor rights, destroyed the livelihoods of small farmers, furthered the privatization of public services, and compromised national sovereignty. When indebted nations seek loans from international financial institutions, the loans have been conditioned on the imposition of neoliberal policies that exacerbate all ofthese trends.

    In terms of the environment, too often the U.S. government has sided with global oil and mining interests when local communities in Latin America and the Caribbean have challenged resource-extracting projects that threaten their environment and endanger public health. We must launch a new era of energy and natural resource cooperation that prioritizes renewable sources of energy, green jobs, and good environmental stewardship.

    Massive protests against neoliberal policies erupted throughout Latin America shortly prior to the pandemic and will return with a vengeance unless countries are free to explore alternatives to neoliberal policies. A New Good Neighbor Policy would cease imposing economic conditions on Latin American governments and would call on the International Monetary Fund to do the same. An example of international cooperation is China’s “Belt and Road Initiative,” which, even with some downsides, has generated goodwill in the Global South by prioritizing investments in much-needed infrastructure projects without conditioning its funding on any aspect of government policy.

    Humane immigration policy. Throughout history, U.S. administrations have refused to take responsibility for the ways the U.S. has spurred mass migration north, including unfair trade agreements, support for dictators, climate change, drug consumption and the export of gangs. Instead, immigrants have been used and abused as a source of cheap labor, and vilified according to the political winds. President Obama was the deporter-in-chief; President Trump has been caging children, building walls, and shutting off avenues for people to seek asylum; President Biden is better than his predecessor when it comes to rhetoric, but not so much action-wise. A Good Neighbor policy would dismantle ICE and the cruel deportation centers; it would provide the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States a path to citizenship; and it would respect the international right of people to seek asylum.

    Recognition of Latin America’s cultural contributions. President Trump’s blatant disrespect towards Latin Americans and immigrants, including his call for building a wall “paid for by Mexico,” intensified racist attitudes among his base which has continued ever since. A new Latin America policy would not only counter racism but would uplift the region’s exceptional cultural richness. The controversy surrounding the extensive commercial promotion of the novel “American Dirt,” written by a U.S. author about the Mexican immigration experience, is an example of the underestimation of talent south of the border. The contributions of the continent’s indigenous population should also be appreciated and justly compensated, such as the centuries-old medicinal cures that are often exploited by U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies.

    An all-encompassing expression of goodwill in the form of a New Good Neighbor Policy will meet resistance from vested economic and military interests, as well as those persuaded by racist arguments. But the vast majority of people in the United States have nothing to lose by it and, in fact, have much to gain. Universal threats, such as coronavirus and the climate crisis, have taught us the limits of borders and should act as incentives to construct a Good Neighbor Policy for the 21st Century based on those principles of non-intervention and mutual respect.

    The post Redefining US-Latin American Relations: From Outdated Monroe Doctrine to a 21st Century Good Neighbor Policy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US Congressional Resolution Calls for Annulling the Monroe Doctrine and Ending Sanctions

    Now, 200 years after President James Monroe first promulgated his dictate giving the Yankees dominion of the rest of the hemisphere, a congressional resolution calls for annulling the Monroe Doctrine and replacing it with a “new good neighbor” policy. The intent is to “foster improved relations and deeper, more effective cooperation” with our neighbor nations.

    Led by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) and cosponsored by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Chuy García (D-AZ), and Greg Casar (D-TX), House Resolution 943 notably calls for ending unilateral coercive economic measures against Cuba and other regional states. Initially introduced on December 19, 2023, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Hank Johnson (D-GA) added their co-sponsorships on January10. Others may join them.

    Rap sheet on Monroeism

    While the Monroe Doctrine ingenuously claimed to protect hemispheric independence from foreign interference, HR 943 charges that the policy has, in fact, been used as a “mandate” to give the US license to interfere in the internal affairs of other states to promote its own narrow interests.

    The resolution forcefully begins with noting the “massive, forced displacement and genocide of Native peoples” by the North American colonialists.

    The resolution goes on to enumerate the further progression of the US imperium on the hemisphere. Back in the 1840s, the US took 55% of Mexico. In 1898, Puerto Rico (still possessed) and Cuba (Guantánamo still controlled) were seized. From 1898-1934, Washington intervened militarily in Cuba, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic.

    In 1904, “international police power” to protect US and foreign creditors in the region was claimed under the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1947, the CIA was created with authorization for covert action in the region. Then in 1953, Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown in the “first” CIA coup.

    In 1961, the US facilitated a 21-year military dictatorship in Brazil. The following year, the still continuing embargo (really a blockade) of Cuba was initiated. In 1973, Washington backed a coup in Chile and the succeeding 15-year military dictatorship.

    From 1975-1980, the US coordinated Operation Condor with terroristic military dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. In 1983, the US invaded and overthrew the government of Grenada. And in the 1980s and early 1990s, the US backed “dirty wars” in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua.

    In 1991, the US covertly financed a military coup in Haiti. Another coup in Haiti was precipitated in 2004. Starting in 2000, billions were provided for Plan Colombia, implicated in massive human rights abuses. Meanwhile, from 1941-2003, US Naval operations in Vieques, Puerto Rico, caused deaths and lethal illnesses. In 2002, the US supported an unsuccessful coup in Venezuela. US-backed coups in Honduras in 2009 and in Bolivia in 2019 were both followed by Washington’s support for the subsequent illegitimate governments.

    Although this amounts to an appalling rap sheet, the resolution just highlights some of the more obvious transgressions. Omitted, for instance, is the 1989 US invasion of Panama and overthrow of that government.

    US-imposed institutions of regional control

    The resolution notes that the Washington-based and largely US-controlled Organization of American States (OAS) ignores “the many egregious abuses perpetrated” by the US and its client states.

    Similarly, the largely US-dominated International Monetary Fund is implicated in the regional debt crises, which has resulted in austerity and stagnant development. Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions, which are often imposed by the US in free-trade agreements, are also criticized in the resolution.

    The resolution blames the massive regional immigration of displaced persons partly on Washington’s own policies. The Central American “dirty wars” in the 1980s and 1990s and more recently the US-sponsored US drug wars and free trade agreements are cited among the problematic contributing causes.

    Regarding foreign intervention in the hemisphere, although not noted in the resolution, has been the US’s actual abetting of foreign interference; that is, when it aligns with its interests. Just this month, the British sent a warship to Guyana. At the same time, a US deputy secretary of defense was meeting with the Guyanese, backing the claims of a US oil company in territory disputed between Guyana and Venezuela.

    Further, the US fully backs what amount to European colonies, regardless of whether they are called dependencies, overseas territories, or even departments. France claims French Guiana, Guadeloupe Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy, and Martinique. Netherlands possesses Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten. The UK has Bermuda, Cayman Islands, British Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, and the Malvinas. Washington, too, has its own de facto colonies of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.

    Remedies

     Following this devastating bill of particulars, the resolution calls for remedies. The first of which is for the State Department to “send a strong signal” by annulling the Monroe Doctrine. A “good neighborhood policy” is proposed to replace it.

    That sounds nice. But, as the resolution notes, then US Secretary of State John Kerry mouthed similarly soothing words in 2013 and nothing came of that.   Notably, this resolution adds a bite to the bark, specifically calling for terminating all unilateral coercive economic sanctions. These measures are a form of collective punishment and as such are illegal under international law and condemned by the United Nations.

    Regarding the recidivist US practice of backing “extraconstitutional transfer of power,” the resolution urges Congress to legislate automatic reviews of assistance to coup governments. Aid would only be reinstated after the both the US and the majority of regional states agree that constitutional order has been re-instituted.

    Interestingly, the resolution calls for the “prompt” declassification of all US secret documentation on coups, dictatorships, and human rights abuses. Cover-ups from the past would be exposed.

    In terms of regional governance, the resolution insists that the OAS be reformed. Without naming US-sycophantic Luis Almagro, the resolution requests accountability for unethical and criminal activities by the organization’s secretary general plus full transparency on financial and personnel decisions (not explicitly named, but including his girlfriend). An ombudsman’s office is proposed. Human rights rapporteurs and electoral observation would be independent. Similarly, the US is asked to work cooperatively with other regional bodies such as CELAC, CARICOM, and UNASUR.

    Unspecified reforms of the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions are proposed to ensure equity for loans to developing countries. International Monetary Fund Special Drawing Rights are cited, which would help regional development and climate adaptation. Contributions are also recommended to the Amazon Fund.

    Citizen initiatives

    Of the sponsors of the resolution, three had been on a delegation to Brazil, Colombia, and Chile in August facilitated by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), where they met with high-level officials. CEPR’s Director of International Policy Alexander Main commented that the delegation sought to “promote a fresh approach to US relations.”

    CEPR publishes the monthly Sanctions Watch, which reports on the asphyxiating impact of the unilateral coercive economic measures. Longest sanctioned, Cuba is in dire need of humanitarian relief from Uncle Sam. Particularly debilitating for Cuba was President Trump’s inclusion of the island nation on the State Sponsors of Terrorism (SSOT) list, which cuts it off from otherwise available aid.

    The SSOT policy has been continued by President Biden. A call to reverse the policy is absent from the proposed congressional resolution, which is sponsored by Biden’s fellow Democrats. However, the National Network on Cuba (NNOC) and the Alliance for Cuba Engagement and Respect (ACERE) are among the many organizations working to get Cuba off that list. These include faith-based groups such as the Presbyterian Mission and the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). Even the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), which is the DC-based think tank that serves to give a liberal gloss to State Department policies, wants Cuba removed from the list.

    The Nicaragua Solidarity Coalition (NSC) works on reversing US sanctions there and is gearing up against a new congressional initiative to extend the grueling collective punishment. Fire This Time Movement for Social Justice (FTT) and the Venezuela Solidarity Network are among the North America groups working to take the US sanctions burden off of Venezuela.

    The SanctionsKill campaign opposes all economic coercive measures, including those imposed by the United Nations. The Latin America and the Caribbean Policy Forum, spearheaded by CodePink, is working for an “Americas without sanctions” with the Alliance for Global Justice (AfGJ) and others. CodePink and World Beyond War hosted a mock “funeral” for the Monroe Doctrine in December.

    Counter initiative

    Earlier on December 1, María Elvira Salazar (R-FL) and Chip Roy (R-TX) had introduced a resolution, which was opposite of the intent of the resolution led by Velázquez. This other resolution celebrated the Monroe Doctrine’s bicentennial and was joined by fourteen other Republican representatives as cosponsors. They asserted that the need is greater than ever to protect against “malign overseas influence.” Salazar warned, “China, Russia and Iran are trying to invade the Western Hemisphere.”

    Although Velázquez’s and her fellow Democrats’ HR 143 calls for annulling the Monroe Doctrine and ending sanctions, we should have no illusion that their resolution will end US imperialism any time soon. Unfortunately, many on the blue team including their standard bearer have developed a fervor for American exceptionalism similar to the wing-nuts on the other side of the aisle.

    But, given the seemingly unlimited bipartisan appetite for foreign intervention, it is at least a step in the right direction and a platform that can be used for organizing, particularly against sanctions. As the Spanish daily El País commented, the resolution to annul is a “charge against two centuries of US expansionist policy.”

    The post US Congressional Resolution Calls for Annulling the Monroe Doctrine and Ending Sanctions first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • How the Campaign to Free Venezuelan Political Prisoner Alex Saab Succeeded

    Alex Saab was freed from US captivity in what Venezuelan Prof. Maria Victor Paez described as “a triumph of Venezuelan diplomacy.” The diplomat had been imprisoned for trying to bring humanitarian supplies to Venezuela in legal international trade but in circumvention of Washington’s illegal economic coercive measures, also known as sanctions.

    Negotiated prisoner exchange

    In a prisoner exchange, Venezuela released ten US citizens and some other nationals to free Alex Saab after his over three years of imprisonment.

    Saab’s plane landed in Venezuela on December 20. He was tearfully greeted by his family, friends, and Venezuela’s primera combatiente Cilia Flores, wife of the president. Shortly after, President Nicolás Maduro made a triumphal public address with Alex Saab at his side at the presidential palace.

    Unlike Maduro, US President Biden made no such public address with his releasees beside him. Had he done so, he would have had to stand with “Fat Leonard” Francis, who had escaped US captivity after being convicted in a major US Navy corruption case implicating some sixty admirals. The US badly wanted him back in their custody. He knew too much about officials in high places.

    The White House has so far declined to reveal the full list of those released. John Kirby, US Security Council spokesperson, tweeted, “Sometimes tough decisions have to be made to rescue Americans overseas.” Among the others released were mercenaries Luke Deman and Airan Berry, who were captured after the “Bay of Piglets” attempt to assassinate the Venezuelan president.

    The US government would have liked nothing more than to have locked Alex Saab up and thrown away the key. And for a while, it looked like that was going to happen. Saab’s crack legal team had tried unsuccessfully to free him on the grounds that he was a diplomat who, under the Vienna Convention for Diplomatic Relations, is supposed to enjoy absolute immunity from arrest. Although the US is a signatory to the convention, Uncle Sam saw no reason to abide by international law.

    The US Department of Justice lawyers argued, in effect, that because the US does not recognize the legitimacy of the democratically elected government in Venezuela, it certainly does not have to accept its diplomats. Although appeals were made, the US government simply delayed the case.

    In short, the likelihood of achieving justice from the US justice system was slim. The last hope for freeing Alex Saab was a prisoner exchange. And that turned out to be the route to freedom.

    How the campaign succeeded

    The saga of Alex Saab and his ultimate emancipation is similar to the campaign to free the Cuban 5. The five had infiltrated terrorist groups in the Miami area, which were planning attacks on Cuba. When the Cuban authorities notified the FBI in 1998 of these illegal actions being planned on US soil, the US government instead arrested the five Cuban heroes, as they became to be known in their homeland.

    Cuban President Fidel Castro vowed that the five would be freed, and they were. Two of the five eventually completed their prison sentences. Then in 2014, the remaining three were released in a prisoner exchange after a successful international campaign.

    Like the campaign to free the Cuban 5, the FreeAlexSaab campaign rested on four legs: the remarkable resoluteness of Alex Saab himself, the mobilization of the entire Venezuelan nation on his behalf, an international movement, and the support and involvement of his family.

    Alex Saab’s resoluteness was exemplary. Unlike many prisoners, Saab had a get-out-of-jail-free card that he could have played if he had chosen to do so. He did not.

    As US officials admitted, Saab was a high value asset because he had information that the US security state wanted regarding contacts and means to circumvent the illegal coercive economic measures. All he had to do was sing and renounce Venezuelan President Maduro and the Bolivarian Revolution. But he did not, even under extreme pressure. Not simply pressure, but he was tortured while imprisoned in Cabe Verde.

    In his emotional welcoming speech to Alex Saab, President Maduro remarked on Saab’s Palestinian heritage, noting that came with a capacity to resist. Venezuela has been among the Latin American nations most critical of the Israeli assault on Palestine.

    The second pillar to the successful campaign was the mobilization of the Venezuelan nation behind freeing their national hero. This mobilization extended from the grassroots to the head of state.

    Maduro noted that even while Saab was languishing in jail, the diplomat’s efforts had not been in vain. Although Saab was behind bars for 1280 days, the Venezuelan people were benefiting from the vaccines, food, and fuel that Saab had arranged to be delivered, circumventing the US blockade. Sharing the podium with them at the welcoming speech was a high-ranking Venezuelan general who, hearing this, cried.

    Efforts of friends and family

    The third element in the successful effort was launching an international campaign to #FreeAlexSaab. All over the world, friends of Venezuela’s sovereignty united to hold actions demanding his freedom.

    Out of Vancouver, Canada, Hands Off Venezuela! conducted monthly online virtual picket lines featuring guest speakers on the Saab case. British rock star Roger Waters spoke out for Alex Saab’s freedom, as did distinguished Nigerian lawyer Femi Falana, United Nations special rapporteurs Alfred-Maurice de Zayas based in Switzerland and Alena Douhan based in Belarus, international law expert Dan Kovalik at the University of Pittsburgh, and Puerto Rican national hero and former political prisoner Oscar Lopez Rivera. Also weighing in on the injustice to Alex Saab were the American Association of Jurists, the National Lawyers Guild, United Nations Human Rights Committee, and the African Bar Association, along with the Economic Community of West African States’ (ECOWAS) Court of Justice.

    Head of the North American FreeAlexSaab Campaign, Venezuelan-American William Camacaro commented that this was an important victory for President Maduro and by extension the larger Bolivarian Revolution. An already fractious opposition in Venezuela, he observed, has gotten even more divided while the Chavista movement is more unified going into the 2024 presidential election year.

    Parallel campaigns for a prisoner exchange were waged on behalf of US citizens imprisoned in Venezuela. Prominent among those drives were the friends of Eyvin Hernández. The Los Angeles public defender had been arrested in March 2022 when he illegally entered Venezuela from Colombia. The Hernández campaign waged a strong effort reaching government officials and doing effective lobbying.

    Speaking of government officials, the removal of disgraced Democrat Robert Menendez as chair of the powerful Senate Committee on Foreign Relations eliminated a significant obstacle to the prisoner exchange. Surprisingly, Maduro revealed that a deal to free Saab had previously been made with Trump, but when Biden won the election, they had to start again from scratch.

    The fourth and indispensable pillar for the successful campaign was Alex Saab’s family, who had been targeted by the US but stood firm and supportive. The day that Saab’s son turned eighteen, the US slapped him with sanctions along with his uncles and other family members. Camilla Fabri de Saab, the former prisoner’s wife, led the effort even though she was a young mother with two young children.

    As would be expected, Fabri was initially devastated by her husband’s imprisonment. She too was targeted and even her parents in Italy were hit. But out of adversity came strength. Fabri took the lead in uniting the many pieces of the campaign and the legal effort. With no exaggeration, she became a major international leader. She was appointed by Maduro to be on the sensitive negotiating team meeting with members of the Venezuelan opposition in Mexico City to retrieve some of Venezuela’s assets that had been illegally seized by the US.

    Fabri’s moving video, made just five days before her husband’s release, was about what the holidays would be like without him. As it turned out, this will be a more joyous holiday season for all the prisoners freed in this historic exchange and their families. The release of Alex Saab is a victory for Venezuelan sovereignty and shared with the third of humanity still under US sanctions.

    The post How the Campaign to Free Venezuelan Political Prisoner Alex Saab Succeeded first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • 10 years Natalia bracelet

    Génesis Dávila, participant in the Natalia Project.

    On 18 December 2023 Civil Rights Defenders published an account of 10 years Natalia [see: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2014/04/24/the-natalia-gps-alarm-bracelet-wins-golden-egg-awards-in-stockholm/]

    10 years ago, Civil Rights Defenders launched the Natalia Project, the world’s first assault alarm and community-based security system for human rights defenders. In the event of an attack, participants in the project can send out a distress signal so they can be located quickly and get help.

    Natalia Project participant Génesis Dávila is the director and founder of Defiende Venezuela, a human rights organisation fighting for accountability and justice for victims of political persecution, people in arbitrary detention, and others who have been subjected to government-sanctioned attacks in Venezuela. In Venezuela being a human rights defender puts Génesis at risk of the very same political persecution she is trying to document.  

    “I face different threats on a daily basis. In general, they come from the Venezuelan regime. They harass human rights defenders because we try to protect people who are in danger and victims of human rights violations. This is something that puts us at great risk.” “It is really exhausting because then you don’t have space for other things. It’s the feeling of being chased all the time. It puts you under stress. You feel that you are never safe, wherever you are.”

    In the case of an attack, the alarm is activated, and a distress signal goes off. Civil Rights Defenders and a network of human rights defenders can start investigating the situation within minutes.

    “For me, my Natalia has been a game changer. It helped me feel safe. Just having this tiny device with me, knowing that there was someone on the other side of the world just waiting for my call, being ready to act if something happens gave me such a confidence. That changed everything.”

    The Natalia Project device is built to be durable and easy to use and take wherever is needed. 

    “Everywhere I go, I bring my Natalia. If I’m about to fly somewhere, I check my passport, cellphone and my Natalia. It makes me feel safe. It’s my lucky charm.” 

    “Anyone who wants to support human rights can do it. You don’t have to be a lawyer, or someone waving a flag. You just need to advocate for human rights, and that will be enough.” 

    CRD also runs an emergency fund, see: https://crd.org/emergency-fund/

    “Natalia Project has been a game changer” – Génesis Dávila

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • Venezuela-Guyana Controversy

    National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez (left) and Chairman of the Special Commission for the Defence of Guyana Essequibo Hermann Escarra, unveil Venezuela’s new map that includes the Essequibo territory, a swath of land that is administered and controlled by Guyana but claimed by Venezuela, in Caracas, Venezuela, Friday, December 8, 2023

    If there were any misgivings about the actions undertaken by the government of Venezuela around the territorial dispute with Guyana, the joint military exercises between Guyana Defence Forces (GDF) and the US Southern Command (SouthCom) explain what really lies behind things.

    Venezuela’s claimed territory, also known as Guayana Esequiba, is 159,500 square kilometres west of the river of the same name. SouthCom (the Pentagon) never intervenes in territorial disputes, unless the territory in question contains resources of geopolitical importance for US imperialism.

    In an interview on January 21 2023, SouthCom Chief Laura Richardson stressed how important Latin America was for US foreign policy because of “its rich resources,” a point she has been making since her appointment in 2021.

    She went on to highlight “the largest oil reserves, including light and sweet crude, discovered off Guyana” and “Venezuela’s rich oil, copper, and gold resources.”

    The basis of Venezuela’s claim is the 1777 Map of the General Captaincy of Venezuela, created by colonial Spain on September 8 of that year, which clearly includes Guyana Esequiba.

    On the eve of Venezuelan independence in 1810, Spain’s official map of the Captaincy also included it. Since Venezuelan independence, all its constitutions (1811, 1819, 1821, 1830, 1857, 1858, 1864, 1874, 1881, 1891, 1893, 1901, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931, 1936, 1947, 1953, 1961 and the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999) have included Guayana Esequiba as integral part of its territory.

    Venezuela proclaimed its independence in 1811 and Simon Bolivar’s liberating efforts led in 1821 to Great Colombia, comprising Venezuela and Colombia. The newly created republic, as early as 1821, complained of the continuous invasions of English colonists into Venezuelan territory.

    Great Colombia’s vice-president sent a formal note to Britain’s prime minister, Lord Castlereagh that his country’s eastern limit “ends at the Essequibo, the left bank of this river being the border with Dutch Guiana” (today’s Suriname). Great Colombia underwent geographical expansion and variations in 1822, 1824 and 1826, but it always comprised Guayana Esequiba.

    In 1825 the British empire acknowledged its independence with Guayana Esequiba as an integral part of that state. With the separation from Great Colombia in 1830, Venezuela’s constitution established that its territory comprised the region [called before 1810] “the Captaincy General of Venezuela.” In 1834 Britain recognised Venezuela’s independence.

    The problem was Perfidious Albion (Napoleon’s accurate name for British imperialism). Britain commissioned Robert Schomburgk, a botanist, to carry out a survey of British Guiana in which he unilaterally drew a new line of demarcation of the border that gave British Guiana 80,000 square kilometres of Venezuelan territory.

    More “Schomburgk lines” were drawn adding more Venezuelan territory to British Guiana that by 1897 had amounted to 167,830 square kilometres (see in map how rapacious this was). In 1887 Venezuelan president Guzman Blanco broke relations with Great Britain because the British refused to withdraw from Guayana Esequiba, thus forcing arbitration.

    Venezuela was then in turmoil. A civil war had broken out in 1892 and Venezuela was in no position to pay debts to France, Spain, Belgium, Britain and Germany. As civil war broke again in 1898, a European coalition was planning military intervention (in 1902 a European naval force blockaded Venezuela when British and German warships bombed Puerto Cabello).

    By 1897 the territory controversy was nearly 60 years old and the US’s heavy intervention forced Venezuela, following the signing of the Treaty of Washington, to accept an Arbitration Commission made up of five members: two nominated by the US Supreme Court, two by the British government, and one, non-Venezuelan, to be chosen by the Venezuelan government.

    Venezuela chose former US president Benjamin Harrison as its counsel. Unsurprisingly, the Arbitration Commission in 1899 awarded almost 90 per cent of the disputed territory (see Venezuelan map) and all of the gold mines to Britain but gave no reasons for the decision.

    In 1949, a (posthumously published) memorandum by Severo Mallet-Prevost, official secretary of the US/Venezuela delegation to the Arbitration Commission, revealed that Friederich Martens, chair and judge of the 1899 Paris Arbitration Commission, contravening the Washington Treaty rules, had colluded with the two British judges to coerce the other judges to arbitrate in favour of Britain.

    Thus, Venezuela rejected the 1899 Arbitral Award as fraudulent. In 1962 its Foreign Affairs Minister, Falcon Briceno, demanded a vindication of his country’s rights over the disputed territory. Venezuela pursued the case for its historical claims to Guayana Esequiba until Britain finally agreed to start negotiations through the signing on February 17 1966 of the Geneva Agreement.

    This agreement was recognised by Guyana at the moment of its independence on May 26 1966. Thus, Britain accepted both that the controversy existed and a protocol to resolve it, confirming the 125-year-old dispute had been caused by British colonial encroachments. The 1966 Geneva Agreement is still valid and current mainstream media arguments that the dispute was settled in 1899 are simply false.

    In 1993, contravening the Geneva Agreement, Guyana approved an exploration by ExxonMobil in the disputed Statebrok Block, and in 2000 huge deposits of gas and oil were discovered. In 2000, president Hugo Chavez rejected the concession Guyana had granted to US company Beal Aerospace Technologies Inc to install a space launch platform.

    However, he made it clear that Venezuela would not be an obstacle to projects of social benefits such as “access to water for human consumption, new roads, energy programmes and agricultural activities.”

    In 2007, the Bolivarian government ejected ExxonMobil from Venezuela’s Orinoco Basin oil fields because the oil giant refused to comply with new laws. Chavez effectively nationalised foreign oil companies and increased their taxation of ongoing projects from 34 per cent to 50 per cent.

    ExxonMobil turned its attention to the disputed Essequibo region, and its exploration, under the Production Sharing Agreement with Guyana, led in 2015 to the discovery of one of the largest oil finds in recent years (Exxon was given 75 per cent of the oil revenue toward the cost of recovery and is exempt from any taxes). At the time, Exxon’s CEO was Rex Tillerson.

    In March 2015 president Obama’s declared Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to US national security” and in May 2015, ExxonMobil announced the discovery of oil in Guayana Esequiba. In September 2015, Tillerson and Guyana’s president, David Granger, met in New York where they planned their strategy against Venezuela which involved ending the 1966 Geneva Agreement and pressing the UN to go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with State Department support.

    In September 2016, Tillerson and Granger met again at the UN and in December UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon sent the dispute to the ICJ. In February 2017, Tillerson was appointed US state secretary by president Trump. In 2018 Guyana submitted a complaint to the ICJ about the dispute which the latter accepted in 2020, even though only one of the parties was in favour of doing so.

    Between 2015 and 2023, Guyana joined the destabilisation against Bolivarian Venezuela. It voted 16 out of 23 times against Venezuela in the Organisation of American States. Guyana also joined the now-deceased Lima Group and signed 16 out of 45 communiques seeking to oust President Maduro’s government. In 2019 Trump had adopted the policy of “maximum pressure” to oust the Venezuelan government.

    With the election of Irfaan Ali as president in 2020, Guyana massively escalated the conflict to the point of formally proposing SouthCom military bases in its territory as “protection” against Venezuela. SouthCom officials regularly visit Guyana and hold joint military drills leading Irfaan to engage in aggressive rhetoric — “Guyana Defence Forces are on high alert and in contact with SouthCom, who are on alert.”

    Irfaan has granted oil concessions in waters that are not even part of the dispute. All the while, Exxon extracts around 500,000 barrels per day in Venezuelan sea waters.

    Thus, Venezuela responded by holding an overwhelmingly supported referendum on December 3 2023, conducted within the 1966 Geneva Agreement spirit and as a confirmation of the government’s position of not recognising the jurisdiction of the ICJ in the controversy surrounding the Essequibo.

    Furthermore, Venezuela’s National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution creating the new, Guayana Esequiba state, and prompted by the growing and persistent presence of SouthCom in Guyana, it also established a High Commission for its defence.

    The Venezuelan government is taking these and several other measures making it abundantly clear that the threat is not Guyana but Exxon and the US, which have spent years seeking to violently overthrow the Bolivarian government.

    However, President Maduro has repeatedly called upon President Irfaan to engage in dialogue and avoid being trapped in the Exxon-US push for military conflict. The Venezuelan government also called upon the government of Guyana “to desist from its erratic, threatening and risky behaviour and return to the path of direct dialogue, through the Geneva Agreement.”

    Thankfully, thanks to direct contacts between President Maduro, Brazil’s Lula and Ralph Gonsalves, on December 10 2023, the government of Guyana accepted President Maduro’s proposal for dialogue to “maintain Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace, without interference from external actors.”

    The meeting was scheduled for December 14 2023 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to be hosted by its president, Gonsalves. Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yvan Gil thanked Celac and Caricom for their efforts in promoting the Venezuela-Guyana dialogue and sponsoring this most important meeting.

    We must all support Venezuela’s stance that “the territorial dispute will only be resolved through dialogue, mutual respect, and commitment to preserve the region as a zone of peace, free from interference,” and say no to the US-ExxonMobil push for war.

  • First published at Morning Star Online.
    • The post Venezuela-Guyana Controversy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Venezuela-Guyana Controversy

    National Assembly President Jorge Rodriguez (left) and Chairman of the Special Commission for the Defence of Guyana Essequibo Hermann Escarra, unveil Venezuela’s new map that includes the Essequibo territory, a swath of land that is administered and controlled by Guyana but claimed by Venezuela, in Caracas, Venezuela, Friday, December 8, 2023

    If there were any misgivings about the actions undertaken by the government of Venezuela around the territorial dispute with Guyana, the joint military exercises between Guyana Defence Forces (GDF) and the US Southern Command (SouthCom) explain what really lies behind things.

    Venezuela’s claimed territory, also known as Guayana Esequiba, is 159,500 square kilometres west of the river of the same name. SouthCom (the Pentagon) never intervenes in territorial disputes, unless the territory in question contains resources of geopolitical importance for US imperialism.

    In an interview on January 21 2023, SouthCom Chief Laura Richardson stressed how important Latin America was for US foreign policy because of “its rich resources,” a point she has been making since her appointment in 2021.

    She went on to highlight “the largest oil reserves, including light and sweet crude, discovered off Guyana” and “Venezuela’s rich oil, copper, and gold resources.”

    The basis of Venezuela’s claim is the 1777 Map of the General Captaincy of Venezuela, created by colonial Spain on September 8 of that year, which clearly includes Guyana Esequiba.

    On the eve of Venezuelan independence in 1810, Spain’s official map of the Captaincy also included it. Since Venezuelan independence, all its constitutions (1811, 1819, 1821, 1830, 1857, 1858, 1864, 1874, 1881, 1891, 1893, 1901, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1922, 1925, 1928, 1931, 1936, 1947, 1953, 1961 and the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999) have included Guayana Esequiba as integral part of its territory.

    Venezuela proclaimed its independence in 1811 and Simon Bolivar’s liberating efforts led in 1821 to Great Colombia, comprising Venezuela and Colombia. The newly created republic, as early as 1821, complained of the continuous invasions of English colonists into Venezuelan territory.

    Great Colombia’s vice-president sent a formal note to Britain’s prime minister, Lord Castlereagh that his country’s eastern limit “ends at the Essequibo, the left bank of this river being the border with Dutch Guiana” (today’s Suriname). Great Colombia underwent geographical expansion and variations in 1822, 1824 and 1826, but it always comprised Guayana Esequiba.

    In 1825 the British empire acknowledged its independence with Guayana Esequiba as an integral part of that state. With the separation from Great Colombia in 1830, Venezuela’s constitution established that its territory comprised the region [called before 1810] “the Captaincy General of Venezuela.” In 1834 Britain recognised Venezuela’s independence.

    The problem was Perfidious Albion (Napoleon’s accurate name for British imperialism). Britain commissioned Robert Schomburgk, a botanist, to carry out a survey of British Guiana in which he unilaterally drew a new line of demarcation of the border that gave British Guiana 80,000 square kilometres of Venezuelan territory.

    More “Schomburgk lines” were drawn adding more Venezuelan territory to British Guiana that by 1897 had amounted to 167,830 square kilometres (see in map how rapacious this was). In 1887 Venezuelan president Guzman Blanco broke relations with Great Britain because the British refused to withdraw from Guayana Esequiba, thus forcing arbitration.

    Venezuela was then in turmoil. A civil war had broken out in 1892 and Venezuela was in no position to pay debts to France, Spain, Belgium, Britain and Germany. As civil war broke again in 1898, a European coalition was planning military intervention (in 1902 a European naval force blockaded Venezuela when British and German warships bombed Puerto Cabello).

    By 1897 the territory controversy was nearly 60 years old and the US’s heavy intervention forced Venezuela, following the signing of the Treaty of Washington, to accept an Arbitration Commission made up of five members: two nominated by the US Supreme Court, two by the British government, and one, non-Venezuelan, to be chosen by the Venezuelan government.

    Venezuela chose former US president Benjamin Harrison as its counsel. Unsurprisingly, the Arbitration Commission in 1899 awarded almost 90 per cent of the disputed territory (see Venezuelan map) and all of the gold mines to Britain but gave no reasons for the decision.

    In 1949, a (posthumously published) memorandum by Severo Mallet-Prevost, official secretary of the US/Venezuela delegation to the Arbitration Commission, revealed that Friederich Martens, chair and judge of the 1899 Paris Arbitration Commission, contravening the Washington Treaty rules, had colluded with the two British judges to coerce the other judges to arbitrate in favour of Britain.

    Thus, Venezuela rejected the 1899 Arbitral Award as fraudulent. In 1962 its Foreign Affairs Minister, Falcon Briceno, demanded a vindication of his country’s rights over the disputed territory. Venezuela pursued the case for its historical claims to Guayana Esequiba until Britain finally agreed to start negotiations through the signing on February 17 1966 of the Geneva Agreement.

    This agreement was recognised by Guyana at the moment of its independence on May 26 1966. Thus, Britain accepted both that the controversy existed and a protocol to resolve it, confirming the 125-year-old dispute had been caused by British colonial encroachments. The 1966 Geneva Agreement is still valid and current mainstream media arguments that the dispute was settled in 1899 are simply false.

    In 1993, contravening the Geneva Agreement, Guyana approved an exploration by ExxonMobil in the disputed Statebrok Block, and in 2000 huge deposits of gas and oil were discovered. In 2000, president Hugo Chavez rejected the concession Guyana had granted to US company Beal Aerospace Technologies Inc to install a space launch platform.

    However, he made it clear that Venezuela would not be an obstacle to projects of social benefits such as “access to water for human consumption, new roads, energy programmes and agricultural activities.”

    In 2007, the Bolivarian government ejected ExxonMobil from Venezuela’s Orinoco Basin oil fields because the oil giant refused to comply with new laws. Chavez effectively nationalised foreign oil companies and increased their taxation of ongoing projects from 34 per cent to 50 per cent.

    ExxonMobil turned its attention to the disputed Essequibo region, and its exploration, under the Production Sharing Agreement with Guyana, led in 2015 to the discovery of one of the largest oil finds in recent years (Exxon was given 75 per cent of the oil revenue toward the cost of recovery and is exempt from any taxes). At the time, Exxon’s CEO was Rex Tillerson.

    In March 2015 president Obama’s declared Venezuela “an unusual and extraordinary threat to US national security” and in May 2015, ExxonMobil announced the discovery of oil in Guayana Esequiba. In September 2015, Tillerson and Guyana’s president, David Granger, met in New York where they planned their strategy against Venezuela which involved ending the 1966 Geneva Agreement and pressing the UN to go to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with State Department support.

    In September 2016, Tillerson and Granger met again at the UN and in December UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon sent the dispute to the ICJ. In February 2017, Tillerson was appointed US state secretary by president Trump. In 2018 Guyana submitted a complaint to the ICJ about the dispute which the latter accepted in 2020, even though only one of the parties was in favour of doing so.

    Between 2015 and 2023, Guyana joined the destabilisation against Bolivarian Venezuela. It voted 16 out of 23 times against Venezuela in the Organisation of American States. Guyana also joined the now-deceased Lima Group and signed 16 out of 45 communiques seeking to oust President Maduro’s government. In 2019 Trump had adopted the policy of “maximum pressure” to oust the Venezuelan government.

    With the election of Irfaan Ali as president in 2020, Guyana massively escalated the conflict to the point of formally proposing SouthCom military bases in its territory as “protection” against Venezuela. SouthCom officials regularly visit Guyana and hold joint military drills leading Irfaan to engage in aggressive rhetoric — “Guyana Defence Forces are on high alert and in contact with SouthCom, who are on alert.”

    Irfaan has granted oil concessions in waters that are not even part of the dispute. All the while, Exxon extracts around 500,000 barrels per day in Venezuelan sea waters.

    Thus, Venezuela responded by holding an overwhelmingly supported referendum on December 3 2023, conducted within the 1966 Geneva Agreement spirit and as a confirmation of the government’s position of not recognising the jurisdiction of the ICJ in the controversy surrounding the Essequibo.

    Furthermore, Venezuela’s National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution creating the new, Guayana Esequiba state, and prompted by the growing and persistent presence of SouthCom in Guyana, it also established a High Commission for its defence.

    The Venezuelan government is taking these and several other measures making it abundantly clear that the threat is not Guyana but Exxon and the US, which have spent years seeking to violently overthrow the Bolivarian government.

    However, President Maduro has repeatedly called upon President Irfaan to engage in dialogue and avoid being trapped in the Exxon-US push for military conflict. The Venezuelan government also called upon the government of Guyana “to desist from its erratic, threatening and risky behaviour and return to the path of direct dialogue, through the Geneva Agreement.”

    Thankfully, thanks to direct contacts between President Maduro, Brazil’s Lula and Ralph Gonsalves, on December 10 2023, the government of Guyana accepted President Maduro’s proposal for dialogue to “maintain Latin America and the Caribbean as a zone of peace, without interference from external actors.”

    The meeting was scheduled for December 14 2023 in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines to be hosted by its president, Gonsalves. Venezuela’s Foreign Minister Yvan Gil thanked Celac and Caricom for their efforts in promoting the Venezuela-Guyana dialogue and sponsoring this most important meeting.

    We must all support Venezuela’s stance that “the territorial dispute will only be resolved through dialogue, mutual respect, and commitment to preserve the region as a zone of peace, free from interference,” and say no to the US-ExxonMobil push for war.

  • First published at Morning Star Online.
    • The post Venezuela-Guyana Controversy first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Year 2023 in review for Latin America and the Caribbean

    December 2nd marked the 200th  anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed US dominion over Latin America and the Caribbean. Left-leaning governments in the hemisphere have had to contest a decadent but still dominant USA. Challenges in the past year include a world economic slowdown, a continuing drug plague, and a more aggressive hegemon reacting to a more volatile and disputed world order.

    The progressive regional current, the so-called Pink Tide, slackened in 2023 compared to the rising tide of 2022, which had been buoyed by big wins in Colombia and Brazil. Progressive alternatives had floated into state power on a backwash against failed neoliberal policies. Now they have had to govern under circumstances that they inherited but were not their own making. Most importantly for progressives once in power are whether they have sufficient popular support and a program commensurate with achieving significant economic and social goals.

     Ebb and flow of the Pink Tide – Peru, Guatemala, and Ecuador

    Peru. A case in point was the presidency of Pedro Castillo. From a nominally Marxist-Leninist party in Peru, he had neither a sufficient program nor the electoral mandate to resist the traditional oligarchy.  Castillo was imprisoned a year ago on December 7 via a complicated parliamentary maneuver. Dina Boluarte assumed the post to become Peru’s seventh president in eight years. Beloved by what Bloomberg calls the “business class,” she had a single-digit approval rating from the larger population as she spent this year presiding over a contracting economy in harsh recession.

    While Boluarte may be facing murder charges for the violent repression of continuing mass protests, former president Alberto Fujimori was just sprung from prison. Fujimori had not completed his sentence for crimes against humanity, but was given a humanitarian pardon, despite a request from the regional Inter-American Court of Human Rights to delay his release. Castillo is still in prison.

    Guatemala. In a surprise break from right-wing rule in Guatemala, political dark horse Bernardo Arévalo won the presidential runoff election in August. Ever since, the entrenched oligarchy has tried to disqualify the winner. Despite popular demonstrations in his support and even murmurings from the US State Department to maintain the rule of law, it remains to be seen if the president-elect will be allowed to be sworn into office on January 14.

    Ecuador. The corrupt right-wing president of Ecuador, Guillermo Lasso, faced popular protests, out of control narcotics-related violence, a dysfunctional economy, and a hostile parliament. He came within a hair’s breadth of being impeached on May 17. At the very last moment, Lasso invoked the uniquely Ecuadorian muerte cruzada (mutual death) constitutional provision.

    This allowed him to dissolve the National Assembly and rule by decree but with the subsequent requirement for snap elections to replace both the legislators and the executive. On October 15, the mandated presidential election brought in another rightist, Daniel Noboa, who will serve the remaining year and a half of the presidential term. Noboa’s father, the richest person in Ecuador, ran unsuccessfully for the presidency six times.

    Argentina takes a sharp right turn

     Argentina is a case study of how, when the left fails to take the initiative, the popular revolt against neoliberalism can take a sharp right turn. Javier Milei’s win was symptomatic of what Álvaro García Linera, former leftist vice president of Bolivia, observed as a shift to more extreme right-wingers (e.g., free market fundamentalists) and more timid progressives (e.g., social democrats).

    In a typically Argentine que se vayan todos (everyone leave) moment, harking back to 2001 when mass popular discontent precipitated five different governments in a short period of time, the self-described anarcho-capitalist Milei won the presidential runoff by a landslide on November 19.

    Sergio Massa, who ran against Milei, was the incumbent economic minister in the administration of Alberto Fernández, which had broken with the more leftist wing of the Peronist movement associated with Vice President Cristina Fernandez (no relation). With 143% inflation rate and 18 million in poverty, the Peronists were booted out by an alternative that promises to realign the second largest economy in South America with the US and Israel and away from its main trading partners Brazil and China.

    The left-centrist Peronists had in turn inherited a made-to-fail economy due to excessive debt obligations incurred by former right-wing president Mauricio Macri’s mega IMF loan. Ironically, the current Pink Tide wave is commonly thought to have begun with the defeat of Macri by the Fernandez’s in 2019. Now Macri has teamed up with the ultra-right Milei. Officials from Macri’s old administration, such as Patricia Bullrich and Luis Caputo, are in Milei’s new ministries.

    Venezuela resists

    Venezuela provides a counter example to Argentina. The possessor of the world’s largest oil reserves appeared to be on the ropes back in the dark days of 2019-2020. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo triumphantly predicted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s “days are numbered.” Over 50 countries had recognized the US puppet pretend-president Juan Guaidó including Venezuela’s powerful and (at the time) hostile neighbors, Colombia and Brazil. With the handwriting on the wall spelling imminent collapse, the Communist Party of Venezuela jumped ship from the government coalition.

    Against seemingly unsurmountable odds, President Maduro led a remarkable turnaround. By year end 2023, Venezuela had achieved nine quarters of consecutive economic growth across all economic sectors. The Orinoco Tribune reports inflation down from triple digits. Still the most vulnerable have least benefited from the recovery.

    Venezuelan special envoy Alex Saab, meanwhile, is in his third year behind bars, now languishing in a Miami prison. The imprisoned diplomat helped circumvent the illegal US blockade of Venezuela by obtaining humanitarian supplies of food, medicine, and fuel from Iran in legal international trade.

    Opposition-aligned Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodriguez now admits the US hybrid war against Venezuela has so far “failed,” although he still shamelessly calls Washington’s campaign to overthrow the democratically elected president an effort “to push Venezuela back toward democracy.”

    Given the successful resistance, the Biden administration has been compelled to modify its tactics, although not its ultimate goal of regime-change, by easing some of its sanctions against Venezuela. Because the relief is explicitly temporary, the implicit threat is that full sanctions would be reimposed if Maduro is reelected. This, in effect, is a form of election interference.

    Behind the temporary easing of sanctions is surging immigration to the US, posing a vulnerability for Biden’s 2024 reelection bid. Immigration from sanctioned Venezuela, along with Cuba and Nicaragua, is driven in large part by conditions created by the US sanctions. Even corporate media are increasingly making this connection with the coercive US policy. A letter to Biden from 18 House Democrats urged sanctions relief.

    Also with an eye to reelection, Biden is hoping to stimulate Venezuelan oil production lest the US-backed wars in Ukraine and Palestine cause fuel prices to rise. If the US does not walk back on the sanctions relaxation, Venezuela’s oil company could increase state revenues, which would be applied to social programs.

    Over a year ago, the Venezuelan government reached an agreement with opposition figures and Washington for releasing $3.2b of its own illegally seized assets. So far, nothing has been forthcoming. The best relief would come if the US simply released what lawfully belongs to Venezuela.

    Regional economic and climate prospects

    Last year’s post-Covid regional economic rebound had run its course by 2023. The World Bank currently projects a 2.3% regional growth rate for the year, described as “regressed to the low levels of pre-pandemic growth” due partly to lower global commodity prices and rising interest rates. Real wages have remained stagnant and declined for older adults.

    Since the pandemic, an estimated 1.5 years of learning have been lost, especially impacting the youngest and most vulnerable. In the context of declining economic conditions, the region is experiencing the worst migration crisis in its history with recent surges from Venezuela (4.5-7.5m) and Haiti (1.7m) adding to the more usual sources of Mexico and Central America.

    In addition, extreme weather events driven by climate change have displaced 17 million people. The World Bank warns that by 2030, 5.8 million could fall into extreme poverty, largely due to a lack of safe drinking water along with exposure to excessive heat and flooding. Foreshadowing future scenarios, drought in Argentina contributed to a crashing economy which was a factor in the far-right presidential win in November.

    2023 has been the hottest year in the millennium. The Mexican daily La Jornada reported that the much anticipated mid-December COP28 climate summit in Dubai concluded with at best “small achievements” and with the road to renewables proceeding at a “snail’s pace.”

    The other pandemic – illegal drugs

    Related to deteriorating economic conditions for the popular classes region-wide has been a continuing drug pandemic. The role of the US and its Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), active in most countries in the region, is problematic. Washington’s staunchest allies repeatedly turn out to be major drug pushers. Former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández is now in US federal prison on drug charges. However, former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, the person credited for kick starting the Medellin Cartel, remains free.

    Mexico, Honduras, and Venezuela have all had to call in their militaries in major operations to wrest control of their prison systems and even parts of their national territories from narcotics cartels. According to the Amnesty International, El Salvador is experiencing the worst rights causes since the 1980-1992 civil war under President Nayib Bukele’s controversial crackdown on gangs.

    US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited Mexico in December in the midst of the fentanyl flood. The corporate press in the US continuously runs sensational reports about drug kingpins in Latin America but curiously none on our side of the border. Not simply under-reported, but unreported, is how the illegal substances get distributed in the US. How is it that the US is the biggest illicit drug consumer, but we don’t hear about cartels at home?

    US military projection

    Drug trafficking and popular unrest, both exacerbated by precarious economic conditions, have been capitalized by the US to further project its military presence in the region. Washington is by far the largest source of military aid, supplies, and training.

    US military strategy in the region has pivoted from fighting communism and “terrorism” to containing China and, to a lesser extent, Russia and Iran. China is now the leading trading partner with South America and the second largest with the region as a whole, after the US. Some 20 regional countries have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

    China’s official policy on relations with the US is based on mutual respect, peaceful coexistence, and win-win cooperation, predicated on the understanding that “the common interests of the two countries far outweigh their differences.”  US official policy, on the other hand, is “full spectrum dominance.”

    Laura Richardson, head of the US Southern Command, met with Brazilian and Colombian military brass in May. Previously, she had visited Argentina, Chile, Guyana, and Surinam. When asked about her interest in the region, she unapologetically admitted that the US seeks hegemony over the region and possession of its rich resources.

    In May, Peru brought in US Marines and special forces. In October, the US got the UN Security Council to approve the military occupation of Haiti using proxy troops from Kenya, even though the operation would not be under its auspices. Moreover, history shows occupation is the root problem. Also in October, Ecuador approved deploying US troops there plus US funding for security programs.

    The annual CORE23 exercises, held in November by combined Brazilian and US forces, were designed to achieve military interoperability. Last year, joint Brazilian and US troops practiced war games against a “hypothetical” Latin American country (e.g., Venezuela) experiencing a humanitarian crisis. This month, Mexico and Peru joined the annual US naval Steel Knight exercises.

    By December, the disputed Essequibo territory between Venezuela and Guyana became an international flashpoint. The US Southern Command announced joint air operations with Guyana. What is in essence an oil company land grab by ExxonMobil is disrupting regional unity and is a Trojan horse for US military interference. US boots are already reportedly on the ground in Guyana. However, the leaders of Guyana and Venezuela met on December 14 and pledged to resolve the conflict peacefully.

    End note for the year 2023 – Sanctions Kill!

    While Washington may seek to accommodate social democracies such as Colombia and Brazil by cooption, nothing but regime ruination is slated for the states explicitly striving for socialism: Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

    Sanctions on Venezuela – started by Obama, intensified by Trump, and seamlessly continued by Biden – have taken its toll: over 100,00 death, 22% of the children under five stunted, 2.4 million food insecure, over 300,00 chronic disease patients without access to treatment, 31% of the population undernourished, 69% drop in goods and services imports, deteriorated infrastructure, and accelerated migration and brain drain.

    Despite the UN nearly unanimously condemning the US blockade of Cuba for its devastating effects on civilians and as a violation of the UN Charter, the ever-tightening economic warfare has left the island in crisis. Reuters reports that the production of staples pork, rice, and beans is down by more than 80%. Cuba has only been able to import 40% of the fuel requirement while industry is operating at 35% of capacity.

    The Trump/Biden “maximum pressure” campaign has produced its desired effect of a catastrophic situation in Cuba. Biden imposed additional sanctions in November and has continued his predecessor’s policy of keeping Cuba on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.

    While sanctioned by Washington, the current hybrid war on Nicaragua has been less intense and prolonged than that endured by Cuba and Venezuela. Nicaragua left the Washington-based Organization of American States (OAS) on November 19. Foreign Minister Denis Moncada said good riddance to what he called an “instrument of US imperialism.”

    Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua have achieved so much with so little. The World Economic Forum commended Nicaragua for being the country in Latin America that made notable progress in reducing the gender gap. The World Wildlife Fund certified Cuba as the only country in the world to have attained sustainable development. The Harvard Review of Latin America praised Venezuela for cutting poverty in half before the sanctions set in. Imagine what could be accomplished if the hegemon’s boot was removed from their necks.

    The post Year 2023 in review for Latin America and the Caribbean first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Latin America and the Caribbean stand with Palestine

    The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, with a few notable exceptions, have been critical of Israel’s ongoing campaign of genocide in Gaza. Perhaps more than any other region, they have expressed their solidarity with Palestine. Most recognize that the partnership between US imperialism and Israeli Zionism applies not only to Palestine, but also to Israel’s role as attendant to US domination in this hemisphere.

    President Gabriel Boric of Chile condemned Israeli’s attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. The largest Palestinian population outside of the Middle East (more properly West Asia) resides in Chile. Belize and Peru, likewise, joined the denunciation of Israel. Bolivia, meanwhile, has severed diplomatic relations with Israel, while Honduras and Colombia recalled their ambassadors.

    Cuba had cut relations back in 1973 and Venezuela in 2009. Except for Panama, almost all of the region’s states recognize Palestine. Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela all have sent aid to Gaza. Even Argentina, with the largest Jewish population in the region, censured Israel over its violations of international law when hostilities first flared up.

    Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations, addressed the General Assembly on November 23: “It is repugnant to see how, despite the cruelty…the government of the United States of America and its satellites aim to justify the unjustifiable.”

    Cuba and Iran called for a global coalition to protect the rights of Palestinians on December 4, noting that the world community has failed to stop the US-backed genocide.

    A month before the October 7 offensive by Hamas, President Gustavo Petro of Colombia had presciently taken the occasion of the opening of the United Nations session to call for a united world effort at achieving peace in Israel-Palestine (along with Ukraine).

    Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador and ironically of Palestinian heritage, stood out in his support of Israel among the regional heads of state. That is, until the militantly pro-Zionist Javier Milei assumed the presidency of Argentina two months after the most recent eruption of aggressions.

    Henchman for the hegemon

    The head of Colombia publicly criticizing Israel would have been unthinkable until Gustavo Petro won the presidency in 2022. The former M19 guerilla turned center-left politician was the first president from the portside in the entire history of Colombia. Pre-Petro, Colombia was known as Washington’s closest client in the region, the largest recipient of US military aid, and the only NATO global partner in Latin America.

    Back in 2013, then Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos reflected on his country’s status as the regional equivalent to the US’s proxy state in the Middle East. He proclaimed that he was proud that Colombia is considered the “Israel of Latin America.” Indeed, Israel had an extensive role as henchman for the US hegemon in Colombia. The right-wing linked Colombian military and paramilitaries had long been closely intermeshed with the Zionist state.

    The United Self-Defenses of Colombia (AUC in its Spanish initials), a drug trafficking cartel with a reputed 10,000-20,000 combatants at its peak, was one of the largest paramilitary groups in South America. The AUC was used by the US-allied official Colombian military to do its dirty work against left campesino and worker organizations. AUC militaries were trained by Israeli operatives. Some fifty of its most promising cadre received “scholarships” to Israel. Operating out of Guatemala, the Israeli arms supplier GIRSA sold Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition to the AUC paramilitaries in Colombia.

    Another Latin American country with a closely intertwined relationship with Israel was Nicaragua before the Sandinista revolution. During the long US-backed Somoza dictatorship, Israel maintained a “special relationship” with this dynasty of ruthless autocrats. In the last days of the dictatorship, the US cut off arms supplies in response to public revulsion over atrocities committed by Somoza’s forces. Undaunted, Israel continued to supply them with military equipment. Then, when the US instigated the counterinsurgency after the successful Sandinista-led national liberation, Israel again served as supplier of the contras. Paralleling the Somoza-Israel bond were the Sandinista-Palestine ties, which continue to this day.

    Israel’s partnership with US imperialism in the region

    For the 31st time in November, the UN nearly unanimously condemned the US blockade of Cuba for its devastating effects on civilians and as a violation of the UN Charter. The vote would have been unanimous except for “no” votes cast by the US and Israel along with an abstention from Ukraine. The latter, which is now essentially a US dependency, is a newcomer. But Tel Aviv, on the other hand, has consistently stood with Washington in support of its coercive and illegal economic measures that have created a dire crisis in Cuba.

     In fact, Israel has served as Washington’s partner in training reactionary death squads and supplying repressive militaries throughout the region for decades. Al Jazeera reported that Israel has trained, supplied, and advised militaries in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela in addition to Colombia and Nicaragua.

    Not only was Israel entangled with the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, but it had a similar relationship to the 29-year Duvalier dynasty in Haiti, selling arms for the dictators’ repressive forces. Ditto for the 35-year dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, the 17-year Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, and the military dictatorships in Argentina and Brazil. Likewise, Israel was the supplier of arms and trainer of death squads in the “dirty” wars in Guatemala and El Salvador. In all these grisly ventures, Tel Aviv was joined at the hip with Washington.

    The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) explains that many right-leaning Latin American countries see a “close military relationship with Israel as a political asset in restoring or maintaining military and political ties with Washington.”

    When reactionary regimes in the region need coercive muscle for hire, Israel is a prime choice. After right-winger David Noboa won the Ecuadorian presidency last month, he called in Israel to help restore government control of its prison system, which had been taken over by criminal gangs. Israel is also being tapped to design maximum security prisons in Ecuador.

    According to Israeli psychologist Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi’s The Israeli Connection, “Israel is generally admired in Latin American military circles for its macho image of firmness, ruthlessness, and efficiency…Latin American military establishment is where most of Israel’s friends are found and where Israel continues to cultivate support.”

    Case in point is the far-right Javier Milei, who assumed the presidency of Argentina on December 10. He campaigned on the promise to realign the second largest economy in South America with the US and Israel and away from its largest trading partners Brazil and China. On his first trip abroad after his election victory, Milei went to the US where he made what was described as a pilgrimage to the grave of an ultra-orthodox Jewish rabbi and announced his intention to convert from Catholicism to Judaism. The self-described anarcho-capitalist had accused the Argentina-born pope of being a communist and a false prophet.

    Palestine’s friends and foes

    Support of Israeli Zionism is a unifying issue for the fractious far right in the region, where virulent antisemites buddy up with Jewish nationalists, wrapping themselves – literally as in the case of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro – in the Israeli flag.

    When the now disgraced and exiled Juan Guaidó first got the nod from the US to self-declare himself “interim president” of Venezuela in 2019, he staged the announcement on a street corner in Caracas with an Israeli flag flying behind him. Just as the red flag has been adopted as the banner for the left, the pennant of Israeli has become the insignia of the right. That blue and white banner can be seen at right-wing political rallies and at market stands owned by evangelicals throughout the region.

    A growing evangelical Christian movement views Israel as a crucial part of their theology of the “end times” and is becoming an influential political force in the electorates of Guatemala (42%), Costa Rica (26%), Brazil (25%), Venezuela (22%), and elsewhere. The evangelicals have yet to exert a significant pro-Zionist political influence in the region. But that potential should not be discounted as events unfold.

    On December 12, the United Nations General Assembly voted on a ceasefire in Gaza. Only Guatemala and Paraguay in Latin America voted “nay,” joining the US and Israel, while Uruguay, Argentina, and Panama abstained. The rest of the region united with the world supermajority of 153 nations supporting the resolution.

    For now, Latin America and the Caribbean remain a bastion of support for Palestinian freedom. Palestine’s cause is popular with countries striving for independence from the US. Factors contributing to that stance are large Arab diasporas in the region, small pro-Zionist Jewish populations, and no powerful lobbies like AIPAC. For many, the struggle to assert national self-determination under US hegemony finds a kindred affinity with the cause of Palestine.

    The post Latin America and the Caribbean stand with Palestine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • War Fears Grow as US Holds Military Drills in Guyana Amid Venezuela Oil Dispute

    forces held joint military drills within Guyanese airspace on Thursday as a longstanding and intensifying territorial dispute between Venezuela and Guyana sparked fears of war in South America. At the center of the dispute is Essequibo, an oil-rich region that Guyana has controlled for more than a century. Venezuela has claimed sovereignty over Essequibo for decades, and the two nations…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Justice and Sovereignty: the Dispute over the Essequibo Strip

    The unsolved border dispute between Venezuela and Guyana sparked renewed tensions in recent weeks. The two governments have engaged in a war of words, military presence has increased, as well as fears of US intervention.

    The following infographic recaps the main chapters of the longstanding controversy over the resource-rich Essequibo Strip.



    The post Justice and Sovereignty: the Dispute over the Essequibo Strip first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • CIVICUS 2023: almost one third of humanity now lives in countries with ‘closed’ civic space

    The CIVICUS Monitor, which tracks freedom of association, peaceful assembly and expression in 198 countries and territories, announced in a new report – “People Power Under Attack 2023” – that almost one third of humanity now lives in countries with ‘closed’ civic space.

    This is the highest percentage –30.6% of the world’s population– living in the most restrictive possible environment since CIVICUS Monitor’s first report in 2018. Meanwhile, just 2.1% of people live in ‘open’ countries, where civic space is both free and protected, the lowest percentage yet and almost half the rate of six years ago.

    “We are witnessing an unprecedented global crackdown on civic space,” said CIVICUS Monitor lead researcher Marianna Belalba Barreto. “The world is nearing a tipping point where repression, already widespread, becomes dominant. Governments and world leaders must work urgently to reverse this downward path before it is too late.”

    The CIVICUS Monitor rates each country’s civic space conditions based on data collected throughout the year from country-focused civil society activists, regionally-based research teams, international human rights indices and the Monitor’s own in-house experts. The data from these four separate sources are then combined to assign each country a rating as either ‘open,’ ‘narrowed,’ ‘obstructed,’ ‘repressed’ or ‘closed.’

    Seven countries saw their ratings drop this year. These include Venezuela and Bangladesh, each now rated ‘closed’ due to intensifications of existing crackdowns on activists, journalists and civil society.

    Democratic countries slipped too. Europe’s largest democracy, Germany, fell from ‘open’ to ‘narrowed’ amid protest bans and targeting of environmental activists. Bosnia & Herzegovina also declined to ‘obstructed,’ the twelfth European country downgraded since 2018.

    One of 2023’s most dramatic slides occurred in Senegal, once considered among West Africa’s most stable democracies. Senegal entered the ‘repressed’ category amid sustained government persecution of protesters, journalists and opposition ahead of February elections.

    “The range of countries where authorities restricted citizen participation in 2023 shows clampdowns are not isolated incidents but are part of a global pattern,” said Belalba. “A global backslide requires a global response. If citizens are not able to freely gather, organise and speak out, the world will not be able to solve inequality, confront the climate crisis and bring an end to war and conflict.”

    CIVICUS Monitor data shows that worldwide, authorities target people’s freedom of expression above all else. Half of all documented violations in 2023 targeted free speech, with incidents ranging from a bombing outside a journalist’s house in Indonesia, the arrest of the head of a radio station in Tunisia and police pepper-spraying a reporter covering a protest in the United States.

    Our research also reveals that intimidation is the number one tactic to restrict citizen freedoms. Human rights defenders, activists and media experienced intimidation in at least 107 countries. Media in particular bear the brunt, with 64% of incidents targeting journalists.

    Despite these alarming trends, People Power Under Attack 2023 highlights areas of progress too. Timor-Leste’s civic space moved up to the second best rating ‘narrowed’ from ‘obstructed,’ reflecting the country’s commitment to fundamental freedoms. Four other countries saw ratings improve, though they remain in ‘repressed’ or ‘obstructed’ zones.

    The report also details bright spots where countries made steps toward opening societies. Among these, Fiji repealed a restrictive media law. The Kenyan courts recognised the right of LGBTQI+ people to associate. Even Tajikistan, rated ‘closed,’ created a national human rights strategy with civil society input. Still, these and other improvements remain halting and often disconnected compared to widespread repression.

    “These small steps show that even amid unprecedented restrictions, civil society is pushing back,” said Belalba. “These courageous acts of resistance by active citizens and civil society organisations give us hope that the downward trend is not permanent and can be reversed.”

    See also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2022/01/18/2021-global-data-report-from-the-civicus-monitor/

    To access the full CIVICUS Monitor report, please visit monitor.civicus.org

    https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/vietnam-civicus-report-12072023001010.html

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • The Ugly Face of Anti-Communism

    Since the Russian revolution, the founding of the Communist International, and the organization of a revolutionary party “of a new type” in nearly every country, Communist and Workers Parties have been in the sights of every country’s bourgeoisie. In nearly all countries, the bourgeoisie, its political parties, its media, and its other henchmen have sought to thwart, even destroy the revolutionary vanguard of the workers. Thus, the existence of maneuvers or actions to suppress or repress Communist Parties comes as no surprise.

    Throughout the last one hundred six years, a Communist Party’s size or influence has been reflected in the force or violence to which they are met. That, too, comes as no surprise.

    Of course Communists resist the repression that inevitably ensues from capitalism’s defenders. In some cases and on some rare occasions, a deeply embedded sense of fair play or principled belief in liberal values among the masses ensures that Communists enjoy a modicum of permitted activity in spite of the ruling bourgeoisie’s wishes.

    So it should come as no surprise that the bourgeoisie in Venezuela would like to bury the Communist Party, consigning it to the political margins or worse. Over the course of the Venezuelan Communist Party’s long and determined history of the defense of Venezuela’s workers, it has been attacked, repressed, and banned by bourgeois politicians or the military. In fact, since its birth in 1931 until 1969, the Party has known little more than five years of legality.

    It should come as no surprise, either, when a popular movement wins electoral victories against the established bourgeois parties, promising to defend Venezuela’s independence and to implement a people’s program, that Venezuela’s Communist Party would enthusiastically offer conditional support. With its own program based on revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, the vigorous support the Communists offered to the government of Hugo Chavez was necessarily conditional, though supportive.

    The Chavez program was vaguely socialist– drawing on Christian ethics, utopian socialism, and a motley assembly of enthusiastic volunteer academic advisors from around the world. Nonetheless, it drew the enmity of US imperialism and its allies for its foreign policy and resource independence. While it defied the influence of the domestic bourgeoisie, the Chavez government did not establish workers’ power or eliminate the bourgeoisie’s economic base.

    Despite these weaknesses, the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV) continued to defend the government and support it against US intervention and counter-revolutionary intrigue. The PCV continued its conditional support in the post-Chavez era– with Maduro’s election– but with emerging differences over domestic policy, especially with regards to the working class and corruption.

    Over the last decade, the differences grew sharper. In the eyes of the PCV and in its own words: “It is on the reality of total rupture with the Unitary Framework Agreement [an agreement proposed before the 2018 election] and with the programmatic bases of the Bolivarian process initiated by Hugo Chavez that the PCV distanced itself from the Maduro government.”

    Of course the distancing does not mean abandoning joint patriotic resistance to US and other foreign intervention.

    In the wake of these political differences– a common enough feature of center-left and left electoral formations– the Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice imposed a new leadership on the PCV on August 11, a wildly arbitrary and unjust move with no possible motivation other than to weaken and disable the PCV. Venezuela’s highest court summarily ruled that a new leadership– composed of renegades, dissidents, and non-members– should constitute a new leading body, negating the democratically elected leadership of the PCV from its last Congress in November of last year.

    Venezuelan Communists were denied serious participation, due process, and the right to appeal this attempt to disable a historical instrument of the Venezuelan working class.

    Some might dismiss this as a rogue court attacking the PCV, but the fact that the Venezuelan government had sought to deny electoral participation by the PCV earlier and that a prominent leader of the leading political party had mounted a campaign against the PCV, demonstrate that Maduro’s party was complicit in the court’s maneuvers.

    Certainly the government, Maduro, and Maduro’s party have had every opportunity to denounce or resist the blatant attempt to disarm the working class’s most dedicated advocates, the Venezuelan Communists. They have not.

    Clearly, this is an instance of raw anti-Communism, updated to the twenty-first century. Others can probe the reasons that Maduro and his party have succumbed to anti-Communism, but succumb they have. If they believe that creating a bogus Communist Party will deflect criticism or improve their electoral opportunities, it will not be the first time that fear of Communism leads to the suppression of political choices and dishonors the perpetrators.

    But the PCV will endure. Its cadre will find their way through this thicket of distraction and continue to fight for working people.

    Many Communist and Workers’ Parties have rallied– along with many other honest people– in defense of the PCV and the cause of Venezuelan workers. They understand the cost of anti-Communism on the fate of working people.

    But many on the left have failed this moment. Their reasons constitute a basket of opportunism. They stare at their shoe tops, equivocate, plead ignorance, or soil the banner of solidarity. History will judge.

    The post The Ugly Face of Anti-Communism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US Immigration Policy Is Designed to Divide the Working Class

    Recently, members at our New York City-based workers center, who include undocumented Indigenous Mexican restaurant workers and Puerto Rican grandmothers who are residents of public housing, have been asking about all the attention and aid being given to new migrants. “What about us who’ve been here?” they ask. Every day they see media images of a “surging” wave of migrants coming into New York…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Latin American Leaders Reject US-Imposed Migration Policies at Palenque Summit

    In their impromptu camp built in the median just outside Mexico City’s northern bus terminal, a group of Venezuelan migrants adjusted the plastic bags covering their tents in an effort to keep the rain out. It was a cold and wet night with the rains caused by Otis, the massive Category 5 hurricane that struck the state of Guerrero on October 25, reaching all the way to the Mexican capital.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • EU’s Lorenzo Natali Media Prize 2023 to 3 Venezuelan journalists

    The winners of this year’s edition of the Lorenzo Natali Media Prize, awarded by the European Commission, were announced on 11 October at a ceremony hosted at the Solvay Library in Brussels.

    The winners of the International Prize are:

    Three Venezuelan journalists Carmen Victoria Inojosa, Claudia Smolansky and a third whose name cannot be disclosed for security reasons, were awarded the International Prize for their compelling article ‘Así funcionan las casas clandestinas de la Dgcim en Caracas‘ published in Armando.info. Their work exposed the harrowing reality of systematic persecution in Venezuela, targeting political opponents and their families with alarming impunity.

    For more on this award see: https://www.trueheroesfilms.org/thedigest/awards/D49ECF35-4B42-444D-B4FA-F7ACE2BF65BC

    Lorenzo Natali Media Prize website

    https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_4881

    This post was originally published on Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards.

  • “A Cruel Policy”: AOC Asks Biden to Reverse Course on Building Trump Border Wall

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) is urging President Joe Biden to reverse his administration’s decision to waive dozens of laws to expedite construction on Donald Trump’s southern border wall, saying that the administration must instead examine the U.S.’s role in destabilizing Latin American countries. In a statement on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez rebuked the administration and pushed back…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Multipolarity: False Hope for the Left

    Since the end of the Cold War, important, profound changes in the relations between capitalist states, coupled with equally sharp changes in the content of those relations, have seduced left-wing intellectuals and academics to embrace those countries whose governments clash– for untold reasons– with the political or economic demands of the US and its allies. They began to uncritically see these countries as fellow combatants in the struggle for social justice, for example, as anti-imperialists. Even upstart rivals for spheres of interest were seen as anti-imperialist, if they opposed US hegemony. Stated crudely, they present the enemy of their enemy — the US and the” West” — as their friend.

    Why did so many on the left subscribe to this fallacy?

    We must begin with the nature of imperialism in the Cold War.

    The Cold War sustained unique, though historically bound alignments. The world was divided between socialist-oriented countries led by Communist or Workers’ Parties, the leading capitalist powers and their neo-colonies, and the non-aligned countries refusing to join in the anti-Communist crusade organized by the capitalist powers. Such a clearly defined order with an equally clearly defined conflict between the leader of the socialist camp, the USSR, and the leader of the capitalist camp, the US, led many to believe that the era of classical imperialism, the era of inter-imperialist rivalries, was over.

    They were wrong.

    The demise of the USSR and the emergence and intensification of numerous capitalist crises — political, social, ecological, and, especially, economic — created powerful centrifugal forces pulling apart the capitalist camp and dissolving its unity. In addition, global changes– the mobility of capital, the ready marriage of capital and labor in new regions and countries, inexpensive, effective transportation, the emergence of new technologies, new classes of commodities, and the commodification of public, common, and freely accessed goods — generated new competitors and intensified competition.

    Crises and competition are the fertile soil of capitalist rivalries and state conflicts.

    The world that emerged after 1991 had more in common with the world that Lenin knew before World War I than with the Cold War era and its clash of social systems and their blocs. Just as nineteenth-century capitalists strived to set the rules for peacefully carving up the world and establishing free trade by means of the Berlin Conference of 1884-1885, the post-Cold War capitalist allies sought rules, alliances, trade agreements, and the elimination of barriers to capital movement, commodity exchange, and labor exploitation globally. Both periods were widely heralded as triumphant for capitalism and its inevitable reach to every corner of the globe.

    But as the great nineteenth-century powers came to understand, uneven development, upstart rivals, and ruthless competition disrupted the promise of peace and harmony. After a promising interlude of relative peace — the first period of modest Western harmony since the Napoleonic wars — the new nineteenth century order began to unravel with economic instability, conflicts, military build-ups, colonial resistance, and nationalist wars.

    Similarly, the post-Cold War capitalist powers enjoyed an interlude of rapidly expanding world trade — so called “globalization” — and the regulatory guidance of powerful international institutions. This harmony, too, proved elusive, to be shattered by a series of economic crises and regional wars at the turn of the twenty-first century. The so-called dot-com crisis marked “paid” on a decade of capitalist swagger and the ideology of there-is-no-alternative. Rocked again by a global “little” depression, a European debt crisis, a false debt-fueled recovery, a global public health disaster, and now a prolonged period of stagnation and inflation, the promised concord of capitalist rule has been shattered on the shoals of constant wars, social and political instability, and economic dysfunction.

    That is the capitalist world of today — not so different from the capitalist world on the eve of 1914.

    The most farsighted thinkers of the turn of the last century saw the end of capitalism’s nineteenth-century stability and apparent harmony as an opportunity. Lenin and others perceived the beginning of a new era ripe for revolutionary change. They foresaw a stage of capitalism bringing war, misery, and suffering on the masses in Europe and beyond. For these visionaries, the only escape from the despair inevitably wrought by the dominance of finance and monopoly organized in a global system of imperialism was revolution and socialism. The tragic First World War proved them right.

    Today, without a vision to rescue working people — those feeling the brunt of capitalism’s expanding crises, more frequent wars, displacement of people, and bankruptcy of solutions — the field of politics is left to the right-wing opportunists, the faux-populists, the demagogues, the nostalgia peddlers, and other assorted hucksters of right and left. Bizarrely, most of the Euro-American left treat these charlatans as though they were aliens dropping from the sky, rather than the natural, logical product of the vacuum remaining from a left that lacks ideological clarity, cohesion, and a revolutionary program.

    More broadly, even “liberal” governments are turning to nationalism, trade barriers, tariffs, and sanctions, the traditional posture of the right. Largely not noted by the left, the Biden administration, for example, has continued most of the trade and sanction regimens, and even the immigration policies, of the Trump administration.

    As capitalism retrenches behind narrow self-interest, fierce, ruthless competition, and state-against-state conflict, the vast majority of the Euro-American left continues to circle-the-wagons around an increasingly discredited liberalism and social-democracy. With no answer to a world of ever-growing nation-state rivalries and global tensions, far too many on the left are locked into a defensive strategy that promises more of the same or a return to an imagined “golden age”: before Trump and right-wing populism or before Reagan, Thatcher and market fundamentalism. Failing to locate capitalism’s decadence in capitalism itself, this left promises to manage capitalism to better results– a hundred-year-old delusion.

    Equally delusional is the notion — popular with a prominent section of the left– that an emerging bloc or order constitutes the foundation of a powerful movement against imperialism when that bloc itself is made up of capitalist-dominated states or states with a major capitalist economic sector. If Lenin is right — and we have overwhelming reasons to believe that he is — capitalism is at the very core of the system of imperialist rivalry. How can capitalism-dependent states collaborate, putting aside their own self-interest, to create a world without competition, friction, conflict, and war between states, themselves made up of competing capitals? Is not capitalism the essence of imperialism, and rivalry, conflict, and war the inevitable outcome? Has there been a counter-tendency since Lenin wrote Imperialism in 1916?

    Beginning thirteen years ago, with the foundation of a modestly alternative grouping of five powerful states denied access to the top, exclusive club of capitalist states, the BRICS alignment became a cause for some leftists. Based more on blind faith than anything promised by the BRICS members — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — leftists nonetheless cobbled together an ideological construct called “multipolarity.”

    When radical political prospects appear dim, when the prospect of socialism seems remote, many on the left turn to the global chessboard, pretending that some chess pieces represent the social change that they long for in their own backyard. Frustrated with the long, hard road of winning the masses in their own country to a program serving working people, leftists in the US and EU invest vicariously in the actions of other governments that, for various reasons, are in opposition to the US and the EU governments.

    This surrogate identification must not be confused unthinkingly with solidarity or internationalism. Both solidarity and internationalism emerge with sympathy for other peoples and their interests or with their governments only when those governments are serving the people. Solidarity with Cuba, for example, is grounded on the long-standing resistance of the people of Cuba to the demands, coercion, and aggression of the US and its allies. Since the government of Cuba organizes and supports that resistance, it, too, earns our solidarity.

    The zeal for multipolarity arises from a fact and a hope. It is indeed a fact that the US government may have lost some of its ability to impose its will on the rest of the world and that global powers have risen to challenge US domination. This accounts for some of the increasing conflict and chaos in international relations.

    But the multipolarity zealots interpret this as a setback to the system of imperialism when it is, at best, a setback for US imperialism. The fallacy is in assuming that the capitalist challengers are somehow benign and that they, magically, will restrain their interests in order to establish global harmony and peace. There is no basis in historical precedence or contemporary currency for this assumption, beyond mere hope.

    Certainly, it is a radical misread of recent history and today’s events. In just the last weeks, relations between the governments of Canada and India reached a boiling point, conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan broke out again, and two joined-at-the-hip reactionary governments, Poland and Ukraine sued and abused each other. All occurring without US government sponsorship. Venezuela’s government — a strong proponent of the multipolarity ideology — is itself in a bitter conflict with Guyana over 160,000 square kilometers of oil-rich territory, rejecting a “consultative referendum” proposed by the government of Guyana.

    The presence of multipolarity’s icons within BRICS hardly ensures that bringing down US hegemony will disable the imperialist system: members India and the PRC maintain festering relations that break out into open warfare from time to time. Brazil under Bolsonaro was openly hostile and confrontational with all the more progressive countries of Central and South America (which reminds us that imperialism is about governments and socio-economic systems and not simply countries), and Russia is hotly contesting with France over valuable resources in Central Africa.

    And the new members of BRICS carry even more contradictory baggage. Egypt and Ethiopia have a long-standing water dispute that will not be resolved by BRICS. Iran and Saudi Arabia have an existential dispute carried on by proxy, notably in Yemen. The Saudis are prepared to recognize Israel in order to acquire nuclear technology to match Iran, an action hardly suggestive of peace and prosperity.

    Is there a common progressive, anti-capitalist, or anti-imperialist interest uniting this formation? Or are they united merely for expediency in this or any other bloc that will have them? Modi’s India, for example, accepts membership in nearly all international formations — Western-oriented or otherwise.

    It is magical thinking to believe that without the heavy hand of the US empire, imperialist predation and conflict will melt away. Lenin scoffed at Kautsky’s notion that multipolar harmony (ultra-imperialism) would follow World War I, and events proved him right.

    Moreover, the idealism invested in multipolarity and BRICS has fallen far short of what contemporary leftists have thought, as Patrick Bond and others have shown (despite his use of the unhelpful concept of “sub-imperialism”). BRICS sets a very low bar in reordering global relations, contrary to the wishes of many on the left.

    Activists in Johannesburg, during the most recent BRICS meeting, organized a BRICS-from-below event. Though spawned by the center-left, social democratic Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, the South African coordinator made a keen observation:

    Trevor Ngwane, said, “BRICS wants leverage. Instead of saying, ‘We are capitalists fighting to be bigger capitalists’, they want to get strong, they start pretending that if they get strong, life will get better for the working class. We know that there will be a question: Does this mean you favour America?

    “During the Struggle, there was a party that used to say, ‘Neither Washington nor Moscow’, so we must not be swayed and convinced to choose between these two; we must find our own way as socialists towards socialism.

    “The problem with BRICS projects is that it’s all top-down. It’s something organised by governments.”

    Yes, BRICS is organized by governments, capitalist-oriented governments for the most part, as Trevor Ngwane is keenly aware.

    But more importantly, he challenges how BRICS (and by implication, multipolarity) is in any way related to the goal of socialism. It is socialism that is missing from BRICS and the multipolarity discussion. A program offered to working people that merely shuffles the deck of capitalist powers is no answer at all.

    In a recent discussion of BRICS and the Eastern Economic Forum among three leading exponents of multipolarity, there is not one word about socialism. There is talk of development, of startups, of public-private partnerships, strategic priorities, and investments — even of Russian hypersonic missiles — but not one word about socialism.

    One discussant claims to capture BRICS with this piece of sophistry: “So we’re dealing really not only with a geographic split, but with a split of economic structures, a mixed public-private economy, not like the Western public-private partnership, which you socialize the losses and privatize the profits, but something where the aim is really not to make a profit, but to make the overall economy grow.” Capitalism with a human face?

    For sure, there are multipolarity advocates who believe that they see multipolarity as a step towards socialism. They recognize in the deepening economic, social, political, and ecological crises facing capitalism that socialism may be a solution. But as John Smith so frankly puts it in an Interview: “Convincing people that socialism is necessary is not so difficult; what is much more difficult is to convince people that socialism is possible.”

    We live in a time when, rather than joining with people, organizations, or parties that advocate, organize, and fight for socialism, many on our left have become observers of a chess game between capitalist governments, cheering any force that attempts to diminish US power. How this will or will not benefit the exploited masses of the world is of little count.

    Smith, the author of a thoughtful analysis of twenty-first century imperialism, succinctly summarizes our challenge in the face of profound crises of capitalism:

    Wherever we are subjectively, objectively, the necessity to begin a transition towards communism is posed by this existential crisis. There is no other way out for humanity than this. Anything that distracts us from this, any sort of fantasy that some kind of a multipolar world will be better in any way, must be dispelled because we do not have any more time to waste.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • US Intervention and Sanctions Blamed for Rise in US-Mexico Border Crossings

    A sharp increase in the number of people attempting to cross into the United States is straining resources in border communities, as thousands of asylum seekers arrive at the southern U.S. border each day seeking safety from violence, conflict, extreme poverty and the impacts of the climate crisis. Congressmember Jesús “Chuy” García of Illinois says decades of U.S. military interventions…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Colombian President Says Sanctions on Cuba and Venezuela Are Driving Migration

    In Part 3 of our interview with leftist Colombian President Gustavo Petro, he describes how hard-line U.S. policies are preventing the Americas from addressing issues like migration, calling on the Biden administration to “open up a plural dialogue” to bring the region closer together. He notes many people moving through Latin America to seek asylum in the United States are from Venezuela…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro in China

    This week’s News on China.

    • Venezuela’s President Maduro in China
    • Tencent unveils AI model
    • Regulating product packaging
    • Small-town bookstores

  • As Venezuela Mends Ties With Latin Neighbors, Western Media Turn Up the Propaganda

     

    Venezuela’s Maduro government has slowly and steadily regained its diplomatic standing in recent years, overcoming US endeavors to turn the country into a pariah state as part of its regime-change efforts.

    WaPo: Brazil’s Lula promised to save democracy. Why is he embracing Maduro?

    Reading coverage of Venezuela in outlets like the Washington Post (5/30/23), it’s good to remind yourself that Nicolás Maduro is president because he got the most votes.

    Nevertheless, Washington remains hell-bent on ousting the democratically elected Venezuelan authorities, and has kept its deadly sanctions program virtually intact. And Western media, which have cheered coup attempts at every step of the way (FAIR.org, 6/13/22, 5/2/22, 6/4/21, 4/15/20, 1/22/20), remain committed to endorsing US policies to the bitter end.

    This commitment was on full display recently when President Nicolás Maduro was hosted by Brazilian President Lula da Silva, in a major blow against the campaign to isolate Venezuela. Lula added insult to injury by condemning what he called the “narrative” of authoritarianism and lack of democracy that had been built around Venezuela to justify sanctions and regime change.

    The Western media establishment’s initial reaction was straight from the five stages of grief. The New York Times, with its unenviable Venezuela reporting record (FAIR.org, 3/26/19, 5/24/19), was in denial, not reporting on the meeting at all. The Financial Times (6/4/23) had a depressed tone, citing the fading hopes of a return to”free and fair elections” in the wake of the Brasilia meeting. The Washington Post (5/30/23) flared in anger, claiming that by hosting Maduro, Lula had betrayed his promise to “save democracy.”

    The reporting around the latest developments saw corporate pundits showcasing a full array of journalistic con artistry to defend their “narrative,” including dubious sources, inaccurate conclusions and dishonest context.

    Undemocratic references

    Corporate media’s effort to dismiss Maduro’s legitimacy is heavily built around the use of negative labels. For example, “authoritarian” appears almost like an auto-fill suggestion at this point, given its prevalence (Financial Times, 6/4/23; BBC, 5/30/23; Reuters, 5/29/23; AP, 5/30/23; Washington Post, 5/30/23; Bloomberg, 5/31/23). Outlets like the Economist (6/1/23) and the Miami Herald (6/3/23) go straight to “dictator.”

    Economist: Lula cosies up to Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s autocrat

    The Economist (6/1/23) countered Lula’s defense of Maduro by pointing out that Venezuelan president “in 2020 had a $15 million bounty placed upon him by the United States government for ‘narco-terrorism’”—as though Donald Trump putting prices on foreign leaders’ heads discredits anyone but the United States.

    Another dishonest hallmark is casting aspersions on Maduro’s 2018 reelection, with a varied array of labels that go from “disputed” (Financial Times, 6/4/23) and “contested” (BBC, 5/30/23) to “condemned/regarded as a sham” (Le Monde, 5/30/23; Bloomberg, 5/29/23), all the way to “viewed/declared as fraudulent” (Washington Post, 5/30/23; Economist, 6/1/23). We have tackled the unsubstantiated “fraud” claims in previous posts (FAIR.org, 1/27/21, 5/2/22, 1/11/23).

    To challenge Maduro’s recognition as Venezuela’s democratically legitimate leader, Western outlets were willing to platform the most undemocratic voices. Brazil’s former President Jair Bolsonaro, for example, was used as a yardstick on Maduro’s legitimacy. Numerous sources repeated that the far-right leader had “banned” the Venezuelan president from entering the country (BBC, 5/30/23; Reuters, 5/29/23; Al Jazeera, 5/29/23; AP, 5/29/23).

    This framing is odd, given that Venezuela closed its border with Brazil in February 2019, six months before Bolsonaro’s “ban,” in anticipation of a large-scale operation to violate Venezuelan territory. It’s not as though Maduro had been eager, anyhow, to visit a country that didn’t recognize his government—to attend the Rio Carnival, maybe?

    What makes it more remarkable is that many of the same outlets have previously described Bolsonaro as a threat to democracy, given his attacks against the country’s elections and his supporters mimicking the “January 6” playbook in the Brazilian capital (Washington Post, 9/30/22; Financial Times, 9/28/21; BBC, 8/12/22).

    The Washington Post (5/30/23) saw no issue in quoting Bolsonaro’s son, a Brazilian senator, despite the numerous accusations of corruption against Flávio Bolsonaro, and Brazil’s electoral authorities fining him for spreading fake news in the 2022 presidential race.

    And if there is a character with arguably worse democratic credentials than the Bolsonaro clan, that is former judge and Bolsonaro Justice Minister Sergio Moro. His leading role in the “Operation Car Wash” judicial proceedings has been publicly exposed as unethical and politically motivated, designed to put Lula under arrest and bar him from running in 2018. Still, a number of outlets were happy to simply quote him as an “opposition senator,” who criticized Lula for “hosting a dictator” (BBC Mundo, 5/30/23; Al Jazeera, 5/29/23; Le Monde, 5/30/23, AFP, 5/29/23)

    Marred journalism

    AP: Brazilian president’s support of Venezuela’s leader mars unity at South America summit

    North American readers would have no way of knowing from this AP article (5/30/23) that one of the two featured critics of Lula—Chilean President Gabriel Boric—joined Lula’s call for an end to US sanctions against Venezuela.

    Lula’s meeting and joint presser with Maduro were followed by a summit of South American presidents in Brasilia the next day, the first of its kind in many years, with the goal of kickstarting the regional integration agenda.

    Corporate pundits were ready to use Maduro’s presence and Lula’s statements to spin and downplay the meeting, claiming that they had “marred the unity” (AP, 5/30/23), “proven divisive” (AFP, 5/31/23), “clouded the summit” (Bloomberg, 5/30/23) or caused “divergent views” (Reuters, 5/30/23).

    The reports relied on public comments from Uruguay’s Luis Lacalle Pou and Chile’s Gabriel Boric, who disagreed with the “narrative” comments but distorted them, making it sound like Lula was claiming that issues like migration or human rights violations were made up. Bloomberg went as far as saying the meeting “made little progress on any substantive issues” as a result of Lula backing Maduro.

    However, there are plenty of elements that contradict the media’s precooked conclusions. First off, Lacalle and Boric were only two of the 12 heads of state present. Second, all the representatives, including the two critics, signed the final “Brasilia consensus,” which, among other things, called for an integration roadmap within 120 days (Venezuelanalysis, 6/1/23).

    Finally, there was also a careful cherry-picking of Boric’s statements. From the outlets mentioned above, Reuters and AP chose not to mention the Chilean president’s call for US and EU sanctions against Venezuela to be lifted. It would have been more accurate to headline that the summit had found unity in opposing sanctions.

    Furthermore, none of the outlets referenced Boric saying he was “happy to see Venezuela return to multilateral instances” where problems can be jointly solved.

    Whitewashing sanctions

    CEPR: The Human Consequencesof Economic Sanctions

    The most relevant part of the Brazil summit for readers in the Global North was its strong stand against US sanctions—yet press reports went out of their way to downplay this opposition. (See CEPR, 5/23, for an overview of sanctions’ human cost.)

    Though opposition to US sanctions were a key issue, stressed in the summit declaration (which refers to them as “unilateral measures”), Lula’s speech and even Boric’s comments—corporate media did their best to downplay or sometimes endorse the deadly unilateral measures.

    The mentions of sanctions were virtually devoid of context, be that detailing what US sanctions entail (an oil embargo, trade hurdles, loss of access to financial markets, etc.), referencing studies on their impact (more than $20 billion in yearly losses, over 100,000 estimated deaths), or mentioning criticism from UN experts, multilateral organizations or, most recently, a group of Democratic House members (Venezuelanalysis, 5/11/23).

    The measures that groups like the Washington, DC–based Center for Economic and Policy Research class as “collective punishment” against the Venezuelan people were described as sanctions “on [Maduro’s] government” (BBC, 5/30/23; Washington Post, 5/30/23) or against “Maduro and his inner circle” (AFP, 5/31/23).

    Equally misguided were some attempts to justify the punishing coercive measures, with the BBC (5/30/23) stating that they were a response to a “crackdown on opposition activists,” and the Associated Press (5/30/23) reporting they were intended to “get Venezuela to liberalize its politics.” Even US officials have stated on the record that sanctions are meant to “accelerate the collapse” of the Maduro government (Voice of America, 10/15/18)—evoking President Richard Nixon’s command to “make the economy scream” in Salvador Allende’s Chile.

    The Financial Times (6/4/23), to its credit, admitted openly that sanctions were “intended to force regime change in Caracas.” It then proceeded to inaccurately claim that the Biden administration has “shifted away” from Trump’s “maximum pressure,” when the only difference thus far is a limited license granted to the oil giant Chevron, which places all sorts of hurdles for the Venezuelan state to receive revenue.

    Endorsing exceptionalism

    WaPo: The United States can no longer assume that the rest of the world is on its side

    Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria (6/2/23), while accepting the framing that Maduro is a “dictator,” recognizes that many countries “don’t believe the United States when they hear it speak in favor of a rules-based international order…. America applies rules to others but breaks them itself in its many military interventions and unilateral sanctions.”

    The Financial Times piece also brought up another common feature of foreign policy pieces: the full endorsement of US exceptionalism. It cited former State Department official Thomas Shannon blaming Lula for having “really undermined the approach that the Biden administration has” by hosting his Venezuelan counterpart. Somehow the Brazilian leader was expected to get Washington’s blessing before meeting the president of a neighboring country.

    In a similar vein, Bloomberg (5/31/23) accused Lula of “undermining Brazil’s power to influence its neighbors” by presenting Maduro as “a kind of champion of democracy.” The second part is patently false, as Lula made no judgments of Venezuela’s democracy. Instead, he sought to make the point that it was “inexplicable” for Venezuela to be targeted because “another country does not like” its government.

    The Brazilian leader’s noninterference stance is in line with past comments. For example, in August 2022, the very same Bloomberg (8/22/22) reported Lula saying he wanted Venezuela to be “as democratic as possible,” while demanding that the country be treated with respect.

    As for Lula undermining Brazil’s influence, the claim is based on the delusion that he will only be respected in the region if he does the US’s bidding. Corporate journalists ought to read Fareed Zakaria’s Washington Post column (6/2/23), where he is somehow surprised to find out that the US “can no longer assume that the rest of the world is on its side.”

    Corporate media have been given plenty of chances to take note of a world where more countries are pursuing independent foreign policy paths. The Brasilia Summit was a great example, with leaders betting on regional integration and opposing unilateral measures. The ensuing coverage has shown that Western outlets will stop at no length to defend Washington’s agenda, even if that means reheating debunked narratives, platforming the most extremist characters, making up controversies and whitewashing deadly sanctions.

    The post As Venezuela Mends Ties With Latin Neighbors, Western Media Turn Up the Propaganda appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  • US Economic War on Venezuela Has Rewarded Corruption and Undermined Democracy

    This spring, the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó delivered a solemn address to the international press in Miami, Florida. Claiming his life was in danger, Guaidó announced that he fled Venezuela to escape persecution and rally the world against the government of President Nicolás Maduro. In bold strokes, he argued that Maduro constitutes a threat to “the entire world…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • US Economic War on Venezuela Has Rewarded Corruption and Undermined Democracy

    This spring, the Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó delivered a solemn address to the international press in Miami, Florida. Claiming his life was in danger, Guaidó announced that he fled Venezuela to escape persecution and rally the world against the government of President Nicolás Maduro. In bold strokes, he argued that Maduro constitutes a threat to “the entire world…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Underexposure Exposed

     

    If you’re working for establishment media covering an official enemy of the United States, your main job is to convey to your audience that such places are dystopias, where everyone is miserable and whatever economic punishment Washington imposes on them can’t make things any worse.

    The problem is that many of these enemies are tropical countries that often have sunny weather and lush greenery. If you run a realistic photo of such places, people might get the idea that things don’t look so bad there, and could even start wondering whether the living hell described in your text is a completely accurate portrayal.

    That’s why corporate media have hit on a simple trick: If you want people to think that a country resistant to US leadership is a festering doomscape, just underexpose the hell out of your photographs.

    So when the New York Times (12/5/20) covers an election in Venezuela, it sets the scene with a photo that looks like this:

    Whereas, when you take the same image and run it through the automatic exposure adjustment filter of a popular photo editor (in this case PicMonkey), you get this:

    When the Times (4/3/19) showed Venezuelans protesting on a bridge to Colombia—a bridge that was the focus of heavy anti-Maduro propaganda efforts (FAIR.org, 2/9/19)—the photo would have originally looked something like this:

    New York Times photo of a protest in Venezuela, exposure adjusted

    But thanks to the magic of digital editing, the sunshine-soaked protest could be drenched in shadow, the better to convey the oppression the demonstrators were struggling against:

    underexposed New York Times photo of a Venezuelan protest

    Or say you have a photo essay (New York Times,  11/27/20) on a mother and son displaced from Colombia to Venezuela by the Covid pandemic. You want to run a photo of the boy in Venezuela with the caption, “

    Exposure-adjusted New York Times of a child in a field in Venezuela

    There’s an easy solution: Just turn down the brightness until it looks like the photo was taken during a total eclipse of the Sun, and you’ve got the image as it appeared in the Times:

    The Times uses this trick a lot in covering Venezuela (see FAIR.org, 3/26/19, 12/19/20), but it works just as well in other countries—either enemy nations, or maybe nations that just have enemies within them. Here’s the image that illustrated a Times piece (4/30/23; see FAIR.org, 5/12/23) on Brazil with the classic red-baiting headline, “If You Don’t Use Your Land, These Marxists May Take It.”

    Underexposed New York Times photo of land in Brazil

    Naturally, you don’t want that photo with exposure properly adjusted, because that would give the impression that the (perfectly legal) land reform the Times is describing was taking place in a land that’s not under a Mordor-like permanent shadow:

    New York Times photo of land in Brazil, exposure-adjusted

    While the New York Times is the king of underexposed photos, it’s far from the only outlet to turn down the brightness in pursuit of propaganda. The Atlantic (2/27/20) ran a piece about Venezuela by Anne Applebaum, explaining how its “citizens of a once-prosperous nation live amid the havoc created by socialism, illiberal nationalism and political polarization,” that was accompanied by this photo:

    Underexposed Atlantic depiction of a crowd in Venezuela

    If it had run the photo with a normal exposure, Venezuela would have seemed to have at least 50% less havoc:

    Atlantic photo of a crowd in Venezuela, exposure-adjusted

    The Wall Street Journal (8/10/22) ran an article about lithium mining in Chile’s Atacama Desert, where serious concerns about the environment stand in the way of efficient extraction of resources by multinational corporations (FAIR.org, 8/23/22)—or, as the Journal put it, public companies “risk mismanaging the resource in a region where state-run firms have long been mired in corruption and nepotism.” The piece was headed by a photo of one of the evaporation ponds from which lithium is extracted:

    Wall Street Journal depiction of lithium production in Bolivia

    Deserts, of course, are typically bright, sunny places—but running a realistically lit photo of a lithium mine isn’t going to give the reader the proper image of a location “mired in corruption”:

    Wall Street Journal photo of lithium production in Chile, exposure-adjusted.

    Back when China was still trying to wipe out Covid, Reuters (12/20/21) ran a piece about daily coronavirus cases in China falling from 102 to 81. Though this was a tiny fraction of the number of Covid cases at the time in the US–which recorded some 241,000 new cases that December 20–we were still supposed to read this as bad news, which you can tell because the accompanying photo looked like this:

    Underexposed Reuters image of China

    As opposed to a normally adjusted version of the photo, which has a much less ominous tone:

    Reuters image from China with exposure adjusted

    While the darkening technique is usually used on photographs from official enemy nations, it can also be used with internal enemies. When the New Yorker (9/13/15)  ran a profile by film critic Anthony Lane of then–British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, which compared him to “the class grouch, making trouble but never headway,” someone who makes “you all roll your eyes whenever he raises his hand, because you know what’s coming next,” it was accompanied by this image:

    Underexposed New Yorker image of Jeremy Corbyn.

    With an ordinary exposure applied to the photo, Corbyn doesn’t look nearly so much like someone whom you would naturally shun:

    Exposure-adjusted New Yorker photo of Jeremy Corbyn

    It’s easy to see how this basic processing of images serves these outlets’ ideological needs—exploiting the crude association between dark and bad. (Remember in 1994 when Time magazine darkened OJ Simpson’s skin when they put his mugshot on the cover after his arrest?) But applying this sort of distortion is inherently unethical, since the basic principle of photojournalism is that photos are supposed to convey reality and not political spin. As the Code of Ethics of the National Press Photographers Association spells out:

    Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images’ content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.

    If ethics alone aren’t enough to deter establishment media from such distortion, they should consider how much uglier photographs are when they’re steeped in unnecessary murk. Again and again, when I adjusted the brightness on obviously underexposed photos, it rescued the images from the one-dimensional cartoons they were run as, revealing detail, atmosphere, humanity. The properly exposed photos provided views of real people in real places—but, of course, if your intention is to publish propaganda, that’s the last thing you want.

    The post Underexposure Exposed appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • United States: Thousands rally for peace and against US imperialism

    Rohima Miah reports from Washington DC that on the 20th anniversary of the United States invasion of Iraq, thousands of peace and antiwar activists rallied in the nation’s capital under the banner Fund People’s Needs, Not the War Machine!

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Those Who Die for Life – like Hugo Chávez – Cannot Be Called Dead

    On 28 October 2005, a special event was held in Caracas at the National Assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. At this gathering, held on the birthday of Simón Rodríguez (Simón Bolívar’s teacher), the Venezuelan government announced that nearly 1.5 million adults had learned to read through Mission Robinson, a mass literacy programme that it initiated two years earlier. The mission was named after Rodríguez (who was also known by the pseudonym Samuel Robinson).

    One of those adults, María Eugenia Túa (age 70), stood beside President Hugo Chávez Frías and said, ‘We are no longer poor. We are rich in knowledge’. The Venezuelan government built Mission Robinson based on a Cuban teaching method for adult literacy called Yo sí puedo (‘Yes I can’) developed by Dr. Leonela Relys Díaz of the Latin American and the Caribbean Pedagogical Institute (IPLAC) in Cuba. On that day, Venezuela declared to the United Nations that its people had transcended illiteracy.

    The previous year, in December 2004, Chávez spoke at the graduation ceremony of 433 students from the Yo sí puedo programme held at the Teresa Carreño Theatre in Caracas. Mission Robinson, Chávez said, is going to ‘organise the army of light’ that will take literacy to the people, wherever they live, taking ‘Mohammed to the mountain’. Commenting on the educational journey of one of the graduates, Chávez described the opportunities that stem from literacy: ‘She has not wasted any time and is already learning mathematics and geography, Spanish language and literature. And she is studying Bolivarian ideas because she can read. She can read the Constitution. She can read Bolívar’s writings. She can read the letters that Bolívar wrote’.

    The Bolivarian process organised the distribution of world literature and non-fiction books to libraries created in working class neighbourhoods in order to ‘arm ourselves with knowledge’, Chávez said. Quoting the Cuban national hero José Martí, Chávez reflected on the relationship between education, emancipation, and the history being made by the Venezuelan people: ‘To be cultured in order to be free. To know who we are, to know our history in depth, that history from which we come’.

    For Rosa Hernández, one of the graduates, the mission provided ‘clarity because before there was darkness. Now that I know how to read and write… I see everything clearly’. María Gutiérrez, Rosa’s classmate, said that her entry into the ‘army of light’ took place ‘thanks to God, to my president, and to the teachers who taught me’.

    Ten years ago, on 5 March 2013, Hugo Chávez died in Caracas after a prolonged fight against cancer. His death rattled Venezuela, where large sections of impoverished workers mourned not just a president, but the man they felt was their comandante. As Chávez’s cortege passed through Bolívar Square, Alí Primera’s 1976 song, Los que mueren por la vida (‘Those Who Die for Life’), rang out from the crowd:

    Those who die for life
    Can’t be called dead.
    And from this moment
    It is forbidden to cry for them.

    It is forbidden to cry, they sang, not because they did not want to grieve, but because it was clear that the legacy of Chávez was not in his own life but in the difficult work of building socialism.

    Six years after Chávez’s death, I walked with Mariela Machado through the Kaikachi housing complex where she lived, in the La Vega neighbourhood of Caracas. During Chávez’s first presidential term, Mariela, her family, and 91 other families occupied a plot of land that had been given to corporate developers by a previous administration but left empty. These working-class families – many of them Afro-Venezuelan – went directly to Chávez and asked to build houses on the plot. ‘Can you do it?’, Chávez asked them. ‘Yes’, said Mariela. ‘We built this city. We can build our own homes. All we want are machines and materials’. And so, with resources from the city, Mariela and her comrades built their modest apartment buildings.

    A bust of Chávez sits outside of the community centre, where there is a bakery that provides affordable, high-quality bread to the residents; a kitchen that feeds 400 people; a community hall; and a small room where women sew clothes for a business that they run. ‘We are Chavistas’, another woman told me, her eyes shining, a child at her hip. The word ‘Chavista’ has a special resonance in places such as this. It is not uncommon to see t-shirts with Chávez on them, his image and the iconic ‘Chávez eyes’ everywhere. When I asked Mariela what will happen to Kaikachi if the Bolivarian process falls, she pointed to the neighbouring apartment buildings of the well-heeled and said, ‘If the government falls, we will be evicted. We – Black, poor, working class – will lose what we have’.

    Mariela, Rosa, María, and millions of other people like them – ‘Black, poor, working class’, as Mariela said, but also indigenous and marginalised – carry with them the new vital energy of the Bolivarian Revolution, which began with Chávez’s electoral victory in 1998 and continues to this day. This sentiment is encapsulated in the Chavista slogan, ‘We are the Invisible. We are the Invincible. We will overcome’.

    Observers of the Bolivarian Revolution often point to this or that policy in order to understand or define the process. But what is rarely acknowledged is the theory that Chávez developed during his fifteen years as president. It is as if Chávez did things but did not think about them, as if he was not a theorist of the revolutionary process. Such attitudes towards leaders and intellectuals of the working class are insidious, reducing the strength of their intellect to a spate of thoughtless or spontaneous actions. But, as Chávez (and many others) showed, this bias is unfounded. Each time I saw Chávez, he wanted to talk about the books he had been reading – Marxist classics, certainly, but also the newest books in Latin America (and always the latest writings of Eduardo Galeano, whose book, Open Veins of Latin America, he gave to US President Barack Obama in 2009). He was concerned with big ideas and questions of the day, above all the challenges of building socialism in a poor country with a rich resource (oil, in the case of Venezuela). Chávez was constantly theorising, reflecting and elaborating upon the ideas shared with him by women such as Mariela, Rosa, and María, and testing these ideas through practical experiments in policy. Bourgeois narratives are quick to dismiss the country’s literacy campaign as nothing extraordinary, but this misses its significance entirely, both in terms of its underlying theory and its immense impact on Venezuelan society. The point of Mission Robinson was not merely to teach people how to read, but also that the Yo sí puedo curriculum would encourage political literacy. As Chávez said of the Yo sí puedo graduate in 2004, ‘she is studying Bolivarian ideas because she can read. She can read the Constitution. She can read Bolívar’s writings’.

    This graduate would become one of many women leaders in her community. Another, Alessandra Trespalacios, participated in social programmes in a wretchedly poor area and became a leader in the Altos de Lidice Commune’s community council and health clinic. It is women such as Alessandra who began to weigh children and the elderly in their neighbourhood as a part of their poverty eradication policy, and who would give the underweight extra food from their stores. ‘We are motivated by love’, she said, but also by the revolutionary ideas that she and her fellow students learnt from Mission Robinson.

    To commemorate the ten-year anniversary of Hugo Chávez’s death, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research and Simón Bolívar Institute for Peace and Solidarity (Venezuela) are pleased to offer you our dossier no. 61, The Strategic Revolutionary Thought and Legacy of Hugo Chávez Ten Years After His Death (February 2023). This text is a preliminary account of Chávez’s revolutionary theory, which was built out of the necessity to improve the everyday lives of the Venezuelan people, out of the challenge to construct housing, health care, and literacy programmes, but then went further, delving into how to transform the country’s productive relations and defend the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America from US imperialism. It is, as we write, a theory that is ‘alive and entirely revolutionary’ and not ‘a recipe nor a set of dry academic reflections’.

    The thinking of Chávez starts at the desk of an indigenous woman in the heart of the Venezuelan plains, a woman whose reading of the Constitution of 1999 – ratified with a 72% vote in favour – motivated her to become a leader in her town, perhaps of Sabaneta (in Barinas state), where Chávez was born on 28 July 1954. That’s always the start of his theory.

    We hope you will read, share, and discuss our dossier to better understand the praxis of the Bolivarian Revolution. A few years ago, Anacaona Marin, who leads the El Panal commune in the 23 de Enero barrio in Caracas, told me, ‘A connection is often made between socialism and misery. In our work, through the Chávez method, this connection will be broken. It cannot be broken by words alone, but by deeds. That is chavismo’.

    The post Those Who Die for Life – like Hugo Chávez – Cannot Be Called Dead first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • As US Reengages Maduro, Oil Giants Earn Deals — and Venezuelans Protest

    In late November 2022, an article in The Economist reported that “things have changed in Caracas” with the new availability of luxury consumer goods, a new generation of high-end restaurants and the return of traffic jams. Add to that a new Ferrari dealership and it becomes clear what sections of the population are the beneficiaries of the changes — a tiny minority of wealthy Venezuelans.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Which government does the United States recognise in Venezuela?

    The only “real” democratic institution in Venezuela, according to United States State Department spokesperson Ned Price, is one that has not met in seven years, writes Vijay Prashad.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.