Editor’s Note: What’s the world coming to?  Here we are, publishing Patrick Buchanan, the notorious paleoconservative and unapologetic onetime servitor of Nixon and Ronald Reagan, as if he were a champion of progressive politics, which he is, when it comes to opposing imperial adventures, and is consistent with his confused libertarian ideals. The “antiwar Buchanan” is something of a marker, reminding us of how degenerate official Washington has become, as unreconstructed reactionaries like Pat Buchanan can now stake political positions “to the left” of most Congressional, media, and White House establishmentarians, a cabal whose principal work consists in selling us wars and the legitimizing through laws and pseudo-debates the plundering of the majority of working Americans. Buchanan, who opposed virtually every civil rights law and court decision of the last 30 years, published FBI smears of Martin Luther King Jr. as his own editorials in the St. Louis Globe Democrat in the mid-1960s. “We were among Hoover’s conduits to the American people,” he boasted (Right from the Beginning, p. 283).In any case, beggars can’t be choosers, and if Buchanan—repulsive as he is—now decides to use his media access and prominence to denounce the warmongers, so be it. The war against Iran must be stopped. —P. Greanville

By Patrick J. Buchanan, April 02, 2010 [print_link]

Antiwar Forum {WE INCLUDE THE NATIVE COMMENT THREAD. WE HIGHLY RECOMMEND YOU READ THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED THEREIN, AS THEY RICHLY COMPLEMENT THE THRUST OF THIS PIECE.}

“Diplomacy has failed,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told AIPAC, “Iran is on the verge of becoming nuclear and we cannot afford that.”

“We have to contemplate the final option,” said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., “the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”

War is a “terrible thing,” said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but “sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time.”

Graham then describes the war we Americans should fight:

“If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government’s ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float.”

Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Neocon Central, writes, “The only questions remaining, one Washington politico tells me, are who starts it, and how it ends.”

As to who starts it, we know the answer. Tehran has not started a war in memory and is not going to launch a suicide attack on a superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons. As with Iraq in 2003, the war will be launched by the United States against a nation that did not attack us — to strip it of weapons it does not have.

But to Graham’s point, if we are going to start this war, prudence dictates that we destroy Iran’s ability to fight back. At a minimum, we would have to use air strikes and cruise missiles to hit a range of targets.

First, Iran’s nuclear facilities such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the U.S.-built reactor that makes medical isotopes, the power plant at Bushehr, the centrifuge facility near Qom and the heavy-water plant at Arak.

Our problem here is that the last three are not even operational and all are subject to U.N. inspections. There are Russians at Bushehr. And there is no evidence that diversion to a weapons program has taken place.

If Iran has secret plants working on nuclear weapons, why have we not been told where, and demanded that U.N. inspectors be let in? Why did 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, three years ago, tell us they did not exist and Iran gave up its drive for a nuclear weapon in 2003?

If Iran is on the “verge” of a bomb, as Schumer claims, the entire U.S. intelligence community should be decapitated for incompetence.

This week, in a hyped headline, “CIA: Iran capable of producing nukes,” theWashington Times said that a new CIA report claims, “Iran continues to develop a range of capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so.”

Excuse me, but this is mush. We could say the same of a dozen countries that use nuclear power and study nuclear technology.

But let us continue with Graham’s blitzkrieg war.

To prevent a counterattack, the United States would have to take out Iran’s 14 airfields and all its warplanes on the ground. We would also have to sink every warship and submarine in Iran’s navy and destroy some 200 missile, patrol, and speedboats operated by the Revolutionary Guard, else they would be dropping mines and mauling our warships.

Also, it would be crucial on day one to hit Iran’s launch sites and missile plants for, like Saddam in 1991, Iran would probably attack Israel, to make it an American and Israeli war on an Islamic republic.

Among other critical targets would be the Silkworm anti-ship missile sites on Iran’s coastline that would menace U.S. warships and oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Any Iranian attack on ships or seeding of mines would likely close the gulf and send world oil prices soaring.

Revolutionary Guard barracks, especially the Quds Force near Iraq, would have to be hit to slow troop movement to and across the border into Iraq to kill U.S. soldiers and civilians. The same might be necessary against Iranian troops near Afghanistan.

With Iran’s ally Hezbollah in south Beirut, all U.S. civilians should probably be pulled out of Lebanon before an attack lest they wind up dead or hostages. And how safe would Americans be in the Gulf region, especially Bahrain, home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, a predominantly Shi’ite island?

And whose side would Shi’ite Iraq take?

Would we have to intern all Iranian nationals in the United States, as we did Germans and Italians in 1941? How many terror attacks on soft targets in the USA could we expect from Iranian and Hezbollah agents in reprisal for our killing thousands of civilians in hundreds of strikes on Iran?

Before the War Party stampedes us into yet another war, the Senate should find out if Tehran is really on the “verge” of getting a bomb, and why deterrence, which never failed us, cannot succeed with Iran.

PATRICK J. BUCHANAN has been stirring up the political pot from the ultraright for decades. He’s a frequent media figure, with a permanent seat on The McLaughlin Group, among other venues. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, “The Death of the West,”, “The Great Betrayal,” “A Republic, Not an Empire” and “Where the Right Went Wrong.”

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

A selection of Buchanan’s utterances and positions was compiled by media watch organization FAIR at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2553

NATIVE COMMENT THREAD STARTS BELOW————–

Debbie(aussie)

· 2 days ago

It would most definitely become WWIII, wouldn’t it?

I wonder if we (AUS) are isolated enough politically as well as physically.

Armegeddon would be upon us, but not as the fundies would wish.

Chris

· 2 days ago

Hopefully, Iran will show proof soon that it has a nuclear deterrent and the US will be stopped dead in its tracks. Just look at how the US treats North Korea, and other countries that can hit back.

Peaceful_Idiot

67p

· 2 days ago

So are you assuming that we would take out all of Iran’s SS-N-22 “sunburn” missiles? They can take out capital ships. The fifth fleet sits like ducks in the water, how long did it take to kill 20,000 in the wargames again?

How many American troops is the congress willing to sacrifice in retaliation if we or Israel attack Iran? 10,000? 20,000? millions over decades?

Duglarri

· 2 days ago

We can still hope that the US military would mutiny if ordered to attack Iran, knowing as they do that all the war games so far have shown the US losing a couple of carriers in the first few days, and losing the army in Iraq- and the war- in the longer term. After all, they aren’t stupid, are they? Are they?

jojo

· 2 days ago

911 attacks,the invassions of Iraq and Afghastan were all planned long time ago.Goal was alwways to attack Iran. America will not stop in attacking Iran– Even if America goes all broke for }sreal expansion and control of middle east oil

Ground_Control

· 2 days ago

We (some of us) know who the enemy is, and it isn’t Iran.

Nike

· 2 days ago

LMAO, does anybody doubt that the MAJORITY of the American people would screech in jubilation if the US attacked Iran next? Keep in mind that these are the same people who rewarded Bush with a second term in power – when Bush’s torture chambers and other war crimes were already widespread public knowledge.  As Chris mentioned, a nuclear-armed Middle East would guarantee an end to US – and Israeli – military aggression in area. About time. God Bless America.

Mad Eddie

· 2 days ago

It would be funny if on the eve of the American attack, Iran was to detonate a test-nuke…… ha!

Blacque Jacques

· 2 days ago

The insanity of the warmongers is beyond reproach, does anyone think the Iranians want a war? No f**ken way. Israel is armed to the teeth with nukes…so is Pakistan and India and they aren’t far from that region also. You also risk a war with China and Russia this would certainly turn into WW3 in a matter of hours or days. What the hell is wrong with humanity I guess once the planet is a smoldering cinder then the evangelicals will have their rapture or whatever they call it. Seems more and more humans don’t deserve to have a planet to live on. If the insanity continues then that will be the case.

omop

· 2 days ago

If after all is done as Schumer and Graham suggest ( two chickenhawks/likudniks ) any future respected historians would have to conclude that the US of A eventually self destructed itself with the principal assitance of Israel and its Us supporters.

epppie

· 2 days ago

Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be no threat to anyone. The deterrent against Iran is absolute. Everyone knows this. So what we are watching is the playing out of a Nietzschean determination, on the part of the ‘Global Powers’, to crush a country for reasons that have nothing to do with the stated reasons; it will be yet another war based on lies, this time enthusiastically supported by the Dems and ‘liberals’ and even the Left. Even the ‘peace movement’, which continues to scream about Iraq and Afghanistan, has mostly CHOSEN to ignore (and thus implicitly approve) this war hysteria against Iran!!!

The complicity of the Left in this war against Iran is the most shocking political development I have seen in my life. A whole society is now united in war hysteria against a tiny country that is no threat whatsoever to us. Or really to anyone.

And now that Russia and China have given their assent to the war, it really is on. No one should fool themselves; both those countries know that assenting to sanctions is the same as assenting to war. Russia, in particular, has refused to provide Iran with DEFENSIVE weapons it is obligated to provide by contract, while watching joyfully as the US loads Israel up with OFFENSIVE weapons. Russia’s blazing hypocrisy is really quite amusing. Oh, do they ever continue to whine and complain about Nato, all-the-while helping Nato crush Iran!

China and Russia have sent a clear message to the world: don’t ally with us if you don’t want a knife in your back. And remember, all this is about exactly nothing – about a nuclear weapons program that Iran almost certainly doesn’t have, and that wouldn’t amount to squat if Iran DID have it. To get a picture of how monstrously insincere the whole thing is, consider that India – via the IAEA – has been one of the nations passing judgement on Iran’s alleged weapons program!!!! INDIA!!! One of the world’s foremost rogue nuke states!!!

peacenik12

· 2 days ago

The hypocrasy of it all is unbeleavable. These congressional whores are willing to sacrifice their own people and country for Israeli expansionism and world domination.

Henry_Clemens

· 2 days ago

Senators Chuck Schumer, Evan Bayh and Lindsay Graham are certifiable nut jobs. Why anyone would want to vote for these despicable, self-serving, warmongering lunatics is totally beyond me.

They are:

Sick in head and sick in heart,

Sick in whole and every part,

And yet sicker are they still,

For not knowing that they are ill.

John

· 2 days ago

Brilliant piece by Buchanan, as usual.

john

Connestee

39p

· 2 days ago

Watching all this go on here and abroad, I feel like Winston Smith in Orwell’s 1984. The NYC subway photo on Antiwar.com’ s front page yesterday and war after war abroad. Someone explain to me how he might have been wrong because it sure looks like he got it right, it just took a little longer than he thought.

Rob

· 2 days ago

Our leaders as usual assume that war between Iran and the US will be a conventional contest. Guerrillas own warfare and for the last 75 years or so guerrilla have almost always defeated their nation state foes. The US military cannot fight it’s way out of a guerrilla paper bag and has not won a guerrilla war in 108 years (the Philippine Insurrection of 1902).

greg

· 2 days ago

“Before the War Party stampedes us into yet another war, the Senate should find out if Tehran is really on the “verge” of getting a bomb….”

The Senate? HAHAHA.

You mean the shills who work for Israel and the banks and the corporations? Not a chance. They already know Iran is no threat to the US, they know they don’t have the bomb, They know this is all bull***t. It doesn’t matter. The agenda is fight for Israel’s lust for empire that will destroy us in the end. The lot of them should undergo psychiatric exams then be put on trial for treason.

Schmuck

· 2 days ago

No surprise hearing this coming from the bigoted Pat Buchanan. Iran has several proxies fighting the US in Iraq and Afghanistan and Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria–but who cares since they’re killing Americans and Israelis.

This is the same rhetoric of Chamberlain regarding Hitler. You cannot appease a madman, and Mahmoud is a madman.

charley caruso

· 2 days ago

As usual Buchanan’s columns are brilliant. Then why is he such a dope on television?

Someone else writing the columns? Not unheard of in the sleazy world of urinalism.

And PS:

Why intern any Iranians? Let’s just intern AIPAC

Andy

· 2 days ago

The only “crime” Iran is “guilty” of is it won’t accept Israeli and American hegemony.

tom

· 2 days ago

iran should try and buy a nuclear weapon from north korea,for its own protection against the zionist entity or us attack.

Alan MacDonald

· 2 days ago

Pat under-estimates that, “Among other critical targets would be the Silkworm anti-ship missile sites on Iran’s coastline that would menace U.S. warships and oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz.”

Screw the Silkworms. Pat. This early 1950’s designed SUB-SONIC dog termed the SS-N-2 is many decades out of date and hasn’t been used with even limited effect since the 1967 war by Eygpt.

The ‘game changer’ that the Iranians would use to crippling effect is the Sunburn, Mach 3, SS-N-22 that was designed and still IS a US carrier killer — which can carry HE or mini-nuke warhead.

An expert oil / military analyst just said late im March 2010, “The danger of a war or an escalation of the simmering belligerence into sticks-and-stones (outside of the danger for people who might get caught in the crossfire), is that from about 2001 Iran has been stocking up with Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense (and nor do oil tankers).”

Pat, such a crazed scheme, by the global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE that controls ‘our’ country, to attack Iran would definately not be any “cake walk”, but rather an exploding shit pie for American citizens and the whole world.

Alan MacDonald

Sanford, Maine

Nelson_2008

60p

· 1 day ago

I’ve given up hope of avoiding a catastrophe.

Although millions of people are waking up, unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans frankly seem to: love war, have a completely fraudulent view of History, lack basic critical thinking skills and moral reasoning ability, are very tolerant of corruption in government, see Israel as an indispensible ally, and worship “the Troops” as “heroes”, no matter what.

Thus while the awakened few among us recoil in horror at the criminal insanity of our rulers as exemplified in the likes of Graham and Schumer, the overwhelming masses of ignorant, arrogant, apathetic, intellectually lazy, morally incompetent fools clearly have the government that they need, want and deserve.

Let’s face it, the majority are demanding self-destruction, and their democratically elected representatives seem determined to make it happen.

Dan

· 1 day ago

Unlike the cases with Iraq and Afghanistan (and even, apparently, Pakistan and Yemen), an attack on Iran will spark eventual RUSSIAN and CHINESE MILITARY INVOLVEMENT!

Believe it! Moscow didn’t clean Georgia’s clock two years ago, or send her warships to the Meditarrean before that even, just to play around. Coupled with its repeated warnings against an Iran attack, Mother Russia has been sending signals loud and clear!

China retains *tens of billions* of dollars of investment in Iran, and vice versa. Technical, tactical assistance from Beijing and Moscow would result, at the least, if not military back-up, especially as the war spreads to Central Asia.

Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Pakistan, North Korea and others wouldn’t sit on their hands, either.

No, this would be the Mother of All F#&k-Ups on the part of the West….

 

Human Rights Rides Again? Taunting Havana

Washington’s real issue relates to Cuban disobedience of its policies; not human rights. In fact, Cubans enjoy substantive rights American citizens don’t: food, housing, medical care, and education. Cuba falls short on procedural rights regarding press and political parties. On this post (comprising 3 articles) we are happy to present a COMPREHENSIVE treatment of this important topic.

By SAUL LANDAU  [print_link]

The State Department echoed by the EU has once again raised the human rights issue to beat up Cuba. In 1959, Fidel Castro declared his independence from the United States – possibly without realizing that punishment could last 51+ years. Even when US national interests are involved, Washington acts petulantly if not downright childishly.

For example, the Interest Section supplies dissidents with a variety of “needs,” such as cell phones and lap tops which, “dissidents” claim, get confiscated by Cuban State Security. “We have photographs of them selling these items,” a Cuban official told me. “When the “dissident” reports the loss, the Interest Section, meaning US taxpayers – although few know it – supply them with new ones.”

Did the State Department think of possible consequences of the Interest Section’s little joke? Suppose Raul Castro acted in as mean-spirited a way as State’s tough-guy image of him. He would announce to Cuba’s considerable unemployed population that those who wanted to seek work elsewhere could do so without repercussion. Now, imagine waves of rafters landing in south Florida with its high unemployment rate!

Cuban security agents could arrest and try a group of the Interest Section’s favorite “dissidents” In the ensuing trial, witnesses against them would come from State Security. The Interest Section had known them as other favored “dissidents.” (“They’re giving our taxpayers’ money to Cuban State Security Agents? An angry Senator might ask.) In 2003, Cuba arrested 75 “dissidents,” twelve witnesses testified the accused took money, goods and services from US diplomats all undercover moles disguised as “dissidents.

Memory seems absent when the issue is punishing Cuba. In 2006, a former Interest Section official waxed eloquent about Cuba’s human rights violations, as if the US record was immaculate. Under Eisenhower and Kennedy, when Washington first bellowed its “democratic” principles, millions of black Americans could not vote, chain gangs flourished at state prisons, and lynchings periodically took place.

Fidel Castro, the Kennedy crowd righteously sneered, refused to hold elections. Some cynics thought Kennedy and his bootlegger father had padded Illinois’ ballot boxes where JFK narrowly defeated Nixon. Cuba’s electoral system may have flaws, but its Supreme Court didn’t declare counting votes unessential to democracy. (See Gore v. Bush.)

As Washington hurled its “principled” criticisms at Havana consistently over decades, it simultaneously financed thousands of terrorist attacks and assassinations against Cuba and its leaders. Killing people did not violate human rights?

In 2010, Washington continues to taunt Havana – currently for failing to rescue a “political prisoner,” Orlando Zapata Tamayo, who died during a hunger strike. Zapata, arrested on assault charges, decided in prison to convert to dissidence. Videos show Cuban authorities hospitalized. No one asked for his insurance policy. The video shows him receiving top-level medical attention. A current “dissident” Guillermo Farinas then launched his hunger strike at his home until Cuba released all its political prisoners. When he fainted, Cuban authorities rushed him to the hospital.

Prisoner abuse should become a US human rights scandal. A Chinese account on US Human Rights cites “a report presented to the 10th meeting of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in 2009 by its Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering Terrorism.” The report showed “the United States has pursued a comprehensive set of practices including special deportation, long-term and secret detentions and acts violating the United Nations Convention against Torture. (China Daily, Marc 17, 2010)

The Chinese report, using a Department of Agriculture study, states that currently 16.7 million US “children, or one fourth of the U.S. total, had not enough food in 2008.” (USA Today, November 17, 2009). A Feeding America report added that “more than 3.5 million children under the age of five face hunger or malnutrition.” (www.feedingamerica.org, May 7, 2009).

But when the religious police in Saudi Arabia our oily partner cane women who show skin, the State Department says “Ho Hum.” Nor does Cuba’s Communist rule matter – witness Vietnam and China, major commercial partners of the US.

Maybe things will change when Cuba’s off shore oil starts spouting!

Saul Landau is an Institute for Policy Studies fellow who received Chile’s Bernardo O’Higgins award for human rights. CounterPunch published his A BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD

•••

Luis Posada Carriles and Ladies in White go out on a limb in Miami

Posada Carriles and the Ladies in White, “Friends Forever” – español

By José Pertierra

Translation: Machetera

Gloria Estefanin support of the so-called Ladies in White.

Posada and the “ladies” share the same godfather.

two bombs in the Tropicana nightclub in Havana.  This conversation was recorded and exposed on Cuban television.

It’s evident that the terrorist history of this sinister person did not stop the “ladies” from involving themselves in this game and receiving money salted with Cuban blood.  In the United States, receiving money from a terrorist organization is a felony that carries a harsh punishment.  I suppose the same is true in Cuba.  Nevertheless, until now, the only sanction that these “ladies” have received is repudiation from Cubans in the street.  The Cuban government has shown itself to be extremely tolerant, even providing police protection.

I dare you!”

Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the author and translator are cited.

 

•••

Dateline: March 30, 2010

A Dissenting View

Dissidents and Politics in Cuba

By RAFAEL HERNANDEZ

Stirred by images of dissident "ladies in white" standing up to security agents in Communist-ruled Cuba, tens of thousands of Cuban exiles and supporters staged solidarity demonstrations over the weekend in Miami, Los Angeles, and New York. Pop singer Gloria Estefan led the biggest protest Friday in Miami's Little Havana, receiving news from a "damas en blanco" protest in progress in Havana via cell phone and relaying developments to the Miami crowd.

Hunger strikes and suicides justified by strong moral, ideological, patriotic or religious beliefs usually touch people’s conscience. From Bobby Sands and the ten other Northern Ireland IRA youths who died in British jails in 1981, to the many cases of Basque and anarchist political prisoners protesting last January against bad prison treatment or the political manipulations by judicial authorities and police personnel in Spain and France, the issue of hunger strikes and their significance has had a continuous presence in the political arena in recent decades.

From this perspective, the case of the Cuban dissident Orlando Zapata, who died February 23 as a result of a hunger strike, or that of the current case, Guillermo Fariñas, are not unusual events. The death of Zapata is a human tragedy but that does not explain how it became a cause celebre. If one tries to understand it in context – something hard to do given the shower of opinions that have inundated the media – one has to take a step back from the news to examine some essential questions. Who are the Cuban dissident groups? What is the current national and international political context? What factors explain the reactions to the event by political actors in Europe and the United States? How does the international press construct the problem? What can be expected of Cuban policy toward the dissidents?

These opposition groups are not essentially different from the Cuban exiles in their methods and objectives. The most powerful anti-Castro organizations in Miami and New Jersey today no longer support war with bombs and armed groups. Dissidents and exiles do not agree on everything (for example, support for the embargo) but they share the same objective (to replace the system with a capitalist model), a common ideological denominator (anti- Castroism and anti-socialism) and the same allies (the United States, anti-communist governments and parties in Europe and other countries).

Their political nature is not captured with the adjective “mercenary,” since it is likely that many, though they may receive money from the United States, have authentic ideological beliefs. Under the umbrella group Convergencia Democrática, a wide variety of interests, personalities and tendencies is associated; but their core tendency is toward the center-right. Although this partly explains their lack of acceptance in Cuban society, the main reason it is not a viable movement is that it lacks two essential political ingredients: leadership and legitimacy.

As opposed to the anticommunist organizations of the 1960s, which had a social and political base and a coherent ideology, the dissidents do not have roots in civil society. They lack influence in religious organizations or the working class, as in Poland; they lack prestigious intellectuals as in Czechoslovakia; they have no record of struggle against odious or corrupt regimes, as in Rumania. If they had these, they would represent movements of considerable impact. They are not “civil society;” they are opposition micro parties.

Minorities, of course, play a political role and a small group can develop into a great social movement. Therefore, why do the dissidents not appeal to larger sectors? I will take up three main reasons.

First, most of their criticisms of the system already form part of the debate among Cubans whether they are socialists or not. To suppose that dissidents are the lone heroic voices who dare to point out errors and to make demands of the government shows ignorance about contemporary Cuba. Dissent is manifested today within (and without) institutions, the intellectual movement, the various communications media, social, religious and cultural organizations and even inside the ranks of the political militancy.

Second, dissidents’ proposals do not constitute a coherent economic and political program, but rather a hodge-podge of imprecise ideological slogans (“national reconciliation,” “strengthening of civil society,” “pluralism”), and the classic nostrums of economic liberalism that have been well known in Latin America for the past 20 years. Anyone who takes the Varela Project as a serious plan for political reform based on the Constitution of 1992, has not read the Constitution closely; and above all, does not know the significance of the issues in the real public debate.: decentralization; participation and effective political control of the bureaucracy by the Popular Power; reordering the economy and making it more efficient; enlarging the private sector; extending cooperatization; improvement in income levels consistent with work and buying power; an end to generalized subsidies and bonuses; new social policies for the most at-risk sectors; public opinion reflected in the media; enlargement of spaces for free expression; strengthening of laws and constitutional order; and the democratization of institutions (including political organizations).

Third, it is very difficult for Cubans, regardless of whether they are in sympathy with Fidel and Raul Castro or share socialist ideals, to accept as legitimate groups that are supported by the United States, European parties and the most powerful exile forces whose reputations as champions of liberty and democracy are not very convincing.

Instead of the reasons given here, the lack of support for dissidents is attributed to the efficiency of the Cuban security apparatus (doubtless effective) and most especially to the ignorance, isolation, resignation and fear of the poor Cubans. This colonialist reasoning assumes that passivity and resignation are features of Cuban political culture – something difficult to prove based on the historic record of the last two centuries.

So, is the current reaction in Europe and the United States due at lack of information? Let’s see, what do their centers of intelligence in Havana say about the dissidents; what is the opinion of their diplomats about the leadership, ideological coherence, integrity and political viability of these groups? How do foreign correspondents on the island judge them (really) as they report their goings on every week in accordance with the demands of their editors?

If these diplomats and correspondents report the same things they tell me in private, I suspect those government offices and committees on foreign relations are well informed about the dissident groups’ capacity as a real political alternative in Cuba.

If that’s the case, the European Union’s resounding declaration have has nothing to do with civil society in Holguín or Santa Clara but rather with their own interests, partisan bickering and electoral strategies. No wonder that whenever officials are authorized to meet with the Cuban government, they usually are instructed they must also talk with dissidents. This ensures that there will be media coverage, which their own parlimentary opposition displays like a trophy and the respective governments like a helmet.

Since Guillermo Fariñas and other dissidents have gone on hunger strikes many other times, why is there such a reaction to them now? Eclipsed by the propaganda about bloggers like Yoani Sanchez, dissidents retook the front page with the death of Zapata, but above all, they did so at a peculiar juncture for the island. Despite its limited results, the dialogue between Washington and Havana has advanced more in the last year than in the previous ten: conversations have been renewed on migration and direct mail service, semi-official groups are exploring avenues of cooperation in drug interdiction; without lifting the restrictions imposed by Bush in 2005, the United States has again begun to issue visas to academics and artists; and there are initiatives in Congress to reestablish the right of freedom to travel to the island.

Furthermore, in spite of the “common position” adopted in 1996, the policy of the European Union, led by Spain, has substantially improved relations with the government of Raul Castro since June 2008 by lifting the sanctions implemented in 2003.

Change has also been advanced by the growing ties between Cuba and the rest of the region, not only with left- and center-left governments, but with others such as Mexico.

What could happen, some experts were asking in private several weeks ago, to interfere with this rapprochement? The answer was not long in coming. As in the incident of the planes in 1996, the Cuban government is held “responsible” for this “avoidable and cruel” event (the death of a “prisoner of conscience”). Obviously, this is convenient for the interests opposing dialogue.

Is there anything new in this old confrontation? There is the obvious “racialization” of the Zapata case by the media all across the ideological spectrum. He is described as an “Afro-Cuban mason (El Pais, Spain), “a 43-old black worker (Cubaencuentro), “not a prisoner for being black or a construction worker” (Kaos en la Red), “black, political opponent and a Palestinian” (El Mundo, Spain), “a Negro construction worker and victim of Marxist collectivism” (El Heraldo, Ecuador). This resonating effect is compounded by the intensity and saturation of the issue. El Pais alone published over twenty articles and editorials in the first six days after the death of Zapata.

Apart from this unprecedented interest in “Afro-Cuban dissidents, ” the European Parliament demanded “the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience.” How consistent is this approach?

First, the handful of political prisoners among the dissenters are not imprisoned for reasons of “conscience” or for “criticizing the government” but for actively opposing the system in alliance with the United States, the exiles and the old European anti-communist forces. They have no weapons but they do have power resources put at their disposal by states and organizations: international connections, institutional funds, long-range communication means, for the purpose of making war by other means.

Second, what does experience teach about putting this Cuban government in the pillory? Not even those Cubans who might consider the policy toward dissidents inefficient would be able to argue that they should be pardoned right now, under pressure from a bloc of manufactured vested interests and their double standards. The island government has never negotiated under pressure, even during the Missile Crisis; it is unlikely to do so now.

Part of this political context is a certain perverse logic expressed in the question “What is Cuba going to do in exchange for …. ?” Americans to travel, licenses for corporations to sell food or signing an agreement on drug trafficking. According to this logic, Cuba must pay tribute for every minimum change in the US policy.

Hence, if the United States were ever to consider pardoning the Five Cubans imprisoned for infiltrating the exiles, the only and obvious “bargaining chip” would be these dissidents sentenced as “agents of a foreign power.” A perverse logic, but in the end, logical. The dissidents are pawns in the chess board of contending powers. It is difficult to imagine realistic changes in the treatment of them as long as there is so little room for political maneuvers.

Along with a renewed democratic structure and a private sector, could Cuban socialism in the future also embrace a loyal opposition? That is not a question for congressmen and Euro-parliamentarians, but rather for Cubans who live their lives on the island.

Translated by Robert Sandels.

Rafael Hernandez is the director of the magazine Temas (Havana). He has been a Visiting Professor at Columbia and Harvard University in the US. He is a social scientist.

This commentary was written for Cuba-L Analysis and CounterPunch.

Capitalism is indeed dying in our midst, but, regrettably, political systems do not leave the stage of history (and power) without struggle. They have to be pushed off the centerstage.  And that’s the task for the planet’s revolutionists. To act as the midwife for a new, far more just and rational global paradigm.

March 16, 2010 [print_link]

The curtain is going down on the lone-superpower world we know and it is now a most urgent question if and when and how forces for true democracy, human rights, peace and civilization can come out and dissipate the cloud that has spread over what was once an almost decent way of life.

The long-time descent into totalitarian capitalism and neglect for anything but corporate profit has just about finished its course. The party is over. Bankruptcy is next. What we don’t know yet is how far-reaching this economic freefall is going to be.

Predecessors such as the German Reich are brought to mind, but the similarities are far from parallel. The inhumanity is on the same scale but the hypocrisy is even worse than in the worst fascist regime. Hypocrisy rules the world. No slogans the rulers of the United States or the rest of the Western world pronounce as their ideologies and goals can be taken for their face value. Lies are the only things that come out of the mouths of our so-called leaders and that is the way they have set up the sordid game to their own advantage.

We the people are not supposed to be aware of how we are being treated like dregs to be discarded. The powers that be imagine that, as long as we are not told the truth about how we are being cheated out of our birth rights, we will lie down like whipped dogs and lick the feet of our torturers.

How far we have come from the somewhat civilized society that the Founding Fathers had in mind for the people of the thirteen states can only be measured if we consider the abysmal lack of basic needs and basic rights that is now the norm in the United States. In fact, there are no areas left in the year 2010 that have been spared from the general decline, cultural, economic or humane. Human rights are in tatters, the standard of living for the vast majority of American families can go nowhere but further downhill, the voices of the people are left unheard, the standard of cultural institutions, quality education and all the privileges that are linked to it are being starved out of existence.

The prostitutes of the mainstream media [with their right-wing confreres leading the way] are making the utmost possible din so as to effectively drown the voices of reason. The general sluggishness of people is being enhanced by the non-stop propaganda fed them through the mass media, the fake view of the world as a place where satisfaction can only be had from over-consumption and from participating in the violence that is constantly displayed to us as a model of life via these mass media, the artificial uppers and downers that are offered to us by the entertainment industry to fill in the void of our souls.

The environment is being plundered savagely with no concern whatsoever for the survival of mankind, the survival of the planet and all its millions of different species. Biodiversity is a forgotten concept, except for the rare rebels who go against the stream and try to make their life-saving voices heard over the din of the machines of the killer corporations. Those predators are clearly only out to maximize their profits without the slightest concern for the catastrophic effects on the environment.

The majority of people never see what the real world is all about. How can they? The distorted “values’ that money can buy are the only ones that are real to them.

A sunrise over the ocean, a maple leaf swirling in clear spring water, the little hand touching your cheek, the beauty of words coming from a writer’s soul what happened to the marvels of life? What happened to the real world?

So how did this Ersatz world come about?

Capitalism, the way it is playing out today, is incompatible with true democracy. This insanity, this absurd form of capitalism is altogether negating a humane system of running the world with any consideration at all for the people on the planet.

Free Market capitalism, the Chicago School of Economics professor, Milton Friedman’s brainchild[1], globalization, the catchword for the Empire’s total domination over the rest of the world, Washington’s New World Order, enriching the very few and strangling the masses call it what you like but it’s a fantasy that is now finally crumbling. It all amounts to “screw the people’ and “greed is the power that makes the world go round’. The religion in the U.S.A. is greed and it’s the only true religion there is.

However, the giant is crumbling. A fast-spreading gangrene is eating away at the interior of the nation, its elite-oriented and half-starved educational system, its sad excuse for a working healthcare system, its decaying infrastructure. The very souls of the people are withering away, as their jobs are lost, their homes are foreclosed, their constitutional freedoms no longer respected, civil rights being increasingly downplayed by the police and federal authorities.

All this is adding to and interacting with the economic meltdown and the destruction of the environment, which at this point doesn’t even guarantee a livable future for the coming generations.

A multi-lateral world can not be stopped, as the giant is playing out its last trumps in case it has any left. Emerging countries are becoming emerged countries. There have not been many signs of awareness of this evolution of the geopolitical reality from President Obama, but rather a continuation of the Neocon imperialism, which will, if allowed a free rein, lead the planet to disaster. It will render the environment unlivable and thus destroy the way of life of the billions of people all over the world. With the environment in ruins, there is just no way back. The corporations whose greed is responsible for the current situation do not seem to realize or care about the direction in which they are steering our planet.

Countries which had previously enjoyed a fairly good standard of living, but had gotten squeezed by the Free Market economy, free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA [2] and bilateral agreements, saw their relatively comfortable lives wither away, such as many Asian nations in the nineties during the Asian financial crisis [3]. Poor 3^rdWorld nations were suddenly rendered more impoverished than ever before, having their national resources taken over by the multinational hydras. Wherever the heavy boots of the IMF and the World Bank get a foothold in a financially troubled nation, they manage to suck the blood out of the nation’s resources and their financial independence.

Free-market capitalism can not possibly go along with true democracy. The concepts represent opposite poles in the running of the economic systems of the world. The most outstanding mark of run-away capitalism is its denial of any civic and human rights to the working people. Privatization, which is the principal gospel of this decadent world order will eventually make us pay for the air we breathe and the polluted water we drink.

If national elections are allowed to survive in order to make for a semblance of democracy, it is only because they have no real meaning the way they are run today. They constitute no real danger to the system that is running the world since they are strictly controlled by corporations that are hand in glove with the imperialists. They are part of the system.

And yet, a majority of U.S. citizens are under the impression that their votes count for something in the running of internal and external politics. They seem to be slowly waking up, however, to the fact that their opposition to the ongoing wars and the tax cuts for the wealthy count for nothing.

The creation of the lone superpower

At the end of World War II, with Europe exhausted and virtually powerless as a commercial partner, the U.S government saw clearly that they would have to shore up the war-damaged European countries in order to create a market place for their newfound wealth. The Great Depression was over at last thanks to the boost to the economy that the war had brought to the nation. Now the U.S. needed commercial partners. So the Marshall Plan was born. Later on came the Hollywood Superman Ronald Reagan and as his megalomaniac and expansionist plans for the country were set in motion, the kernel of the Neoconservative movement was simultaneously taking shape.

During all this time a handy bogeyman was created in the Communist fiend. From the McCarthy era in the fifties to the Kennedy fiasco of the Bay of Pigs attempt to invade Southern Cuba in 1961, to the horror of the Vietnam war, to the criminal meddling in various Central American and Latin American countries, it was always the Communist threat that served as a pretext for invasions of countries that stood in the way for U.S. power and expansionism. Those countries that could not be bought up or propagandized into cooperating with the Empire were simply invaded and taken over. A blaring exception was of course the great embarrassment of the Vietnam War, when no country was ever taken over. But that didn’t even teach the imperialists a lesson. The people, yes, but the psychotic neocons, no. If anything, the lesson drawn by the neocons from that insane war was on the contrary that the U.S. had to show the world that it was still the Lord of the planet, including outer space.

Invade, crush, kill and take over national resources was the trademark of U.S. foreign policies. Until the Soviet Union imploded and the vastly overblown propaganda about the giant in the east that was threatening to end the supremacy of the number one superpower finally became open for all to see. Ever since the end of World War II, with a powerful boost given to it by the Kennedy brothers, the Communist scare has been hovering over the Western world, based on a minimum of reality but above all hysterical propaganda. It was the octopus that was spreading its tentacles all over the world. If the Soviet military power was in fact impressive, it was because they put all their rubles into the arms industry and neglected the well-being of their people.

Fear and eternal war are the capitalist tools

When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the U.S. suddenly found itself bereft of a handy target to blame the evils of the world on. A new enemy had to be created and we all know how the “War on Terror’ came about, based on the absurd theory, touted hysterically, that the Muslims were now all set to take over the Western world. Al Qaeda may well have been a creation by Washington but, as could be expected, it then became a reality [4]. Continuous war is of the essence to a superpower to sustain the fear that is necessary to keep the people in blinders. Hysteria and ignorance are the sine qua non for an eternal war. Non-stop propaganda is also a major tool without which the slogan “Pax Americana’ would have been a laughing stock from its very creation. And of course the mass media played the game since they were being paid to do so.

Fear was the tool that was needed in order to fool the people of the world and draw a veil of emotional blindness over their minds. What made the creation of this visceral fear and anger at all possible was of course the attack on the World Trade Center and the following 9/11 hysteria. Without this enormous propaganda tool, the major wars that have followed, the total contempt for U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights and the U.S. Constitution in general would have been just wishful thinking by the neocon thugs.

Of course we can’t know how much longer the “lone superpower’ is still going to be breathing. It is now on life support and we can only vaguely guess what the world is going to be like after the colossus stops breathing. No words of reconciliation to the rest of the world by President Obama will save the shipwreck that is the United States of America.

What arrogance, what hubris, to believe that the United States would be able to create the millenary Reich where all other nations would be willing allies, due to the propagandized “cultural, moral and military superiority’ of the Master behemoth. If not allies, they would become subdued and subservient because they would have lost their internal strength, as was the intention with Iraq, Afghanistan and probably now also with Pakistan. The Empire was going to appear so unbeatable that no other nation would ever be able to go against their formidable power. They were to be God on earth and everybody who looked into the shining light of their claim to divine power was going to see that resistance would be useless.

Wait a minute haven’t we seen this before? It seems to be a lesson never learned that even an Empire is bound for a swift fall when the winds turn and the scales fall from the eyes of the people in the rest of the world. And, as is perfectly obvious, the hubris was not born with the Neocons plotting in the underground during the Reagan presidency. It goes all the way back to the cruel near wiping-out of the native American population. Nobody can stand against the superpower. It is the bearer of God-given authority to rule the continent, to rule over war-torn Europe, to rule over the Americas, to rule over the resource-rich countries, to rule the world.

The psychopaths who created this absurd fantasy should by all rights be the first victims of the downfall of the Empire. In the long row of history’s empires, has there ever been one that so misjudged the power of national pride and the firm decision by the invaded people to go on running their own nation, running their own lives on territories that had been theirs for millennia?

Asia is coming together

The world is changing however. We will find out one day if it is already too late or if there is still a chance that people and the environment might be saved.

Asia is organizing to become increasingly independent of the West. They are creating their own economic cooperation organizations, such as AFTA [5] (ASEAN Free Trade Area), born out of ASEAN, the “Association of Southeast Asian Nations’, a”geo-politicaland economic organization of ten countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed on 8 August 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, thePhilippines, SingaporeandThailand”. This organization now includes ten countries located in Southeast Asia.[6]

The AFTA project was launched in 1993 with the objective of creating a Free Trade Area in eastern Asia. It undertook some bold measures during the Asian financial crisis in the nineties, which clearly showed up the need for mutual economic interdependence between Southeast and Northeast Asia.

In November 2001 an ambitious plan was submitted to create a regional bloc. It recommended that East Asia would move from a region of nations to a cohesive regional community where collective efforts would be made for peace, prosperity, and progress. They identified the following sectors for cooperation: economic, financial, security, environmental, social and cultural. [7]

China, the next superpower?

China’s economy is the third-largest in the world and it is the biggest holder of U.S. Treasury bonds. It is the top owner of U.S. government debt and it is also one of the “emerging nations’ that can be said to have already emerged. It is now in a full-fledged position to become a superpower. The day the United States of America declares bankruptcy, China will probably be ready to take over in conjunction with other developed nations.

Right now, China is giving Obama the cold shoulder. It is a fact that trade with the U.S. has recently picked up, but basically China is economically so much ahead of the former superpower that they can well shrug their shoulders at the hypocritical demands that Washington puts forth. Who is to urge China to respect civil rights and to diminish pollution to save the environment? Or to convince China that there should be more equality of living conditions? Washington’s hypocrisy knows no limits.

Obviously we can not be looking forward to a world where one inhuman superpower would be replaced by another one. We are not blind to the kind of life we would be living under Chinese rule. But such a thought seems so far from realistic that the solution we have to look forward to as a new World Order would rather be a multi-lateral organization where no one power would have too much influence over the rest of the world.

As for the other emerging nations, such as India and Brazil, they still have a way to go. A low quality of education, an average low standard of living, faulty healthcare, a sadly insufficient fight against pollution and contempt for human rights are among the major problems for these countries, as well as for China. However, the United States could well be pointed to as equally lacking in every one of these areas. There is also a horrifying lack of equality in all these countries, but then again, the richest country of them all, the U.S. of A. shares the guilt of these only relatively wealthy countries.

Latin America Is Gathering Strength

In another part of the world, there is Latin America that is currently fighting for its independence from the Empire. The birth of Mercosur, the Common Market of the South, took place on March 26, 1991. Since its creation including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, Venezuela also joined on 17 June 2006. Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru currently have associate member status.

Panama and Mexico have also announced their intention to join Mercosur.

On the other hand, Venezuela has also initiated ALBA (a symbolic acronym since alba means dawn), Venezueal’s answer to imperialist free trade agreements (“Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas’ or “Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América’), which, to begin with, comprised Venezuela and Cuba. Later, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua have joined the alliance. Some islands in the Caribbean are also members. Honduras became a member in August 2008, but, interestingly enough, after the coup in June 2009 to overthrow President Manuel Zelaya, its membership was withdrawn.

“On December 16, 2009, the Honduran congress met to withdraw the country from theALBA, claiming a “lack of respect” from Venezuela since the country’s joining in 2008, citing in particular Hugo Chavez’ remarks about a potential invasion of Honduras to restore Manuel Zelaya to office, after he was removed on 28 June 2009 in the2009 Honduran coup d’état. Withdrawal from ALBA was ratified by the Honduran Congresson January 13, 2010. Economic relations with Venezuela continue, including viaPetrocaribe.

Mercosur and ALBA are the Latin American answer to NAFTA, CAFTA and FTAA, the U.S.- sponsored so-called free trade agreements, which are for anything but free trade, constantly raising trade barriers against foreign nations for the profit of the United States.

Conclusion

The United States, the lone superpower is no more. The sooner the leaders realize this, the softer will be the fall when the giant finally breaks down. Barack Obama gave Europeans and many others some kind of hope for a change of path by the callous behemoth. But no such thing has happened and no such thing will happen. Only the downfall of the Empire can now save the world. Unless it is already too late.

Are we seeing the emergence of another kind of New World Order, one of less arrogance, one of multi-lateral cooperation? The world is crying out for a new order where life-and-death issues will be handled by all the world’s nations and not trampled on by one greedy colossus that imagines it is the monarch of the planet.

••••

[1] “Friedman‘s political philosophy, which he considered classically liberal and libertarian, emphasized the advantages of free market economics and the disadvantages of government intervention and regulation, strongly influencing the opinions of American conservatives and libertarians.” His influential bookCapitalism and Freedom was published in 1962.

[2] La Riva/Puryear: Abolish NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WTO, IMF, World Bank. Also see NAFTA/FTAA/CAFTApage

[3]Asia’s financial crisis – There is no basis for the claim that the Asian financial crisis was due to a lack of sound economic fundamentals. The currencies of the affected countries were forcibly devalued and their financial systems were brought to ruin by the activities of speculators. The crisis has, however, revealed one glaring weakness: the absence of a lender of last resort for the region. (by Chandra Hardy)

More about the Asian financial crisis at Third World Network

[4] The name “is now just a loose label for a movement that seems to ta rget the west”, says Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist who has long studied terrorism networks. “There is no umbrella organisation. We like to create a mythical entity called [al-Qaeda] in our minds but that is not the reality we are dealing with.” (The Financial Times)

[5] “From the inception of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967 to 1991 economic cooperation among its members was virtually non-existent. However, in January 1992 the leaders of the member states agreed to work towards an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA). Following an uncertain initial phase the leaders rededicated themselves in 1995 to an accelerated implementation of the AFTA agreement.”

[6] More about this geo-political and economic organization at Wikipedia

[7] More information about ASEAN and AFTA at What Is Integration

Siv O’Neall was born and raised in Sweden where she graduated from Lund University. She has lived in Paris, France and New Rochelle, N.Y. and traveled extensively throughout Europe, the U.S. and other continents, mainly several trips to India. Siv retired after many years of teaching French in Westchester, N.Y. and English in the Grandes Ecoles (Institutes of Technology) in France. In addition to her own writing, Siv has also provided Axis of Logic with translation services. She has been living in France, first Paris, then Lyon, for 30 years. In addition to her political activism and writing, her life is filled with family, music, animals, reading, traveling and she also feels that ‘A thing of beauty is a joy for ever’.

 

CROSSPOSTED WITH ORIGINAL SOURCE, AXIS OF LOGIC AT http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_58901.shtml

Cindy Sheehan: My request to interview President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela was finally granted March 2 while we were down in Montevideo, Uruguay with President Chavez for the inauguration of the new left-ish President and freedom fighter, Jose Mujica.

Bylined to: Cindy Sheehan  [print_link]  Published: Sunday, March 07, 2010

THE REASONS I WENT DOWN TO VENEZUELA with my team of two cameramen were two-fold:

First of all, I just got tired of all the misinformation that is spread in the US about President Chavez and the people’s Bolivarian Revolution. In only one example, the National Endowment for Democracy (another Orwellian named agency that receives federal money to supplant democracy) spends millions of dollars every year in Venezuela trying to destabilize Chavez’s democratically elected government.

The other reason we went to Venezuela was to be inspired and energized by the revolution and try to inspire and energize others in the states to rise up against the oppressive ruling class here and take power back into our own hands.

Empowerment of the poorest or least educated citizens of Venezuela is the goal of the Bolivarian Revolution. President Chavez said in the interview that “Power has five principles” and the first one is Education and he calls Venezuela a “big school.” Indeed since the revolution began 11 years ago, Venezuela’s literacy rate has risen significantly to where now 99% of the population is now literate. In that sense alone, Venezuela has already been totally transformed, to the chagrin of conservatives.

People Power is another principle of power and we witnessed this in a very dramatic fashion in the barrio of San Agustin in Caracas. San Agustin is a shantytown built on the sides of some very steep and tall hills — the only way the citizens could get to and from their homes was to climb up and down some very steep and treacherous stairs. Well, two years ago, the neighborhood formed a committee and proposed that the government build a tram through the hills and on January 20, the dreams of the citizens of San Agustin became a reality and the Metro Cable was christened. Not only did the residents get a new tram, but many of the shacks were torn down and new apartments were built. Residents had priority for low, or no, interest loans to buy the apartments.

Even though I am very afraid of heights, I rode the Metro Cable to the top of the hill and we were awarded with amazing views of Caracas and the distant mountains. All the red, gleaming tramcars are given names of places in Venezuela or revolutionary slogans. But our “treat” was still ahead of us when we made our way down the side of the hill by those steep and treacherous stairs. In combination with the stairs and the heat, by the time we were at the bottom, my legs were shaking like Jello and my heart was thumping. I could not even imagine walking up those stairs! Young children, pregnant women, pregnant women with young children, old people, etc, had to go up and down the stairs to get to an from their homes! With the installation of the tram, the lives of the people of San Agustin were improved immeasurably and it is all due to the education and sense of empowerment that comes from organizing and ultimate victory.

The Metro Cable serves about 12,000 people per day at a cost of ten cents per round trip ticket — and all of the employees come from the barrio.

After the trip up the hill and steep climb down, we met with the community organizers after a traditional Venezuelan lunch of beans, rice, fried plantains and a little bit of meat for the meat eaters. Note: the “traditional” Venezuelan lunch is identical to the traditional Venezuelan breakfast and is very yummy.

About 98% of the organizers were women who spoke very articulately and passionately about how their lives have improved since Chavez arose to power from the people’s revolution and how they would defend Chavez and the revolution with their very lives.

Knowledge is power and perhaps that’s why before the Revolution, only primary school was free and fees were charged for secondary education. Now in Venezuela, school is free all the way through doctoral studies. We see how the ruling class in our own country is gutting education and are tying to make it as difficult as possible to get a University education. A smart and thinking public is a dangerous public.

There is so much to write about our trip and about the Bolivarian Revolution that this will have to be a series of articles by necessity. We learned so much! Also, my complete interview with President Chavez will be available soon in audio and video and then a full-length documentary entitled: TODOS SOMOS AMERICANOS (We are all Americans) will hopefully be available and premiere by June 1.

There is a very touching scene at the end of my interview with President Chavez when President Evo Morales of Bolivia comes in the room. President Morales was also in Montevideo for Mujica’s inauguration.

I asked both the Presidents if they had any words of inspiration for the people of the US. They both emphasized the need for grassroots unity, but they especially wanted to stress their affection for the people of the US.

With President Morales standing by his side and nodding vigorously, President Chavez said: “We are NOT anti-American, we ARE anti-Imperialism.”

Yo tambien, mis hermanos.

CONTROVERSY

 

You complain about the measures taken against RCTV, the ultra-right TV station that actively prepared the coup in April 2002. I am not well acquainted with the laws concerning the mass media in Brazil, but I can say this. In my own country (which is generally regarded as having a long democratic tradition), if any TV station actively supported sedition, including advocating the assassination of the head of state, it would have its license immediately withdrawn and those responsible would find themselves in prison.

A HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL – and right-wing Brazilian bourgeois commentator wrote an article for O Estado de Sao Paulo attacking Chavez from the right, tracing his evolution from his early days to his latest turn to the left. In doing so the author names the editor of Marxist.com, Alan Woods as one of the main influences responsible for Chavez’s move to the Left. Here we publish the original article and a reply from Alan Woods.

On Thursday 4^th February an article was published in the leading bourgeois newspaper in Brazil O Estado de Sao Paulo. The writer is considered one of the 100 most influential people of Brazil, adviser to former presidents, international lecturer, etc. He is obviously a right winger who hates Chavez and is worried about the growing influence of Marxism in the Bolivarian Movement.

The article names the editor of Marxist.com, Alan Woods as one of the main influences responsible for Chavez’s move to the Left, and Alan has sent a reply to O Estado de Sao Paulo, which is a shortened version of the piece we publish below.

The Third Chavez

By Demétrio Magnoli

Karl Marx created the 1st International, Friedrich Engels participated in the founding of the 2nd, Lenin established the 3rd, Leon Trotsky founded the 4th and Hugo Chávez has just raised the banner of the 5th. “I take responsibility before the world, I think it is time to rally the 5th International and dare to make the call,” he said in a speech lasting five hours, at the opening session of the extraordinary congress of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) to the applause of 772 delegates in red shirts.

The congress was held in November. Then Chavez imposed energy rationing in the country, devalued the currency and introduced a dual exchange rate, nationalized a supermarket chain, suspended cable TV broadcasts and unleashed a bloody crackdown on student protests. The Chavista International will see the light of day at a world conference in Caracas in April, and the Venezuelan parliamentary elections are scheduled for September. But the future of the man who wants to succeed Marx, Lenin and Trotsky will be shaped by an event completely outside his influence: the Brazilian presidential election of October.

Chavez is living his third incarnation, which is also the last. The first Chavez emerged after the failed coup of 1992, in the guise of nationalist and anti-American warlord mesmerized by the image of an imaginary Simón Bolívar. Under the influence of Argentine sociologist Norberto Ceresole, that original Chavismo flirted with anti-Semitism and dreamed of the establishment of an authoritarian, fascist-style state, which would reunify Venezuela, Colombia and Ecuador in a restored Great Colombia.

A second Chávez could be discerned in outline in the spring of the first term in 1999, after the break with Ceresole, when the Leader drew close to Heinz Dieterich, a German Professor of Sociology in Mexico who came out of obscurity to formulate the concept of “socialism of the 21st century.” Chavismo reinvented itself and acquired left-wing collaborators, formed an alliance with Cuba and engaged in the project of building a state capitalism that was presented as a long transition towards a kind of socialism untainted by the Soviet legacy.

Brandishing a copy of The State and Revolution by Lenin, the Chavez of the extraordinary congress of the PSUV announced his conversion to the programme of the destruction of the “bourgeois state” and the building of a “revolutionary state.” This third Chavez was already implied in 2004, when the Leader got to know the British Trotskyist Alan Woods, and was fully manifest by the time of his defeat in the referendum of December 2007, shortly after the break with Dieterich. The PSUV is a result of Chavismo of the third period, as is also the proclamation of the 5th International.

The word palimpsest comes from the Greek words palin (again) and psao (to scratch or wipe out). A palimpsest is a manuscript rewritten on several times, the superposition of successive layers of text, in which the ancient layers do not disappear completely and maintain a complex relationship with the later writing. To the horror of the sophisticated Woods, Chavismo is a palimpsest of a doctrine that represents a bizarre mixture of the Bolivarian Patria Grande, a strategic alliance with Iran, the barbaric impulses of Leaderism and a difficult learning of the language of Marxism. The most recent text, however, takes precedence over the old and indicates the direction in which the “Bolivarian revolution” is moving. Chavez reacts to the crisis caused by his own regime, tightening the screws of the dictatorship and launching wildly on a campaign of expropriation.

Chavismo is a revolutionary regime, not a traditional populist government or a mere “Caudillo” phenomenon. The PSUV has, on paper, 7 million members, of which 2.5 million participated in the election of delegates to the extraordinary congress. The decline of Chavez, aggravated by the ongoing economic crisis, lends support to the predictions of his electoral defeat in September, but revolutionary regimes are not thrown out of power by votes. “I will not allow my leadership to be challenged, because I am the people, dammit!” the warlord of Caracas roared weeks ago. This man will not allow the people to contradict him at the polls. The inexorable decline of Chavismo will be bitter, dramatic, perhaps bloody. But its duration will depend essentially on the direction of the foreign policy of the new Brazilian government.

Several times Brazil spread a net under Chavez. Lula and Amorim protected the Venezuelan when he closed RCTV, when he was defeated in the constitutional referendum, during the Colombian hostage crisis, and the controversy over U.S. bases, and in the failed adventure of the return of Zelaya in Honduras. On behalf of the interests of Chavismo, the Brazilian president has wasted the opportunity of strategic cooperation with Barack Obama.

In the course of stabilization of the “Bolivarian revolution”, Brazil regionally isolated the Venezuelan opposition, helping to consolidate the regime of Chavez. Now begins another cycle: the dismantling of the political and social bases of Chavismo. In the new scenario, Brazil becomes essential: only the South American power has the means and influence to carry for at least a few kilometres the coffin of this irascible Leader.

The government majority in the Senate approved Venezuela’s entry into Mercosur, under the cynical argument that democracy in the neighbouring country would be better preserved by the virtual abolition of the democratic clauses of Mercosur. In meetings of the OAS, Brazilian diplomacy manoeuvres to avoid a clear condemnation of the Chavista offensive against the students and press freedom. In Caracas, a technical mission sent by the Brazilian government articulates a plan to rescue the Venezuelan electricity grid from collapse. The statement of support by Chavez for Lula’s re-election was greeted with scorn by the revolutionary Chávistas. Today, even Woods must be secretly praying for the triumph of Dilma Rousseff.

—

Reply of Alan Woods – For the attention of Demétrio Magnoli

Dear Sir,

In your article of 4^th February, you present an apocalyptic picture of President Chavez, who you say has experienced “three incarnations”. By this, you presumably mean that his views have evolved in recent years – to the left. That is a fact, but whether you see this change as good or bad will depend on your political standpoint and the interests you defend.

From the content of your article, I conclude that you stand on the right politically and are trying to defend the status quo, whereas as a Marxist I stand for socialist revolution. It is therefore quite natural that our attitudes towards Chávez will be radically opposed. Now there is nothing wrong in defending opposite points of view, but let us at least base ourselves on fact, not fiction.

You write: “original Chavismo flirted with anti-Semitism and dreamed of the establishment of an authoritarian, fascist-style state”. There is no basis whatever for making such assertions. One of his first actions Chávez took after winning the 1998 elections by a landslide was to hold a referendum on the Constitution, which remains the most democratic Constitution in the world. This is hardly the action of someone who wishes to establish a fascist-style state.

During the past decade Chávez has won more elections and other popular consultations than any other political leader in the world. Nor can it be argued that these elections and referenda were rigged. In no other country have elections been subjected to closer international scrutiny than in Venezuela. Yet nobody has been able to produce the slightest evidence that the elections were rigged.

What about the “democratic” opposition, for which you show such tender sympathy? In 2002 the Venezuelan oligarchy overthrew the democratically elected government in a coup, which was immediately recognized by Washington. Had the opposition succeeded, Venezuela would have ended up like Chile.

This is not the place to deal with the false notions of Heinz Dieterich, which you mention. I have dealt at length with that subject in my book Reformism or Revolution, which has recently been published in Brazil. It is sufficient to say that the basic mistake of Dieterich and other reformists is to assume that it is possible, to achieve socialism without expropriating the land, the banks and the major industries. This idea (which is shared by some people in Brazil) is a recipe for disaster.

You write that the “third Chavez was already implied in 2004, when the Leader got to know the British Trotskyist Alan Woods, and was fully manifest by the time of his defeat in the referendum of December 2007, shortly after the break with Dieterich. The PSUV is a result of Chavismo of the third period, as is also the proclamation of the 5th International.”

I am gratified with this statement, but in all honesty, I believe that you greatly overestimate my influence over the President, who has a mind of his own and is accustomed to making his own decisions. My own views on the revolutionary process can be summed up as follows: It is not possible to make half a revolution. Either the Revolution will take the economic power out of the hands of the landlords, bankers and capitalists, or it will fail. Either the Revolution will defeat the oligarchy, or the oligarchy will destroy the Revolution.

I have stated these views many times in Venezuela and they are well known to many people, including Hugo Chavez. But I have never presumed to tell anybody what to think. On the basis of experience, the working people of Venezuela can decide for themselves who is right and who is wrong, and they are doing so. The reformist wing, which represents the influence of the bourgeoisie within the Bolivarian Movement, is losing support, while the audience for revolutionary Marxist ideas is growing. You naturally see this as a bad thing, while I see it as extremely positive.

You contradict yourself when you write: “Chavismo is a revolutionary regime, not a traditional populist government or a mere ‘Caudillo’ phenomenon”. But three-quarters of your article is precisely intended to present Chavez as a mere Caudillo, an authoritarian, if not an outright fascist. You talk about Chavez “tightening the screws of the dictatorship and launching wildly on a campaign of expropriation”, about “destroying the bourgeois state” and so on. This is enough to make the hair of respectable Brazilian bourgeois stand on end. But I believe that many Brazilian workers and peasants will see things differently.

You complain about the measures taken against RCTV, the ultra-right TV station that actively prepared the coup in April 2002. I am not well acquainted with the laws concerning the mass media in Brazil, but I can say this. In my own country (which is generally regarded as having a long democratic tradition), if any TV station actively supported sedition, including advocating the assassination of the head of state, it would have its license immediately withdrawn and those responsible would find themselves in prison.

You eagerly anticipate “the inexorable decline of Chavismo”, which you claim, “will be bitter, dramatic, perhaps bloody”. Yes, for years all the reactionaries in North and South America have been hoping for this. But at every stage their hopes have been frustrated by the movement of the workers and peasants of Venezuela.

Can it be that this time the hopes of the imperialists will be justified? It is impossible to say. The Venezuelan Revolution, like all revolutions, is a struggle of living forces. It can be influenced by many factors, such as the present worldwide economic crisis, the exhaustion of the masses after over a decade of struggle, the immense pressure of imperialism, and last but not least, the mistakes of the leadership.

You say that the duration of Chavismo “will depend essentially on the direction of the foreign policy of the new Brazilian government”. What is the meaning of this cryptic and mysterious statement? You criticize the Lula government for not joining in the attacks against the Venezuelan Revolution. You say: “On behalf of the interests of Chavismo, the Brazilian president has wasted the opportunity of strategic cooperation with Barack Obama.” [my emphasis, AW]

The hatred of the imperialists for Hugo Chavez has nothing to do with his alleged “authoritarianism” (since when has Washington been afraid of authoritarian regimes?). It is because he has courageously stood up to them and denied the big transnational companies the right to continue their uncontrolled plunder of Venezuela’s oil. For generations US imperialism has exercised a brutal stranglehold over the mighty continent of Latin America, exploiting its people, draining its resources, interfering in its internal affairs, overthrowing democratically elected governments and installing dictatorships.

The Brazilian bourgeois are content to play the role of the local office-boys of imperialism, the local agents of the big American transnationals. They hate Hugo Chavez for the same reason as their masters in Washington. But when the workers and peasants of Brazil see what is happening in Venezuela, they will say: thank God somebody is prepared to stand up to these bloodsuckers! And they will add: when are we going to do something similar in Brazil?

Brazil, with its huge population and vast resources, is destined to play a key role in shaping the future of Latin America. The people of this great country must decide what kind of government they want and what kind of system they wish to live under. The massive vote for Lula showed that the Brazilian people want a fundamental change – just like the people of Venezuela.

I firmly believe that the future for Brazil, for Latin America and the whole world, can only be socialism – not the bureaucratic caricature of Stalinism, but a healthy and vibrant socialist democracy, when the land, the banks and the major industries are in the hands of the state, and the state is in the hands of the working people.

It is the great merit of the Bolivarian Revolution that it showed the people of Latin America that it is possible for the masses to bring about change through a great and powerful movement from below. The workers have shown that it is possible to take over the factories and run them under workers’ control.

It is the great merit of Hugo Chavez that he was prepared to tell the whole world that capitalism is a rotten and corrupt system that cannot serve the interests of humanity; that it cannot be reformed, but must be overthrown; and that the only alternative before humanity is socialism or barbarism. I understand, Senhor Magnoli, that this message is not at all to your liking. But that does not mean it is not true.

Finally, you say that “even Woods must be secretly praying for the triumph of Dilma Rousseff.” It is a very long time since I have prayed for anything, whether secretly or in public, but it goes without saying that I will support the candidate of the PT against the right wing bourgeois parties, just as it goes without saying that I will support the PSUV in Venezuela against the counterrevolutionary opposition.

But just as in Venezuela I will fight for the PSUV to carry out a genuinely socialist programme, so in Brazil I expect the candidate of the PT, elected by the votes of the workers and peasants, to carry out a policy in the interests of those who elected her, not those of US imperialism and the Brazilian capitalists. And there is nothing secret about that.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Woods, London, 8^th February, 2010