A Brief Overview of ALBA's Values, and 21st Century Sustainable Ideas
The dysfunctional, status-quo, market-oriented system has given Latin America nothing other than economic and social crisis for decades, focusing solely on foreign investment, and measuring national progress and living conditions by inaccurate growth rates. It is an unrealistic model of infinite growth, precisely at a time when we need to immediately and considerably check our consumption habits, and slow the exploitation of the planet. Evo Morales has said that "Mother Earth cannot be a piece of merchandise.... Under capitalism, we are not human beings, but consumers. Under capitalism, mother earth does not exist, instead there are raw materials."
As both an economic and a social alternative, ALBA will work to develop a completely different way of reshaping society, focusing instead on the development of human capital, namely through improved health and education. These social programs emanating from ALBA, known as missions, operate in many South American countries, even many which are not official members of ALBA. The Cuban 'Yo, Si Puedo' reading and writing campaign, for example, has wiped out illiteracy in Venezuela and Bolivia, Bolivia being the most recent announcing itself free of illiteracy in December 2008. 'Operacion Milagro', a program to provide free eye care procedures and restore eyesight has benefitted more than one million eight hundred thousand people in 35 countries across Latin America, Asia, and Africa. And, directly in the field of education, the formation of thousands of doctors, technical professionals, and engineers free of charge is strengthening the social and communal fabric of Latin America. The creation of Bolivarian universities in Venezuela to promote social embodiment, and the introduction of Indigenous universities in Bolivia are strong examples.
As a 21st century alternative, ALBA must encourage and support cooperative workplaces with democratic decision-making, and smaller-scale, local, and sustainable production and consumption. Financial and technical collaboration between nations will provide cohesion to existing state industries and newly-acquired ones, to strengthen industry in general, and to prevent the flight of foreign capital, and subsequent instability and unemployment.
ALBA, in contrast to other regional trade organizations, is putting forward cooperation in trade of goods and services for sustainable resources and food security, toward the goal of self-sufficiency for the continent. This begins with the development of local and national agriculture and industry to end foreign dependence. Most of Latin America, and especially South America, is an area where forests and rivers are plentiful, and where the land is extremely rich in natural resources, from a large variety of food crops, to natural gas, oil, and minerals. Despite this tremendous natural wealth, Latin America is heavily dependent on imports, namely food imports, a trend which must be urgently reversed; as Jose Marti has said, "a people that cannot produce its own food are slaves; they don't have the slightest freedom. If a society doesn't produce what it eats, it will always be dependent on someone else". Food sovereignty, by extension, will serve to protect traditional and indigenous culture, subsistence, and employment. In other words, if the peoples of Latin America wish to attain genuine and permanent independence, they must first and foremost break the economic chains of neo-liberalism. Capitalist globalization is attempting to turn Latin America into another cookie jar, and ALBA must be there as the necessary alternative to reclaim the continent's markets and resources, not in competition with the rest of the world, but in collaboration, to ensure that the economy serves as a tool for the prosperity of people, and not the other way around.
Ideologically, ALBA will help to build anti-imperialist solidarity in a tangible way, and not just in rhetoric. ALBA serves as an engine for the battle of ideas, as a means to disseminate the human values of love, truth, justice, equality, and community, to break with the invisible cage of selfishness and individualism, qualities which are inherent in the culture of capitalism.
One of the main components working in concert with ALBA will be the Banco Del Sur (or Bank of the South), which will serve as a necessary feature, for the time being, to counter the capital power of the traditional international finance and lending institutions. The Banco Del Sur will provide countries and people with an alternative to weaken the economic grip of, namely, the International Monetary Fund(IMF), The World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank(IADB), and to minimize the influence of the World Trade Organization, at least in Latin America and the Caribbean. Typically the IMF, and the World Bank, etc. will hand out loans packaged with conditions of economic structural adjustments, trade liberalization, and privatization, and often with extremely high interest rates. The Banco Del Sur on the other hand will charge very low interest rates, and will be geared toward social programs and development. The original founding members of the Bank are Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Ecuador. One of the main tenets along with the initial idea for the bank is that each member is assigned one vote, regardless of the size of its financial contribution. On Sunday Sept.27, 2009 the second Africa South America Summit (ASA) took place on Isla Margarita, and in addition to expanding South-South solidarity across the Atlantic, the original seven Banco Del Sur countries concluded the formalized creation of the bank, with a start-up capital of $ 20 billion. Hugo Chavez even floated the idea of adding African countries as members in the future to expand the bank under the new name of BancASA. Chavez also announced intentions to create PETROSUR oil company, an intercontinental oil giant to serve the peoples of Africa and South America.
Simply put, we proclaim ALBA for liberty, because self-sufficiency is self-determination.
The current brutal military coup in Honduras, which continues its attempts to cut down the peaceful resistance on a daily basis, has attacked not only Hondurans, but the Bolivarian movement as a whole. This aggression has reaffirmed with absolute certainty that the reactionary forces of the hemisphere will not tolerate social advancement, and will not go quietly, or peacefully. The relevance of ALBA suddenly becomes even more imperative, and undeniable.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
100 Days of Honduran Resistance - A Canadian Solidarity Perspective
Oct/7/2009
On Saturday Sept.26, 2009 the Latin American Solidarity Network Toronto (LASN) held a day long teach-in, with panels on Honduras, the Venezuela-Colombia dynamic, and North American foreign policy in Latin America. Despite a modest turnout, the gathering was hugely successful with very enthusiastic interaction, and valuable dialogue, as inspiration was generated, connections were cultivated, and strong commitments reaffirmed. It really had the feeling of being a momentous, and very significant meeting, as many people pointed out during the discussion. Everyone dispersed afterwards having taken away something positive. It was a great exercise of solidarity building.
It was an important event for LASN which had just recently sent a three man delegation to Honduras to help with the resistance efforts, which have been sustained now for more than 90 days without pause, in response to the military coup of June 28th, 2009. The report back from the three companeros who had the opportunity to work firsthand with the resistance movement provided valuable insight to Toronto activists in helping to understand the important dynamic of what is taking shape in Honduras as we speak.
Honduras After 100 Days
One of the most consequential elements of the standoff at this time is that the balance of forces has been clearly established. After three months of confrontation a few things have occurred. The coup regime has shown persistence, and is unyielding despite significant international political pressure. The resistance movement has demonstrated even greater resolve, and even in the face of severe repression, the people have committed themselves to a decisive struggle. All Latin American governments have strongly condemned the coup-makers and have demanded the return of President Zelaya, the majority of them unconditionally so. The international solidarity community has completely and whole-heartedly supported the resistance, and will continue to do so until a conclusion is reached.
The military regime, not surprisingly, has come down hard on the resistance with the violent dispersal of daily mobilizations; water cannons, tear gas, beatings, live rounds have been common place, even reports of chemical weapons being used against the Brazilian Embassy where president Zelaya has taken refuge. Killings, injuries, arbitrary detentions, and disappearances have been daily occurrences. Not to mention the media has been silenced, internet access has been restricted, and curfews have been imposed since day 1. These numerous, blatant human rights violations have been documented and condemned by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, European countries, and even the Organization of American States (OAS), which is not always sympathetic to leftist causes to say the least. The U.S. government however, while mildly disapproving of the coup and quietly asking for the return of President Zelaya, has done so only behind the guise of the San Jose Accord, an agreement pushed and written by the U.S, with Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Costa Rican President Oscar Arias as the token conciliatory figure. The traitorous, watered-down San Jose accord is not even a mediated dialogue, but rather a one sided power-sharing deal which extends a gold-plated olive branch to the Micheletti regime, and sets a terrible precedent in Latin America by rewarding military coups instead of punishing them. Beyond labeling the situation in Honduras as a coup, and not even as a military coup, the U.S has done nothing concrete to reverse the coup, and has said nothing about the rampant human rights violations which have been condemned by so many other organizations worldwide.
All these factors lead us to an apparent stalemate.
However! Drawing from momentum, from international opinion, from the reports of those who have witnessed Honduras in transition from up close, and from the unshakable determination of the resistance, it would seem that the political initiative now lies in the hands of the Honduran people.
Most likely, if the coup had not taken place on June 28th, the people of Honduras would probably have been satisfied with President Zelaya's progressive reforms, and with the hope that the promise of the referendum on a constituent assembly, as proposed by Zelaya, would bring greater change in the near future. Roberto Micheletti, the de facto military president, has said that what is taking place in Honduras is not a coup, but a "constitutional succession". Perhaps it was not a good idea for the far-right to overreact. They are obviously uneasy, and very nervous about the Bolivarian process, but perhaps they would have been better off with a few liberal reforms, rather than with an entire people, infuriated, and ready and willing to take matters into their own hands.
Capitalist motivated military reactions to social progress have a tendency to take things too far, to take things beyond the point where people will just let things slide, or forget about it, either out of fear, or simply because time elapses. By doing this, they are instead fueling the fire they wish to extinguish. To a degree, western democracy now has become synonymous with injustice, and repression. In Latin America, many of these so-called democracies have introduced laws against "terrorism". In El Salavador, the fascist ARENA party has used this law to suppress social movements fighting against the privatization of water. In Chile, allegedly Latin America's most exemplary democracy, the government of Michelle Bachelet has used an "anti-terrorist" law against the indigenous Mapuche people in their struggle. In Colombia, a similar law is used regularly to ruthlessly expel indigenous communities and campesinos from their traditional lands, to make room for monoculture crops. And, most recently the APRA party government of Alan Garcia in Peru has also made use of a law against "terrorism", in June, 2009, to put down indigenous protests against the granting of exploration and exploitation contracts in the Amazon. These perverse reversals of justice, often coinciding with legislation required by free trade agreements, are all carried out to honor neoliberal commitments.
Naomi Klein has written about cultural warfare, or genocide saying that it is “part of a system....with clear intent not of attacking individual persons but of destroying the parts of society that those people represented” or a “clear and deliberate region-wide strategy…to uproot and erase the left,” a declaration of war against an entire culture. The same historical pattern seems to be repeating itself in Honduras today; curfews, arbitrary detentions, shootings, killings, disappearances, restrictions on all freedoms, including media and the right to organize. Pinochet's Chile, or any other of a number of military dictatorships that have terrorized Latin America in the last 60 years, have far more similarities than differences to the current regime in Honduras. What these historical precedents have in common with Honduras' current regime, is the criminalization of protest.
What they are attempting to carry out is an attack against a social vision, against an alternative culture, they are telling people that they are not allowed to fight for social justice, that they are not allowed to stand against capitalist and neoliberal domination. When mass violence and human rights violations are required to maintain a government, or a system, whether that system be religious, economic, or political, any such attempts to derail social movements amounts to cultural warfare. There comes a point when it is no longer just a struggle for certain elements of social justice, but literally a fight for your very existence, a fight to preserve and save a way of life, and the people of Honduras, it seems, whether it be within the context of humanity's fight, or within the context of ALBA, have realized this to the fullest extent.
Che Guevara has aid that "there is nothing better to give solidarity to a people than a U.S backed invasion," and the same can be said about a U.S backed military coup. The failed 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela proved exactly that. The June 28th coup, it seems, has really brought the various social forces of Honduras together in unity. The resistance at this time is rallying behind the slogan of the reinstatement of President Zelaya, but what is most significant is that they have decided for themselves, that a true emancipatory process has begun. The resistance has already declared some districts liberated. To borrow from the brilliant vice-president of Bolivia, Alvaro Linera Garcia, perhaps Honduras is preparing to go through its own "point of bifurcation"; when a decision is made by a people to physically take the revolutionary process to the next level, in one concrete, discernible, and definable action. The people of Honduras at this point, have to either take that route, or understand that they will be forced to tolerate further injustice if they do not make the commitment.
The conclusion is that the Honduran people, and by extension the peoples of Latin America and the world, are reaching a decisive moment in their history, a crossroads in the struggle. Another possibility if the conflict does not head acutely in one direction or the other, would be a behind the scenes U.S. brokered power-sharing deal which will simply squander the efforts of the resistance to the capitalist abyss of stagnancy and regression, and will force the Honduran people to head down the road of unjust neo-democracy. So Honduras cannot rely on the rhetoric and promises of the international political community, and they also cannot rely on the simple reinstatement of president Zelaya. It doesn’t really matter if Zelaya is reinstated, because the struggle is not about a presidential face, it is not about symbolically removing or reinstating a token figurehead. Overthrowing the coup at this point must mean eliminating the School of the Americas influence in the country, permanently, and dismantling the corrupt, right-wing elements of the military. There will be no change unless their capacity for repression is removed.
The resistance’s organizational structure for its regional and national assemblies is very highly developed and efficient, a well-oiled union and dialogue of diverse social movements in solidarity, comparable in some ways to the process which took place in Oaxaca, Mexico, from June to November of 2006, with the A.P.P.O (Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca), a model which has been considered one of the highest forms of organized resistance. For Honduras, perhaps the answer to managing their country and their communities after the dust settles, is simply a slight variation of their instinctive response to the coup’s repression, the rebellious popular power in motion they have created as their means of struggle. Fidel Castro has said that “ history has demonstrated that great solutions have only emerged from great crises.” For resistance movements all over the world during transitory or emancipatory processes, it can be said that the question is not simply about taking power, but about knowing what to do with that power. The people of Honduras with their high level of organization, and with their political maturity throughout this confrontation, have clearly proven that they are in fact ready and willing to take on the responsibility of creating a permanent and meaningful solution.
Solidarity with the Honduran People!
On Saturday Sept.26, 2009 the Latin American Solidarity Network Toronto (LASN) held a day long teach-in, with panels on Honduras, the Venezuela-Colombia dynamic, and North American foreign policy in Latin America. Despite a modest turnout, the gathering was hugely successful with very enthusiastic interaction, and valuable dialogue, as inspiration was generated, connections were cultivated, and strong commitments reaffirmed. It really had the feeling of being a momentous, and very significant meeting, as many people pointed out during the discussion. Everyone dispersed afterwards having taken away something positive. It was a great exercise of solidarity building.
It was an important event for LASN which had just recently sent a three man delegation to Honduras to help with the resistance efforts, which have been sustained now for more than 90 days without pause, in response to the military coup of June 28th, 2009. The report back from the three companeros who had the opportunity to work firsthand with the resistance movement provided valuable insight to Toronto activists in helping to understand the important dynamic of what is taking shape in Honduras as we speak.
Honduras After 100 Days
One of the most consequential elements of the standoff at this time is that the balance of forces has been clearly established. After three months of confrontation a few things have occurred. The coup regime has shown persistence, and is unyielding despite significant international political pressure. The resistance movement has demonstrated even greater resolve, and even in the face of severe repression, the people have committed themselves to a decisive struggle. All Latin American governments have strongly condemned the coup-makers and have demanded the return of President Zelaya, the majority of them unconditionally so. The international solidarity community has completely and whole-heartedly supported the resistance, and will continue to do so until a conclusion is reached.
The military regime, not surprisingly, has come down hard on the resistance with the violent dispersal of daily mobilizations; water cannons, tear gas, beatings, live rounds have been common place, even reports of chemical weapons being used against the Brazilian Embassy where president Zelaya has taken refuge. Killings, injuries, arbitrary detentions, and disappearances have been daily occurrences. Not to mention the media has been silenced, internet access has been restricted, and curfews have been imposed since day 1. These numerous, blatant human rights violations have been documented and condemned by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, European countries, and even the Organization of American States (OAS), which is not always sympathetic to leftist causes to say the least. The U.S. government however, while mildly disapproving of the coup and quietly asking for the return of President Zelaya, has done so only behind the guise of the San Jose Accord, an agreement pushed and written by the U.S, with Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Costa Rican President Oscar Arias as the token conciliatory figure. The traitorous, watered-down San Jose accord is not even a mediated dialogue, but rather a one sided power-sharing deal which extends a gold-plated olive branch to the Micheletti regime, and sets a terrible precedent in Latin America by rewarding military coups instead of punishing them. Beyond labeling the situation in Honduras as a coup, and not even as a military coup, the U.S has done nothing concrete to reverse the coup, and has said nothing about the rampant human rights violations which have been condemned by so many other organizations worldwide.
All these factors lead us to an apparent stalemate.
However! Drawing from momentum, from international opinion, from the reports of those who have witnessed Honduras in transition from up close, and from the unshakable determination of the resistance, it would seem that the political initiative now lies in the hands of the Honduran people.
Most likely, if the coup had not taken place on June 28th, the people of Honduras would probably have been satisfied with President Zelaya's progressive reforms, and with the hope that the promise of the referendum on a constituent assembly, as proposed by Zelaya, would bring greater change in the near future. Roberto Micheletti, the de facto military president, has said that what is taking place in Honduras is not a coup, but a "constitutional succession". Perhaps it was not a good idea for the far-right to overreact. They are obviously uneasy, and very nervous about the Bolivarian process, but perhaps they would have been better off with a few liberal reforms, rather than with an entire people, infuriated, and ready and willing to take matters into their own hands.
Capitalist motivated military reactions to social progress have a tendency to take things too far, to take things beyond the point where people will just let things slide, or forget about it, either out of fear, or simply because time elapses. By doing this, they are instead fueling the fire they wish to extinguish. To a degree, western democracy now has become synonymous with injustice, and repression. In Latin America, many of these so-called democracies have introduced laws against "terrorism". In El Salavador, the fascist ARENA party has used this law to suppress social movements fighting against the privatization of water. In Chile, allegedly Latin America's most exemplary democracy, the government of Michelle Bachelet has used an "anti-terrorist" law against the indigenous Mapuche people in their struggle. In Colombia, a similar law is used regularly to ruthlessly expel indigenous communities and campesinos from their traditional lands, to make room for monoculture crops. And, most recently the APRA party government of Alan Garcia in Peru has also made use of a law against "terrorism", in June, 2009, to put down indigenous protests against the granting of exploration and exploitation contracts in the Amazon. These perverse reversals of justice, often coinciding with legislation required by free trade agreements, are all carried out to honor neoliberal commitments.
Naomi Klein has written about cultural warfare, or genocide saying that it is “part of a system....with clear intent not of attacking individual persons but of destroying the parts of society that those people represented” or a “clear and deliberate region-wide strategy…to uproot and erase the left,” a declaration of war against an entire culture. The same historical pattern seems to be repeating itself in Honduras today; curfews, arbitrary detentions, shootings, killings, disappearances, restrictions on all freedoms, including media and the right to organize. Pinochet's Chile, or any other of a number of military dictatorships that have terrorized Latin America in the last 60 years, have far more similarities than differences to the current regime in Honduras. What these historical precedents have in common with Honduras' current regime, is the criminalization of protest.
What they are attempting to carry out is an attack against a social vision, against an alternative culture, they are telling people that they are not allowed to fight for social justice, that they are not allowed to stand against capitalist and neoliberal domination. When mass violence and human rights violations are required to maintain a government, or a system, whether that system be religious, economic, or political, any such attempts to derail social movements amounts to cultural warfare. There comes a point when it is no longer just a struggle for certain elements of social justice, but literally a fight for your very existence, a fight to preserve and save a way of life, and the people of Honduras, it seems, whether it be within the context of humanity's fight, or within the context of ALBA, have realized this to the fullest extent.
Che Guevara has aid that "there is nothing better to give solidarity to a people than a U.S backed invasion," and the same can be said about a U.S backed military coup. The failed 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela proved exactly that. The June 28th coup, it seems, has really brought the various social forces of Honduras together in unity. The resistance at this time is rallying behind the slogan of the reinstatement of President Zelaya, but what is most significant is that they have decided for themselves, that a true emancipatory process has begun. The resistance has already declared some districts liberated. To borrow from the brilliant vice-president of Bolivia, Alvaro Linera Garcia, perhaps Honduras is preparing to go through its own "point of bifurcation"; when a decision is made by a people to physically take the revolutionary process to the next level, in one concrete, discernible, and definable action. The people of Honduras at this point, have to either take that route, or understand that they will be forced to tolerate further injustice if they do not make the commitment.
The conclusion is that the Honduran people, and by extension the peoples of Latin America and the world, are reaching a decisive moment in their history, a crossroads in the struggle. Another possibility if the conflict does not head acutely in one direction or the other, would be a behind the scenes U.S. brokered power-sharing deal which will simply squander the efforts of the resistance to the capitalist abyss of stagnancy and regression, and will force the Honduran people to head down the road of unjust neo-democracy. So Honduras cannot rely on the rhetoric and promises of the international political community, and they also cannot rely on the simple reinstatement of president Zelaya. It doesn’t really matter if Zelaya is reinstated, because the struggle is not about a presidential face, it is not about symbolically removing or reinstating a token figurehead. Overthrowing the coup at this point must mean eliminating the School of the Americas influence in the country, permanently, and dismantling the corrupt, right-wing elements of the military. There will be no change unless their capacity for repression is removed.
The resistance’s organizational structure for its regional and national assemblies is very highly developed and efficient, a well-oiled union and dialogue of diverse social movements in solidarity, comparable in some ways to the process which took place in Oaxaca, Mexico, from June to November of 2006, with the A.P.P.O (Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca), a model which has been considered one of the highest forms of organized resistance. For Honduras, perhaps the answer to managing their country and their communities after the dust settles, is simply a slight variation of their instinctive response to the coup’s repression, the rebellious popular power in motion they have created as their means of struggle. Fidel Castro has said that “ history has demonstrated that great solutions have only emerged from great crises.” For resistance movements all over the world during transitory or emancipatory processes, it can be said that the question is not simply about taking power, but about knowing what to do with that power. The people of Honduras with their high level of organization, and with their political maturity throughout this confrontation, have clearly proven that they are in fact ready and willing to take on the responsibility of creating a permanent and meaningful solution.
Solidarity with the Honduran People!
Monday, August 3, 2009
Continued Media Misinformation on Honduras
A July 30th article in The New York Times by Ginger Thompson entitled "De Facto Leader is Said to Back Deal in Honduras" claimed that de facto president Roberto Micheletti is reaching out to Costa Rican president Oscar Arias in an attempt to bring an end to the month old crisis in Honduras. The New York Times reports that Micheletti has expressed support for the 12 point "San Jose Accord" outlined by Arias, which would allow President Zelaya to return to his country with limited powers.
According to the article, "The officials said Mr. Micheletti warned President Arias that he had not been able to persuade other parts of the Honduran government, or the leaders of the Honduran business community, to go along with the proposal. So he asked Mr. Arias to consider sending a prominent international political figure to help him stem the fierce opposition." This means simply that the dynamic of the situation between the military government and the international community will remain unchanged, only the tone of the crisis is being adjusted, and the media interpretation and presentation of information regarding the conflict is being altered; the media story is being remodelled or rearranged.
In other words, the coup government continues to receive only a mild slap on the wrist, and the situation remains the same, as the near legitimacy of the military coup government endures with the inaction and neutrality of the international community. What is meant by neutrality is that most influential countries have condemned the coup in rhetoric only, and have done nothing to actually pressure or dislodge the illegal coup government. The U.S. for example has "condemned" the coup and acknowledged that Manuel Zelaya is the democratically elected President of Honduras, yet at the same time have said that the coup was not legal, but that it also wasn't illegal. This means the U.S. State Department has refused to officially label the incident as a 'coup d'etat', which would by law force the U.S. to suspend all financial support to the country, be it military or economic "aid". The U.S. has cut $ 16.5 million in military funding, but continues to flow $ 180 million of economic "aid". Experts have argued that cutting economic aid would hurt the population of Honduras directly, which is not entirely true. The complete suspension of economic support to the country could hurt a certain number of Hondurans, but only in the
long-term, and under the current far-right illegal government, the people of Honduras would never benefit from that money anyway. U.S. economic "aid" doesn't help in pulling ordinary citizens out of poverty, it serves only to assist private interests and foreign investment.
To further that point, it is noteworthy that the article also twice mentions business in the same breadth as political figures; "the Honduran business community" and the powerful "business leaders in Honduras". To be sure the military coup plotters have no interests other than the interests of the Honduran elites and of multinational corporations, and will attempt, as U.S. and international economic "aid" would have it, to re-establish and maintain an acceptable economic order. In fact the article goes on to mention that "one of those whom officials mentioned as a possibility" for a prominent international political figure to help solve the stalemate inside Honduras, "was Enrique V. Iglesias, a former president of the Inter-American Development Bank." The Inter-American Development Bank is the Latin American equivalent of the IMF or the World Bank, a facilitator of foreign interests, and is widely reported to have played a prominent role in the overthrow of democratically elected President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide in a 2004 coup d'etat in Haiti.
The article also mentions the legal position taken by the military government; "Honduran lawmakers and the supreme court have said that it was a mistake for the military to have forced Mr. Zelaya into exile, but that the accusations against him are valid. And they argue that the only way he should be allowed back is to face trial." This is a very weak, unimaginative attempt to try and paint a convincing legal argument against Zelaya's return. Lets take a closer look at the realities of the situation vs. the media distortions being presented daily, and the flawed legal logic of the coup government. The following are extracts from an article on the NACLA website (nacla.org/news), written on Monday August 3rd by Michael Fox entitled 'Honduras and Washington: A Few Contradictions':
"Along with many U.S. papers, the Post (The Washington Post) has painted Zelaya as a Hugo Chávez-backed caudillo, attempting to overtake the powers of the Honduran government. The Post quickly echoed the talking points of the coup plotters that Zelaya was ripped from office because he was attempting an unconstitutional referendum to extend his term in office. In fact, the Honduran President was actually planning a non-binding referendum that according to the Spanish news agency, EFE , asked the Honduran people if 'during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?'"
Now the legal side.
"According to a legal memorandum prepared by Micheletti supporters on June 29 and available on the website of the conservative Virginia-based think tank, Americans for Limited Government, the Honduran Supreme Court had found the referendum 'illegal', because the Honduran Constitution explicitly states that certain Constitutional articles cannot be reformed; such as those that 'refer to the type of government, the national territory, the presidential term and the prohibition of serving again as President of the Republic.' The Supreme Court thus inferred that since a Constituent Assembly may have attempted to reform these articles, it was unconstitutional. Therefore, they said, a referendum on the possibility of holding a Constituent Assembly was also unconstitutional."
The coup plotters in this declaration are explicitly saying that they assumed Mr. Zelaya may have attempted changes to the type of government, and to presidential term limits, and therefore they were justified in staging a military coup. This sounds eerily similar to the aggressive preemptive logic of the United-States.
The position of the Honduran coup government, and the media statements mentioned above, thus far have all been based on lies, false accusations, and assumptions. Since Zelaya's ouster over a month ago, the mainstream media namely The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Spain's El Pais have all juggled their lies and misinformation. Zelaya has been kicked out of Honduras either because of his close ties with Hugo Chavez, because he was operating with recklessness in planning an "unconstitutional" referendum for a constituent assembly which he had not yet carried out, and/or because he was planning to try and pass a constitutional amendment to extend his term in office. Now in early August, the military government in a public address has made allegations that Guerrillas are being trained in Nicaraguan encampments, with the support of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and the FARC(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.) It is amazing, ridiculous, almost amusing how the elites and the media have decided to just throw in the FARC, almost as an added bonus; why not include them as well? The web they are trying to spin is to link all the forces opposed to neo-liberalism in Latin America, as a sort of big, incredible, socialist alliance of guerrilla subversion. In the past week alone, the media has reported that Colombia has found arms that belonged to the FARC, arms that had undoubtedly been provided to them by Venezuela. They have resurfaced a story which made headlines in March of 2008 when Colombia had bombed a FARC camp inside Ecuador and allegedly retrieved laptops containing information that provided absolute proof that Venezuela had been providing funds and facilitating arms deals for the FARC. And now, they claim that Guerrillas are training inside Nicaragua with the support of President Daniel Ortega, of course Hugo Chavez, and the FARC. They see opportunities to link different stories together, and to inculpate several groups simultaneously through various networks of misinformation. This latest attack on Honduras is not just an attack against Honduras, it is an attack on a continental social movement that is growing, an attack on the will of Latin Americans everywhere.
The Times article goes on to quote an unnamed official; "'Today is an important day,' said one of the officials who spoke about Mr. Micheletti's call to Mr. Arias. 'President Arias essentially has Mr. Micheletti calling to say he thinks the San Jose Accord is a good framework." So all of a sudden Mr. Micheletti, the leading representative of the de facto, illegal, military coup government is a goodwill ambassador, a brilliant messiah with a solution to a nasty, unworkable conflict. The media is trying to twist the story and to portray Micheletti almost as a unifying figure, or at least as a promising, moderate element of the coup leadership. The situation is almost comparable to that of Israel and Palestine; allow the aggressors to commit the injustices, and then glorify them for making insignificant, arrogant, hypocritical concessions.
According to the article, "The officials said Mr. Micheletti warned President Arias that he had not been able to persuade other parts of the Honduran government, or the leaders of the Honduran business community, to go along with the proposal. So he asked Mr. Arias to consider sending a prominent international political figure to help him stem the fierce opposition." This means simply that the dynamic of the situation between the military government and the international community will remain unchanged, only the tone of the crisis is being adjusted, and the media interpretation and presentation of information regarding the conflict is being altered; the media story is being remodelled or rearranged.
In other words, the coup government continues to receive only a mild slap on the wrist, and the situation remains the same, as the near legitimacy of the military coup government endures with the inaction and neutrality of the international community. What is meant by neutrality is that most influential countries have condemned the coup in rhetoric only, and have done nothing to actually pressure or dislodge the illegal coup government. The U.S. for example has "condemned" the coup and acknowledged that Manuel Zelaya is the democratically elected President of Honduras, yet at the same time have said that the coup was not legal, but that it also wasn't illegal. This means the U.S. State Department has refused to officially label the incident as a 'coup d'etat', which would by law force the U.S. to suspend all financial support to the country, be it military or economic "aid". The U.S. has cut $ 16.5 million in military funding, but continues to flow $ 180 million of economic "aid". Experts have argued that cutting economic aid would hurt the population of Honduras directly, which is not entirely true. The complete suspension of economic support to the country could hurt a certain number of Hondurans, but only in the
long-term, and under the current far-right illegal government, the people of Honduras would never benefit from that money anyway. U.S. economic "aid" doesn't help in pulling ordinary citizens out of poverty, it serves only to assist private interests and foreign investment.
To further that point, it is noteworthy that the article also twice mentions business in the same breadth as political figures; "the Honduran business community" and the powerful "business leaders in Honduras". To be sure the military coup plotters have no interests other than the interests of the Honduran elites and of multinational corporations, and will attempt, as U.S. and international economic "aid" would have it, to re-establish and maintain an acceptable economic order. In fact the article goes on to mention that "one of those whom officials mentioned as a possibility" for a prominent international political figure to help solve the stalemate inside Honduras, "was Enrique V. Iglesias, a former president of the Inter-American Development Bank." The Inter-American Development Bank is the Latin American equivalent of the IMF or the World Bank, a facilitator of foreign interests, and is widely reported to have played a prominent role in the overthrow of democratically elected President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide in a 2004 coup d'etat in Haiti.
The article also mentions the legal position taken by the military government; "Honduran lawmakers and the supreme court have said that it was a mistake for the military to have forced Mr. Zelaya into exile, but that the accusations against him are valid. And they argue that the only way he should be allowed back is to face trial." This is a very weak, unimaginative attempt to try and paint a convincing legal argument against Zelaya's return. Lets take a closer look at the realities of the situation vs. the media distortions being presented daily, and the flawed legal logic of the coup government. The following are extracts from an article on the NACLA website (nacla.org/news), written on Monday August 3rd by Michael Fox entitled 'Honduras and Washington: A Few Contradictions':
"Along with many U.S. papers, the Post (The Washington Post) has painted Zelaya as a Hugo Chávez-backed caudillo, attempting to overtake the powers of the Honduran government. The Post quickly echoed the talking points of the coup plotters that Zelaya was ripped from office because he was attempting an unconstitutional referendum to extend his term in office. In fact, the Honduran President was actually planning a non-binding referendum that according to the Spanish news agency, EFE , asked the Honduran people if 'during the general elections of November 2009 there should be a fourth ballot to decide whether to hold a Constituent National Assembly that will approve a new political constitution?'"
Now the legal side.
"According to a legal memorandum prepared by Micheletti supporters on June 29 and available on the website of the conservative Virginia-based think tank, Americans for Limited Government, the Honduran Supreme Court had found the referendum 'illegal', because the Honduran Constitution explicitly states that certain Constitutional articles cannot be reformed; such as those that 'refer to the type of government, the national territory, the presidential term and the prohibition of serving again as President of the Republic.' The Supreme Court thus inferred that since a Constituent Assembly may have attempted to reform these articles, it was unconstitutional. Therefore, they said, a referendum on the possibility of holding a Constituent Assembly was also unconstitutional."
The coup plotters in this declaration are explicitly saying that they assumed Mr. Zelaya may have attempted changes to the type of government, and to presidential term limits, and therefore they were justified in staging a military coup. This sounds eerily similar to the aggressive preemptive logic of the United-States.
The position of the Honduran coup government, and the media statements mentioned above, thus far have all been based on lies, false accusations, and assumptions. Since Zelaya's ouster over a month ago, the mainstream media namely The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Spain's El Pais have all juggled their lies and misinformation. Zelaya has been kicked out of Honduras either because of his close ties with Hugo Chavez, because he was operating with recklessness in planning an "unconstitutional" referendum for a constituent assembly which he had not yet carried out, and/or because he was planning to try and pass a constitutional amendment to extend his term in office. Now in early August, the military government in a public address has made allegations that Guerrillas are being trained in Nicaraguan encampments, with the support of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Hugo Chavez, and the FARC(Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.) It is amazing, ridiculous, almost amusing how the elites and the media have decided to just throw in the FARC, almost as an added bonus; why not include them as well? The web they are trying to spin is to link all the forces opposed to neo-liberalism in Latin America, as a sort of big, incredible, socialist alliance of guerrilla subversion. In the past week alone, the media has reported that Colombia has found arms that belonged to the FARC, arms that had undoubtedly been provided to them by Venezuela. They have resurfaced a story which made headlines in March of 2008 when Colombia had bombed a FARC camp inside Ecuador and allegedly retrieved laptops containing information that provided absolute proof that Venezuela had been providing funds and facilitating arms deals for the FARC. And now, they claim that Guerrillas are training inside Nicaragua with the support of President Daniel Ortega, of course Hugo Chavez, and the FARC. They see opportunities to link different stories together, and to inculpate several groups simultaneously through various networks of misinformation. This latest attack on Honduras is not just an attack against Honduras, it is an attack on a continental social movement that is growing, an attack on the will of Latin Americans everywhere.
The Times article goes on to quote an unnamed official; "'Today is an important day,' said one of the officials who spoke about Mr. Micheletti's call to Mr. Arias. 'President Arias essentially has Mr. Micheletti calling to say he thinks the San Jose Accord is a good framework." So all of a sudden Mr. Micheletti, the leading representative of the de facto, illegal, military coup government is a goodwill ambassador, a brilliant messiah with a solution to a nasty, unworkable conflict. The media is trying to twist the story and to portray Micheletti almost as a unifying figure, or at least as a promising, moderate element of the coup leadership. The situation is almost comparable to that of Israel and Palestine; allow the aggressors to commit the injustices, and then glorify them for making insignificant, arrogant, hypocritical concessions.
Monday, July 27, 2009
The National Post gets Zelaya/Honduran Crisis Wrong!
On June 28th, a military coup in Honduras sent democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya into exile in Costa Rica. An article in the National Post from Saturday, July 25, 2009 entitled 'Exiled Leader Briefly Steps into Honduras - Symbolic Foray' by Ivan Castro and Sean Mattson doesn't give the full story of the real reasons behind the coup.
Over the past weekend of July 24-25-26, the Honduran coup leaders and military generals of that country imposed an
18-hour curfew on the area bordering Nicaragua where President Zelaya was set to attempt a re-entry into Honduras on Saturday. On this occasion the Honduran army released a statement saying; "we can't be responsible for the security of people who, by inciting generalized violence in the country, may be subject to attacks even from their own supporters who may have the sole aim of turning them into martyrs." So according to the coup plotters, Manuela Zelaya in a matter of weeks has gone from democratic reformer to inciter of violence, and this despite the fact that Zelaya has said on several occasions that he wants peace and stability for Honduras. The second part of that statement, a preposterous suggestion that President Zelaya may be killed by his own supporters if he re-enters Honduras, amounts to nothing less than a not so subtle threat of assassination against him.
The article also quotes U.S. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley as saying, "we have said to President Zelaya on a number of occasions, that right now we think the focus should remain on the current negotiating and mediation effort of Oscar Arias, and that any return to Honduras would be premature." U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also made similar comments in the past few days, warning Zelaya that an attempt at returning to Honduras would be imprudent and reckless. The negotiating and mediation efforts mentioned, advocated by the U.S. through President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, is simply a strategy of appeasement requiring almost complete concessions from Manuel Zelaya, in an attempt to mollify the Honduran people and the international reaction and solidarity campaigns. The initial proposal ironed out by Oscar Arias included some very questionable and unfavorable conditions for the Honduran people. The agreement essentially amounted to a
power-sharing deal which would set a horrible precedent in Latin America, as far-right ruling elites and military generals would be emboldened with the knowledge that staging a military coup will get them a power-sharing deal at the very least.
In typical slandering predictability and unoriginality of reactionary media, the article also claims that "Mr. Zelaya was toppled and sent into exile in a June 28 coup after angering critics over his alliance with Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President." So as the media continues with its insistence that Hugo Chavez is exporting poisonous politics all over Latin America, this article makes no mention whatsoever that the real reason why President Zelaya was forced out of Honduras militarily is in fact because he had called for a national referendum on a constituent assembly.
Zelaya during his presidential campaign in 2005 and early 2006, ran on promises of economic empowerment for the citizenry, and of empowering the people socially, culturally, and politically, a formula together which he refers to as citizen power. His progressive policies in the past few years have included a sharp increase of minimum wage, free school lunches for children, and the lowering of the price of public transportation. He has also talked about citizen participation, which he claims is the reason why he had called for the referendum on a constituent assembly. This is a program which the rightist military and ruling elites of Honduras simply could not tolerate. Those are the real reasons behind the instability in Honduras.
"We have to reverse this coup, and I plan on doing it peacefully. With my presence in Honduras, the people will surround me and the soldiers will lower their rifles." - Manuel Zelaya.
Over the past weekend of July 24-25-26, the Honduran coup leaders and military generals of that country imposed an
18-hour curfew on the area bordering Nicaragua where President Zelaya was set to attempt a re-entry into Honduras on Saturday. On this occasion the Honduran army released a statement saying; "we can't be responsible for the security of people who, by inciting generalized violence in the country, may be subject to attacks even from their own supporters who may have the sole aim of turning them into martyrs." So according to the coup plotters, Manuela Zelaya in a matter of weeks has gone from democratic reformer to inciter of violence, and this despite the fact that Zelaya has said on several occasions that he wants peace and stability for Honduras. The second part of that statement, a preposterous suggestion that President Zelaya may be killed by his own supporters if he re-enters Honduras, amounts to nothing less than a not so subtle threat of assassination against him.
The article also quotes U.S. State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley as saying, "we have said to President Zelaya on a number of occasions, that right now we think the focus should remain on the current negotiating and mediation effort of Oscar Arias, and that any return to Honduras would be premature." U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also made similar comments in the past few days, warning Zelaya that an attempt at returning to Honduras would be imprudent and reckless. The negotiating and mediation efforts mentioned, advocated by the U.S. through President Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, is simply a strategy of appeasement requiring almost complete concessions from Manuel Zelaya, in an attempt to mollify the Honduran people and the international reaction and solidarity campaigns. The initial proposal ironed out by Oscar Arias included some very questionable and unfavorable conditions for the Honduran people. The agreement essentially amounted to a
power-sharing deal which would set a horrible precedent in Latin America, as far-right ruling elites and military generals would be emboldened with the knowledge that staging a military coup will get them a power-sharing deal at the very least.
In typical slandering predictability and unoriginality of reactionary media, the article also claims that "Mr. Zelaya was toppled and sent into exile in a June 28 coup after angering critics over his alliance with Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan President." So as the media continues with its insistence that Hugo Chavez is exporting poisonous politics all over Latin America, this article makes no mention whatsoever that the real reason why President Zelaya was forced out of Honduras militarily is in fact because he had called for a national referendum on a constituent assembly.
Zelaya during his presidential campaign in 2005 and early 2006, ran on promises of economic empowerment for the citizenry, and of empowering the people socially, culturally, and politically, a formula together which he refers to as citizen power. His progressive policies in the past few years have included a sharp increase of minimum wage, free school lunches for children, and the lowering of the price of public transportation. He has also talked about citizen participation, which he claims is the reason why he had called for the referendum on a constituent assembly. This is a program which the rightist military and ruling elites of Honduras simply could not tolerate. Those are the real reasons behind the instability in Honduras.
"We have to reverse this coup, and I plan on doing it peacefully. With my presence in Honduras, the people will surround me and the soldiers will lower their rifles." - Manuel Zelaya.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Media Accuracy on Venezuela Essay from 03/2007
An addition to go along with the Media Accuracy on Venezuela essay I posted a few days ago. This one was written in March of 2007. They were not meant to go together as part 1 and part 2 but are relevant to one another. Follow the Media Accuracy on Venezuela 03/2007 link.
The United-States of America Continue to Deteriorate
President Obama really begins to show his true colours in July. As his healthcare reform proposals become increasingly watered down, it seems obvious he is being bought out by the health insurance companies, either that or he is making like Paz Estenssoro and buckling under the pressure of the establishment.
So while Obama's cowardly, unprincipled politics of betrayal take their course, the same story of despair continues to repeat itself for the United-States; war spending, grossly insufficient healthcare, and rising unemployment.
Obama for all his talk of diplomacy and leadership by reaching out to the international community rather than aggressively making enemies, has actually increased war spending from the Bush era by 4%. At least 40 million Americans today are without health insurance, and 14,000 become uninsured daily. The unemployment rate is over 10% in 16 states, and over 15% in Michigan.
Just another reminder of why the United-States is such a great example of what capitalism really means.
So while Obama's cowardly, unprincipled politics of betrayal take their course, the same story of despair continues to repeat itself for the United-States; war spending, grossly insufficient healthcare, and rising unemployment.
Obama for all his talk of diplomacy and leadership by reaching out to the international community rather than aggressively making enemies, has actually increased war spending from the Bush era by 4%. At least 40 million Americans today are without health insurance, and 14,000 become uninsured daily. The unemployment rate is over 10% in 16 states, and over 15% in Michigan.
Just another reminder of why the United-States is such a great example of what capitalism really means.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Quote of the Week - July 20th
"If the international community allows this coup, authorizes this coup, it is also authorizing society to rise up and to choose the path of insurrection." - Manuel Zelaya.
Unquote of the week - July 20th
"I don't believe that government can or should run healthcare.... Any plan I sign must include and insurance exchange, a
one-stop shopping marketplace, where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans."
- U.S. President Barack Obama.
President Obama believes healthcare should be a one-stop shopping marketplace.
one-stop shopping marketplace, where you can compare the benefits, costs, and track records of a variety of plans."
- U.S. President Barack Obama.
President Obama believes healthcare should be a one-stop shopping marketplace.
Media Accuracy on Venezuela Essay
Hi Everyone! I finished writing this paper about two months ago but am just posting it now. Check out this essay by following the MediaAccuracyonVenezuela link on this page. Feedback and discussion are encouraged as always. Solidarity!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)