CIA, spies and videotapes

CIA, Spies and Videotapes – Cuba exposes US programme of subversion
by Helen Yaffe

First published in Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! No. 220, April/May 2011.

‘The majority of Cubans support Castro…There is no effective opposition…The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support [from the government] is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship… to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.’ Lester D Mallory, US government official, 6 April 1960.

‘Our objective is to accelerate the development of an opposition in Cuba’ Livingston Merchant, US government official, 14 January 1960.

‘[W]e see very little evidence that the mainline dissident organizations have much resonance among ordinary Cubans…Despite claims that they represent "thousands of Cubans”, we see little evidence of such support.’ Jonathan Farrar, Head of the US Interest Section in Havana, 15 April 2009.

During a state visit to Chile on 21 March 2011, US President Obama announced: ‘we’ll continue to seek ways to increase the independence of the Cuban people, who I believe are entitled to the same freedom and liberty as everyone else in this hemisphere.’ The ways sought by the US administration have been amply exposed since January 2011 through two court cases and by four Cuban agents. US policy has evolved, adapted and expanded, but the objective has remained unchanged since 1960 - the destruction of Cuba’s socialist revolution. Helen Yaffe reports.

While the US blockade has attempted ‘to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government’ (Lester D Mallory, US government official, 6 April 1960),[1] the programme of fostering internal dissent was kept secret from 1959 to 1990. However: ‘In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the financial and logistical support to Cuban dissidents became public and was integrated into US law’ (Salim Lamrani, Znet, 15 March 2011).

Programmes were run by the CIA until 1987 when Cuban authorities used evidence from 27 undercover agents to expose illegal activities and the use of diplomatic status as a cover for CIA operations. Subsequently, government-funded organisations have been used to promote internal opposition: the US Agency for International Development (USAID), National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and Freedom House. US imperialism’s ‘unwavering support for human rights, democracy, and the open market system’ (Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba website) is backed by serious money. US President Bush’s administration of 2001 to 2008 ‘invested’ $166 million in pursuing capitalist restoration. The Obama administration has allocated $60 million to this end from 2009 to 2011.

The innovation since 2008 has been the use of private contractors commissioned to carry out destabilisation programmes in Cuba. Projects and funds have been filtered through European NGOs which, under the guise of defending ‘human rights’ and promoting ‘democracy’, serve the imperialist war against socialist Cuba.

Recent European funding recipients include:[2]

• Polish Lech Walesa Institute - provides access to technological resources and training to Cuban counter-revolutionaries and shares experience of the collapse of the socialist bloc and the so-called ‘colour revolutions’.
• Serbian OTNOP – youth opposition movement set up with funds from NED in 1998, it also receives funds from USAID and promotes ‘peaceful marches’ among Cuban youth and artists.
• Czech People in Need and Slovakian People in Peril – provide technology and training, organise oppositional seminars and international support for the tiny Cuban opposition. People in Need received $200,000 from USAID in 2010.
• Slovakian Pontis Foundation – provides access to technology and communications apparatus, prepares ‘leaders’ for transition and gives money to the families of opposition prisoners. Pontis had received $108,000 from the IRI leading up to September 2008.
• Spanish Solidarity with Cuba – Sends telecoms equipment to the island for subversive activities, provides personnel and technical advice and cultivates counter-revolutionaries as bloggers, journalists and ‘independent’ trade unionists. Between September 2008 and December 2009 they received $615,000 from IRI.

Imperialist hypocrisy is astonishing! First, for 50 years the US has tried to economically suffocate Cuba through the illegal blockade, which has cost Cuba $236 billion. Then it invests millions of dollars in creating an internal opposition to the revolutionary government. Second, having obstructed Cuban telecommunications through the US blockade, prohibiting Cuba from connecting to the Caribbean optic fibre cable circuit, the imperialists turn internet access into a tool for creating the impression of an internal opposition in Cuba and to encourage such an opposition to emerge.

Two court cases

Luis Posada Carriles – the CIA’s own terrorist
On 10 January the trial of CIA-trained terrorist Luis Posada Carriles began in El Paso, Texas. He is being prosecuted by the US government on 11 charges of perjury, obstructing justice and false testimony, accused of lying to immigration officials about his entry into the US in March 2005.
Carriles has been on the CIA payroll on and off since 1959. He was imprisoned in Venezuela for the bombing of a Cuban civilian aeroplane in 1976 which killed 73 people, and in Panama for the plan to blow up a university auditorium during the visit and speech by Cuban President Fidel Castro in 2000. He escaped from prison in Venezuela and was pardoned by the outgoing President of Panama. In 1998, New York Times journalist Ana Bardach cited Carriles as boasting about his responsibility for the bombing campaign against Cuban hotels in 1997 which claimed the life of Italian tourist Fabio Di Celmo. ‘We just wanted to make a big scandal so that the tourists don't come any more’, Carriles told Bardach. ‘The Italian was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but I sleep like a baby.’ He also said: ‘The CIA taught us everything. They taught us explosives, how to kill, bomb trained us in acts of sabotage.’ In El Paso, however, Carriles is not on trial for terrorism, but for lying to immigration officials.

The prosecution case ended in late March after calling 23 witnesses. Almost daily updates are provided by Cuban-born, Washington-based lawyer Jose Pertierra (see http://en.cubadebate.cu). Pertierra represents Venezuela’s extradition order against Carriles who became a Venezuelan citizen while working as a ‘paid asset’ of the CIA in Venezuela from 1968 to 1976. The US has refused to extradite Carriles to Venezuela or Cuba for trial, claiming he would face torture in those countries. Pertierra responded: ‘The only evidence I have seen of torture in Cuba comes from the US military base at Guantanamo Bay.’ The real issue is the information which Carriles could reveal about his work for the CIA which, in addition to terrorism against Cuba, includes the dirty war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua in the 1980s. Carriles has threatened to release his memoirs if anything happens to him.

Alan Gross – mercenaries’ mercenary
On 12 March, after a court case involving ten witnesses, nine experts and material and documentary evidence, Cuban judges found US citizen Alan Gross guilty of subversion against the state and the revolution and sentenced him to 15 years in gaol. Entrepreneur and mercenary Alan Gross was contracted by the US company Development Alternatives Inc (DAI), which in 2008 had won a $6 million contract with USAID to ‘advance democracy’ in Cuba. This involved taking communications equipment, satellite phones and laptops with internet access into Cuba to promote subversion whilst posing as tourists. At the time of Gross’s arrest in Havana on 4 December 2009 he had travelled to Cuba as a tourist five times in nine months. Gross had received similar previous contracts with USAID to operate in Afghanistan and Iraq. His employer, DAI, has won more than $2.7 billion in USAID contacts from 2000 to the third quarter of 2009.

Cuba’s Reasons – four agents reveal their work
On the evening of Saturday 26 February, Cuban television broadcast ‘Pawns of Imperialism’, an episode in the series Razones de Cuba (Cuba’s Reasons),[3] detailing close links between the internal counterrevolution, the right-wing exile community and the US government. Evidence of these links was provided by two Cuban state agents who had infiltrated the ranks of the so-called ‘dissident’ movement. The first was Moises Rodriguez, who spent 20 years posing as a counter-revolutionary, working closely with the US Interest Section (USIS) in Havana. The second was Carlos Serpa, who spent ten years posing as an ‘independent journalist’ for Radio Martí and numerous blogs and websites. As President of the Union of Free Journalists in Cuba, an organisation without members, Serpa worked closely with the Ladies in White (relatives of the US-paid opposition imprisoned in 2003), accompanying their processions through Havana.

Rodriguez received instructions directly from functionaries of the USIS, who sent him to the US to meet Carriles and informed him of plans to destabilise Cuba. Both agents explain how the USIS supervises the counterrevolution and had evidence that the Ladies in White receive payment for their activities from another known terrorist Santiago Alvarez, a subordinate of Carriles (see Cuban agents prove US finances dissidents). On the programme Serpa demonstrates how easy it is to launch a media campaign against Cuba. He rings CIA-founded Radio Marti and tells them that he was arrested and detained by Cuban police who confiscated his camera and memory stick. One hour and a half later the ‘news’ is broadcast on Radio Marti with no attempt to verify the claim. The lie becomes fact.

In the second episode, ‘Truths and Principles’, broadcast on 7 March, Dalexi Gonzalez, a Cuban engineer in computer sciences explains how in 2007 he was contacted by a internet security specialist, who visited the island as a tourist and trained him in encrypted communication. In 2008 he was given four satellite antennas camouflaged as surfing boards to enable coded information to be transmitted, to facilitate the installation of clandestine networks serving as a parallel communications system to be used in attempts to fabricate a Cuban ‘uprising’. This is a strategy we have seen in Eastern Europe and more recently in Iran and North Africa.

In ‘Well Paid Lies’, broadcast on 14 March, Frank Carlos Vazquez, explains how soon after setting up the Independent Cultural Centre in 1998 to promote the work of young Cuban artists overseas, he was recruited by CIA officials working under diplomatic cover in Havana. They hoped to foster the emergence of a critical intelligentsia to oppose the government. Twice they organised and paid for him to travel to the US. ‘I met and had work sessions with the Mayor of Chicago, Richard Daley…we also met with different Latin American and Afro-American Congress people’, Vazquez said. For ten years Vazquez was informing the Cuban state about all their moves and proposals.

The programme ‘Cyberwars’, broadcast on 21 March, describes cyber-war as ‘waged using information, communications, algorithms and bytes. It’s the new form of invasion originated in the developed world.’ In 2009 ‘irregular warfare’ became official Pentagon doctrine and in 2010 the Pentagon approved a $90 billion budget for the US cyber-command. Cuba is a key target of these operations – along with Venezuela, China and Iran. 90,000 people are believed to be employed under the US cyber-war strategy, which includes obstructing the abilities of those countries to defend themselves through the internet. For example, in January 2011, Google removed the CubaDebate’s channel on YouTube, which it owns, eliminating more than 400 videos which had received 1.7 million hits over three years (see FRFI 219).

The documentary revealed the innovative way in which counter-revolutionaries ‘bloggers’ are paid - not via the USIS payroll or cash sent by Cuban exile groups. Instead their payment is awarded via international prizes from corporate agencies. Opposition blogger Yoanni Sanchez has received a total of $500,000 in this way. Film footage showed Yoanni Sanchez entering the US, Polish and Dutch embassies and chatting to a German diplomat and the CIA’s representative in Havana. There were also interviews with some of the hundreds of young Cuban bloggers who, supportive of the Revolution, do not receive prize money nor enjoy internet access in foreign embassies.

In broadcasting these documentaries the Cuban government has shown irrefutable photographic and documentary evidence that imperialist plans to destroy the socialist revolution continue. What also continues is the commitment from young Cubans who, in defence of the socialist Revolution, prefer to serve as agents of the revolutionary government than lackeys of imperialism – regardless of the material awards on offer. Cuba’s response to the counterrevolution is patient and intelligent. Aware of the opposition’s immense resources and its insidious plots, the government maintains direct communication with the Cuban people so that they are capable of knowing their enemies and defending their revolution.

________________________________________
[1] 1960s quotes cited by Salim Lamrani, Znet, 15 March 2011.
[2] See ‘Los Caballos de Troya de la CIA’ in YouTube.
[3] These documentaries are available with English subtitles at http://www.youtube.com/user/razonesdecuba#p/a or via Rock around the Blockade's website http://www.ratb.org.uk/videos

Operation Surf

by Deisy Francis Mexidor, Marina Menéndez and Jean Guy Allard.
Source: Granma International, 10 March 2011.

• Clandestine networks and illegal Internet connections, part of a subversive plot against the island that the CIA has already implemented in other countries • This story recounts the work of men and women in Cuban State Security who, together with other citizens like Cuban Dalexi González Madruga, have confirmed that the intentions of the enemies of the Revolution remain the same: to destroy it.

Venezuela: revolution mobilises after disastrous floods

by Sam McGill.
Source: Fight Racism! Fight Imperialism! (FRFI), no. 219, February/March 2011.

Despite disastrous flooding across the region, the socialist government in Venezuela has continued to push forward the Bolivarian Revolution through land and other expropriations, and by developing popular participation in tackling the housing crisis. Floods and landslides affected over 40% of the country, leaving 138,000 Venezuelans homeless and killing 35 people. In response, Venezuela’s National Assembly approved an enabling law on 15 December 2010 allowing President Hugo Chavez to enact decrees related to flood recovery independently of the National Assembly. These powers are limited to a maximum period of 18 months; Chavez has said that he will return these powers to Congress in May.

Enabling laws have been used many times by previous presidents in Venezuela. They can be modified or rescinded by the National Assembly, or revoked by citizens if 5% of voters request a referendum. Despite this, Venezuela’s opposition and the international media have rushed to condemn Chavez as a ‘dictator’ and the emergency measures for flood relief as a ‘totalitarian ambush’ and ‘brutal attack ...against democratic life’ (the opposition Tal Cual newspaper). Such lies were freely repeated by The Independent, The Economist, and the BBC. Opposition leaders from the Democratic Table of Unity met with the General Secretary of the Washington-based Organisation of American States, Jose Insulza, on 12 January, demanding that it intervene in Venezuela to ‘re-establish normality’. With the increased Republican representation in the US Congress, there have been fresh calls for sanctions against Venezuelan oil.

These threats have not deterred the revolution even though the floods have worsened the housing shortage, now estimated to be between 2-3 million new homes. The government calculates that a minimum of 135,000 to 200,000 new homes are needed per year to address the crisis. With the new executive powers, Chavez has set up a 10bn Bolivar (US$2.3bn) emergency fund, including $500m recovered from frozen US accounts, deposited in 1999 following an IMF demand under a Macroeconomic Stabilisation Fund. Venezuela repaid its debts to the World Bank and cut off all ties with the IMF in 2007.

Although the enabling law has allowed the government to respond rapidly to the floods, urban land activists and tenants associations have also organised communities locally. 165.4m Bolivars (US$ 38.5m) has been granted from the Popular Power Fund for the development of five housing projects across Caracas to be run by ‘Pioneers of New Socialist Communities’, committees of homeless families who have set up camps on unoccupied land.

Future decrees are expected to extend agricultural credits to rebuild food production and to reconstruct flood-affected rural zones, and housing laws that Chavez states will ‘guarantee the right to adequate, safe, comfortable, and hygienic housing’. Two private companies, Sanitarios Maracay, a toilet manufacturer, and Venezuelan Aluminium, have been nationalised to control the production necessary for reconstruction. Several private golf courses may be expropriated for housing. Venezuela has also received international solidarity including 6,900 tons of cement from Cuba, which has further promised to send 500,000 square metres of concrete roof tiles, 200,000 metres of ceramic tiles and other material for flood refugee centres.

New Year, new National Assembly, new challenges
The new National Assembly was sworn in on 5 January 2011. The opposition coalition of the Democratic Table of Unity now has 65 seats compared to 96 taken by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. To consolidate the Bolivarian Revolution, the outgoing National Assembly approved laws which will rein in private finance, prevent the formation of financial groups and prohibit banks from having an interest in brokerage firms and insurance companies. It also approved a group of five ‘popular power’ laws promoting decentralisation of power, collective property and self-government.

Crucially, the outgoing National Assembly passed the Defence of Political Sovereignty and National Self Determination Law making foreign funding of political organisations illegal (as in the US) and allowing the expulsion of any foreign citizens involved. This is key to limiting imperialist interference in Venezuela. In 2010 the FRIDE Institute published US State Department documents declassified under the Freedom of Information Act. Agencies including the United States Agency for International Development and the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the European Commission, were found to be pumping an annual $40-50m to Venezuela’s opposition parties and media to bring down the Bolivarian Revolution.

They will not succeed!

USAID closes office in Venezuela

Source: lchirino

The US agency closed its Office of Transition Initiatives, which was used to provide Venezuelan opposition with millions of dollars every year.

By Eva Golinger, 8 February 2011.

Set up in 2002, the so-called Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI) in Venezuela, which used millions of dollars to finance actions aimed at destabilizing the country and removing President Hugo Chavez from power, has finally closed its doors following countless denunciations about its subversive activities.

When Russell Porter, director of the OTI—a division of USAID dedicated to promote “transitions” in countries strategically important for Washington—first came to Venezuela in January 2002, he was committed to “evaluating the political situation” to find out how the USAID could better help by means of a “transition towards democracy.”

But the actual goal was not supporting democracy in Venezuela, since there was a democratic regime here that was supported by the majority of the people. The mission of the USAID, along with other US agencies, was to boost a “change of regime” that favored American interests, what translated into ousting President Chavez from power.

In the beginning, the USAID program for Venezuela—drawn up few weeks after Porter´s visit—would finance and advice political parties, non-government organizations and media outlets linked to the anti-Chavez sector. Three months after Porter´s visit to Venezuela, a coup was staged against the President which, after its initial success was defeated in less than 48 hours by the Venezuelan people. Most actors and groups involved in the coup had already been provided with a multi-million financing from the USAID and another US agency called National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

THE MULTIMILLION BUDGET
During its first two years of operations in Venezuela, the USAID/OTI managed an over-10-million-dollar budget by sponsoring some 64 opposition groups and programs in the country. A large part of this sum was dedicated to anti-Chavez propaganda in the media during the so-called “Managers´ Stoppage” in late 2002 and later to back a campaign for a revoking referendum against President Chavez.

Oppositions groups like SUMATE, CEDICE, Primero Justicia, CTV, Fedecarmaras and others, stood out as main recipients of that money and the leaders of destabilization efforts in the country.

After its failed attempts to oust the Venezuelan President, the USAID/OTI increased its budget and reoriented its Venezuela strategy; this time they focused on a sector not targeted before: the youths.

Over 34 percent of the multi-million USAID/OTI budget, which increased up to 15 million dollars annually, was dedicated to finance and give advice to an opposition “student” and youth movement from 2006 to 2010. Under the umbrella of USAID, workshops on how to use social networks like Twitter and Facebook to boost a “change of regime ” and “leadership” training programs for the youths were spread throughout the country.

And the money resulted in an effective tool. An opposition “student movement” was created. The “Manos blancas” (White Hands), the guru of the so-called “color revolutions” of Eastern Europe, attracted world attention with its protests against the Venezuelan government and its innovative tactics taken from the manuals and guidelines of US agencies and partners such as the Albert Einstein Institute and Gene Sharp.

However, despite the huge investment made on Venezuelan opposition, they did not reach their main goal. On the contrary, the popularity of Hugo Chavez kept growing, while relations between opposition groups and their US sponsors and advisors became less attractive.

THE UNQUESTIONABLE EVIDENCE
The budget to finance opposition groups in Venezuela for 2010 reached over 57 million dollars. This huge interference with the country´s internal affairs and the violation of its sovereignty was corroborated by documents declassified by Washington, as well as by public reports issued by international organizations like the Spain-based Fundacion de Relaciones Internacionales y Dialogo Exterior –FRIDE- (International Relations and Dialog Foundation)

At the same time, the USAID presence in Venezuela never was legitimate—it was never authorized by the Venezuelan state, which evidenced a flagrant violation of national sovereignty. Unlike its programs in other countries, which are usually agreed to with the local authorities, in the case of Venezuela the USAID/OTI was operating in an illegal, semi-clandestine and subversive way.

Denunciations in Venezuela of the destabilization-aimed financing activity were considered by the authorities and in late 2010, they passed the Law for the Defense of Political Sovereignty and National Self-determination, which prohibits foreign financing with political aims in the country.

Did the USAID decide to abide by Venezuelan law? Did that organization realize that it had lost its millions of dollars in a fraudulent opposition that was incapable of retaking power? Or is it restructuring its strategy against the Venezuelan government by looking at other channels to finance and support its allies?

The fact is that the flow of dollars will continue to reach the groups that promote the US agenda in Venezuela, while imperial interference will not stop. But the closing of the USAID office in Venezuela is a victory for the Revolution, and a big step to guarantee national sovereignty.

Persistent denunciation works sometimes no matter if how powerful the adversary may be; the commitment to justice and truth will always win.

[English version by South Journal]

How Obama's USAID operates in Cuba

Reversing Bush policies: "Like taking cocaine from an addict."
Source: Along the Malecón, 27 November 2010.
by Tracey Eaton.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has spent some $140 million toward Cuba pro-democracy programs since 1996. The Obama administration is asking for another $20 million for fiscal 2011, which ends Sept. 30, 2011.

Over the past few years, USAID has gotten behind on programming and distributing funds. The agency is still working its way through fiscal 2009 funds, and says it’s too early to say how much of that money has reached Cuba. But USAID told me in a statement:

The vast majority of this money is intended for individuals on the ground in Cuba. Our objective is to maximize the amount of support that benefits Cubans on the island. Since the $15.62 million in fiscal year 2009 funds has recently been programmed, it is too early to have a precise figure at this point, but the overall goal is to have the funds directly benefit Cubans on the island.

I posted that statement on Oct. 25. Later a former State Department officer told me he believes that the USAID statement was “horseshit.”
Speaking to me on condition of anonymity, he said:

Only a tiny fraction of the money ever gets to these regime opponents. A tiny fraction of it. For them to juice up their rhetoric as if the regime-change programs were going full bore…It’s really too bad that your source said that because it’s not true.
Whoever you talked to is somebody that’s using talking points prepared by the extreme right wing that supports these regime-change programs and wants them to be as provocative toward the regime as possible.

The source said President Obama has signed off on new people-to-people programs related to Cuba, but supporters of more aggressive tactics persuaded the White House not to implement the programs quite yet.
Such programs will make it easier for people to bring money and assistance to Cubans, and not just regime opponents.
The source said he believes that some of the pro-democracy programs may not legal under USAID and State Department guidelines. USAID and State Department employees:

are not authorized to do covert actions. They’re not authorized to do classified programs in foreign countries. And they’re not authorized to do clandestine political activities, which they’ve been doing.

The source said the State Department did not sign off on and was not aware of the activities of Alan Gross, who was arrested in Cuba on Dec. 3, 2009.

They were unaware. And some of them, in a moment of honesty, say, ‘Well, that’s pretty fucking stupid.’ If you’re going to do satellite communications gear, something that provocative, then you should at least should do some basic research and the person who goes and does it should at least be a Spanish speaker.

Ending these kinds of programs is difficult, the source said.

It’s very tough because the bureaucracy loves these programs. They love the clandestinity and all of that.

Such programs endure, the source said, even when some of the pro-democracy funds are funneled to Cuban:

government-controlled agents, and it doesn’t matter because it is really fun to spend money and run programs and do clandestine operations. It’s really, really fun. And it’s really fun to have no supervision. You basically move it all out of the government so it can’t be FOIA’ed. It can’t be FOIA’ed and there’s no accountability.

The source contends that these types of pro-democracy programs are not always effective. He said:

This shit doesn’t work. It undermines the legitimacy of these people. It opens them up to – even the good ones, the sincere ones – it opens them all up to severe criticism if not arrest by the Cuban government because like in the United States to be a foreign agent is against the law. If the Cubans came and started passing around money in the United States of America, we would arrest that person. We would arrest the recipients, too, for receiving foreign money.
The moral question of whether we should support democracy isn’t on the table. Of course, we support democracy. All of this is looking at the how.

The source was referring to how such programs should be carried out. He asked:

Why are these treated as clandestine programs? Where's the oversight? What are we doing with taxpayer money? There's no accountability.
These programs have cost $160 million. Show us where it has contributed, where it has helped the Cuban people, not contractors and lobbyists. No one dares ask that question because there's no answer.

Another shortcoming of the pro-democracy programs, he said, is that once private contractors start operating pro-democracy programs, they sometimes use their political assets, their surrogates, to attack interests who work against their political goals.

For example, John Kerry put a hold on regime-change programs. Surprise, surprise, the people that are nurtured and funded by the some of the Miami-based groups, start attacking Senator Kerry.
Or Cardinal Ortega successfully negotiates the release of political prisoners. Surprise, surprise. The people who don’t want there to be an improvement in bilateral relations start attacking Cardinal Ortega through their surrogates on the island.

The source said he didn’t know how the situation will evolve, but believes that it will be difficult to reverse policies implemented during the Bush administration.

The bureaucracy has basically hijacked this policy, which then puts the political people in the position of trying to wrestle it away from them. But, boy, that’s like taking cocaine from an addict.

Setting the record straight on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez

By Eva Golinger
Source: Postcards from the Revolution, 09 January 2011.

With so much misinformation circulating in different media outlets around the world about Venezuela and President Hugo Chavez, it's time to set the record straight. Venezuela is not a dictatorship and President Chavez is no dictator.

Just last evening the Venezuelan head of state participated in a meeting with a group of housing activists, who not only criticized - live on television - government policies and inaction on tenant and housing issues, but also proposed laws, regulations and projects that were received with open arms by Chavez himself. And last week, the Venezuelan President vetoed a law on higher education that had been approved by the prior year's majority pro-Chavez legislature, calling for more "open and wide" debate on the subject, to include critics and those who had protested the bill. That is not the behavior of a brutal dictator.

As someone who has been living on and off in Venezuela for over 17 years, I can testify to the extraordinary transformation the country has undertaken during the past decade since Chavez first was elected in 1998. He has been reelected by landslide majorities twice since then.

When I arrived to Venezuela for the first time in 1993, the country was in severe turmoil. Constitutional rights had been suspended and a nationwide curfew was imposed. Repression was widespread, the economy was in crisis, several newspapers, television and radio stations had been shut down or censored, and the government had imposed a forced military draft targeting young men from poor communities. There was an interim president in power, because the actual president, Carlos Andres Perez - hailed by Washington as an "outstanding democrat" - had just been impeached and imprisoned for corruption. Perez eventually escaped confinement and fled to Miami, where he resided until his death last month, living off the millions he stole from the Venezuelan people.

Even though a new president was elected in 1994, constitutional rights remained suspended on and off for years, until the elections in 1998 that brought Chavez to power. Since then, despite a short-lived coup d'etat in 2002, an economically-shattering sabotage of the oil industry in 2003 and multiple attempts against his government during the following years, President Chavez has never once limited constitutional rights nor imposed a curfew on the population. He hasn't ever ordered a state of emergency that would limit rights or shut down any media outlets. He even issued a general pardon in 2007 giving amnesty to all those involved in the 2002 coup, with the exception of individuals directly responsible for crimes against humanity or homicide.

Under the Chavez administration, poverty has been reduced in half, universal, quality, free healthcare and education have been guaranteed for all Venezuelans, new industries have been created and more and more political power has been placed in the hands of "ordinary" people who were previously excluded by the elite that ruled the country throughout the twentieth century.

So why do so many newspapers and broadcast media classify him as a dictator?

You may not like Hugo Chavez's way of speaking, or the fact that he was born into poverty, comes from the military, is a leftist and doesn't fit the stereotypical image of a head of state. But that doesn't make him a dictator.

In Venezuela, more than 80% of television, radio and print media remain in the hands of private interests critical of the government. So, despite what some international press claim, there is no censorship or violation of free expression in Venezuela. Calls to overthrow the government or to incite the armed forces to rebel against the state, which would clearly be prohibited in most nations, are broadcast on opposition-controlled television channels with public concessions (open signals, not cable). Just last month, the head of the Venezuelan chamber of commerce, Fedecamaras, gave a press conference broadcast live on television and radio stations, during which he called the armed forces "traitors" who would "pay the price" if they didn't disobey government orders and "obey" the dictates of big business.

I can only imagine if a business leader in the United States were to go on television and call the US Army "traitors" if they didn't disobey the federal government. Secret Service would arrest the man immediately and the consequences would be severe. But something like that would never happen in the US, since no television station would ever broadcast anything that constituted a call to rebellion or disobedience against the government. That's illegal.

So, not only is there no censorship in Venezuela, there is an excess of "free" expression. One positive aspect of the permissive attitude assumed by the Chavez government with regards to media has been the proliferation of community and alternative media outlets throughout the nation, which have provided space and voice to those ignored by mainstream corporate media. During governments prior to the Chavez administration, community and alternative media were banned.

Recently, the Venezuelan legislature passed a law called the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio, Television and Digital Media. The law does not censor internet or any other form of media. What it does do is disallow calls to assassinate the president or other individual, as well as prohibit incitement to crime, hate or violence on web sites operated from Venezuela. This is a standard in most democracies and is a sign of civility. The law also instills on media a responsibility to contribute to the education of citizens. Media have a huge power over society today. Why shouldn't they be responsible for their actions?

Another issue widely manipulated in mass media is the Enabling Act that was approved last month by the Venezuelan parliament. This law gives "decree" powers to the Executive to legislate on specific issues as stipulated in the bill. The Enabling Act does not usurp, inhibit or limit legislative functions of the National Assembly, nor is it unconstitutional or anti-democratic. The parliament can still debate and approve laws as usual within its authority. The Enabling law, which is permitted by the Constitution, was requested by President Chavez in order to provide rapid responses to a national emergency caused by torrential rainfall that devasted communities nationwide at the end of last year and left over 130,000 homeless. The law will not affect any constitutional rights nor impose a "dictatorship" on the country, it is merely a valid, legitimate response to an emergency situation that needs quick solutions.

And speaking of the Venezuelan legislature, there is a lot of deceitful information repeated and recycled in media worldwide about the composition of this year's new parliament. Venezuela had legislative elections in September 2010, and opposition - anti-Chavez - parties won 40% of the seats. Some say this is a majority, which is very strange. The pro-Chavez PSUV party won 60% of seats in the National Assembly, as the Venezuelan legislative body is called. That's 97 out of 165 seats, plus 1 more which was won by the pro-Chavez PCV party, for a total of 98.

On the other hand, the opposition bloc won 65 seats represented by 13 different political parties that don't necessarily agree on most issues. Two other seats were won by a third, independent party, PPT. So, the PSUV party won 97 seats in parliament and the next party in line is Accion Democratica (AD) with 22 seats. Who has the majority?

In 2005, the opposition parties boycotted the electoral process, and lost the near 50% they had in parliament from the year 2000. Now, their bloc has been reduced to 40%, yet they claim to have "grown" in numbers. This perspective has been reiterated in mainstream media, despite its erroneous and manipulative nature.

The opposition bloc has already announced it will seek foreign intervention to help overthrow the government. Not only is this illegal, it's incredibly dangerous. Many of the candidates and most of the parties that conform the opposition in Venezuela have already been receiving millions of dollars annually in funding from several US and international agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), both financed with US taxpayer monies. The stated purpose of this funding has been to "promote democracy" in Venezuela and help build the opposition forces against Chavez. This is a clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and a waste of US taxpayer dollars. US citizens: Is this the way you want your hard-earned money to be spent?

This week, opposition leaders will meet with their counterparts in Washington. They have already said their mission is to seek more aid to help remove President Chavez from power. Unfortunately, their undemocratic actions have already been welcomed in the US Capitol. Representative Connie Mack (R-FL), now head of the House Sub-Committte on Foreign Relations for the Western Hemisphere, announced on the first day of Congress that his one goal this year is to place Venezuela on the list of "state sponors of terrorism". And Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), now head of the House Foreign Relations Committee, has backed that objective, even going as far as to publicly state she would welcome the "assassination of Fidel Castro or any other repressive leader" such as Hugo Chavez.

On January 1, President Chavez held a brief, informal and amicable encounter with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Brasilia, during the inauguration of Dilma Rousseff, Brazil's new president. No agreements were reached, but the exchange of hands and smiles stabilized an escalation in tensions between both nations, which had produced a diplomatic crisis at the end of last year. But upon her return to Washington, Clinton was severely criticized by media, particularly The Washington Post, which accused her of being too "soft" on Venezuela.

The Washington Post's calls for war against Venezuela are dangerous. Remember, conditioning of public opinion is necessary to justify aggression against another nation. The campaigns of demonization against Saddam Hussein, Iraq and Islam were essential to initiate the wars in the Middle East which have yet to cease. Is the public willing to be influenced by media that have a political (and economic) agenda that seeks to oust a democratically-elected and popularly supported government just because they don't like its policies?

With the recent tragic events in Arizona it should become even more evident that media have power and influence over individual actions. Hate speech, demonization campaigns, manipulative and deceitful information are dangerous and can lead to abominable consequences, including war.

It's time to stop the escalating aggression against Venezuela and accept the facts: Venezuela is not a dictatorship, and while many of you may not like Hugo Chavez, a majority of Venezuelans who voted for him do. And in this scenario, they're the ones who matter.

Venezuela's Opposition and media lies exposed

Venezuela: Opposition and media lies about lack of democracy exposed
Source: Links/Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (UK)
by Francisco Dominguez, September 23, 2010

Venezuelans vote on Sunday, September 26, for the South American country's 165-seat National Assembly – its national parliament. This is the 16th national election or referenda since Hugo Chávez was first elected president in 1998. Venezuela’s last election, on February 15, 2009, was a referendum to remove presidential term limits. This was endorsed by 54% of the electorate. Sunday’s election is the first to take place against the backdrop of the world recession, which has been hit Venezuela hard, as it has in many other countries.
With this key election approaching, there has been a stepping up of international media distortions about Venezuela internationally. In the run-up to previous election campaigns, the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign (VSC) has noted that the increase in false claims appear to be designed in order to delegitimise the results and fairness of the elections.

National Assembly elections take place every five years and the elected representatives have the power to pass legislation and also to block the president's legislative initiatives (with the support of over one-third of assembly members). The assembly also has other specific and important powers (outlined in Article 187 of the constitution) including approving the budget, initiating impeachment proceedings against most government officials (including ministers but not the president, who can only be removed by a majority of the population through a recall referendum) and appointing the members of the government's electoral, judicial and prosecutorial branches.

However the last time National Assembly elections were held in 2005, the opposition parties boycotted them in order to seek to delegitimise the result, which was to give a majority to supporters of President Chávez. Therefore this year, the anti-Chávez right-wing opposition will inevitably increase its number of seats in parliament as it will this time contest the seats.

Some media coverage has already sought to portray the elections as representing a huge gain for anti- Chávez forces if the opposition can stop the pro-Chávez parties gaining a two-thirds majority of assembly seats. However, this would be false. While we can’t predict exactly what the opposition parties would have got in 2005 had they taken part in the democratic process, they did receive more than a third of the vote in elections in the 2006 presidential elections, gaining 36.9% with 4.3 million votes (see http://www.cne.gov.ve/web/estadisticas/index_resultados_elecciones.php). Furthermore, in the 2004 presidential recall referendum, the opposition to Chávez got 40% (3,989,008 votes) – again this was more than one-third (see http://www.cne.gov.ve/referendum_presidencial2004/.) The results – and claims made in the international media by the Venezuelan opposition and others – on September 26 must be analysed against this background and context if they are to be fully understood. 

USAID Against Cuba

New declassified documents reveal more than $2.3 million in propaganda against Cuba
By Eva Golinger, Caracas, May 14, 2010
Source: CubaDebate; Translation: StreetVisuals.


Records also recently declassified under the Law on Access to Information Act (FOIA, by its initials in English), show that USAID has invested more than $2.3 million to spread dirty propaganda against Cuba and finance journalists in the island since 1999.

The documents, including original contracts between USAID and the organization CubaNet, show a pattern of increased and intensified funding each year in its effort to promote distorted information about Cuba - all with the intention of provoking a "transition to democracy", or "regime change" in Cuba.

For fifty years, Washington has been running a dirty war against Cuba. A component of that aggression has been the use of media to manipulate and distort the reality of Cuba to the international public opinion, and at the same time, to infiltrate and disseminate false information in Cuba.

After the failures of Radio and TV Marti, which still exist and receive financial contributions from Washington, despite their futility, a new field of aggression against Cuba was established through the Internet. In 1994, CubaNet established itself as one of the first web pages made to disseminate propaganda against the Cuban Revolution on the Internet. Based in Miami, CubaNet uses money from USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - which also receives multimillion-dollar contributions to finance "journalists" in Cuba, and promote international media campaign against the Cuban government.

Although it's no secret that CubaNet is funded and guided by Washington agencies, the documents declassified by USAID also recently demonstrated the close relationship of control that the U.S. agency maintained on the propaganda organization.

When it made the contract between USAID and CubaNet in 1999, the high initial money to bring Washington to the efforts of propaganda via the Internet was $98,000. The money was intended to "support a program for the expansion of a website for independent journalists in Cuba." The contract was for one year, with the possibility of extension to the time needed to run the program. The manager of the USAID program was David Mutchler, USAID Senior Advisor for Cuba.

The contract required a progress report on the implementation of the program every three months, submitted to USAID, and an annual report detailing all the work done during the previous period.

USAID is boss
In clause 1.6 of the contract between USAID and CubaNet, entitled "Substantial Involvement Understandings", control is evidenced by the U.S. maintained on the organization miamera.

"It is understood and agreed that USAID will be substantially involved during the performance of this Cooperative Agreement as follows: Key Personnel: The USAID Senior Advisor for Cuba shall approve in advance, the selection of any key personnel and any alternates. Monitoring and Evaluation Plans: The USAID Senior Advisor for Cuba shall approve evaluation plans, and monitoring progress toward the achievement of program objectives during the course of the Cooperative Agreement."

Basically, the USAID official decides who will work in the draft CubaNet, their plan of work, and how to evaluate their progress; in other words, is the head of CubaNet.

Violate the laws of the United States
The documents that modify the original contract, which are 11 documents of the years 2000-2007, shows an increase in the annual project funding of CubaNet and reveal other information about the nature of the program. In a document dated April 19, 2005, authorized the sending of "private funds" to Cuba that were not from the USAID or other U.S. agency, to "advance the objectives of the Agreement." Due to the restrictions maintained by the Treasury Department in Washington on sending U.S. dollars to Cuba, according to the document from USAID, the "private funds" would hide in the authorization and had the U.S. Agency for funding the program CubaNet .

The same document also reveals that CubaNet not only does its work in Cuba, but also "continues to publish reports ... and promoting their spread in the mass media in the United States and the international press." It is against U.S. law to disseminate propaganda funded by the U.S. government and used as "information" in the media. However, the declassified document shows that the USAID is in full violation of that law.

More and more dollars
The documents also show that annually, USAID CubaNet increased its funding to continue its efforts to spread propaganda against Cuba. Here are the figures:

Year 1999: $98,000

Year 2000: $245,000

Year 2001: $260,000

Year 2002: $230,000

Year 2003: $500,000

Year 2005: $330,000

Year 2006: $300,000

Year 2007: $360,000

Total = $2.323 million

The campaign of aggression against Cuba is more intense today than ever, and this year 2010, USAID manages a budget of over $20 million dollars to fund groups within and outside Cuba that promote the agenda of Washington. CubaNet remains one of the main actors in the dirty war against Cuba.

Some of the declassified documents are available here:
Original Contract between the USAID-CubaNet
USAID Contract Modification-CubaNet, 2005
USAID Contract Modification-CubaNet, 2007