Interview with Ricardo Alarcón April 2011.

Cuba's Ricardo Alarcón: ‘Trying to reinvent socialism’
Source: Links (International Journal of Socialist Renewal)

Ricardo Alarcón, president of Cuba's parliament, interviewed by Manuel Alberto Ramy


April 27, 2011 -- Radio Progreso Alternativa -- The sixth congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, a congress that, from what I have read and heard, foreshadows a country and a society that will be qualitatively different.

The president of the National Assembly and member of the politburo of the Communist Party, Ricardo Alarcón, granted me this interview. I know that his time is limited, so I'd like to ask him three very specific questions. The first refers to the area of the People's Power [Cuba's system of democratic representation].

* * *

Manuel Alberto Ramy: There was talk [at the sixth congress] of giving a higher dose of autonomy to the people's governments, both provincial and municipal. How would this autonomy materialise? How far would it go?

Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada: This has been a major topic in the discussion of the Economic and Social Policy Guidelines for the Party and the Revolution, which was a major aspect of the congress. When we discussed the reorganisation of the economic system, we almost always ended in the centralisation-decentralisation dilemma. Of course, the cardinal focus is to go to a decentralisation of management, of the management of the economy, and also of the exercise of state authority. That leads us to the role of the municipalities, upon which we have to delegate a lot more authority and a lot more power.

The municipalities will have the ability to raise funds to develop plans for production, development and social plans. This concept of territoriality was very present in the commission I was a part of. It surfaced everywhere, at every point, say in the tax system, because it is not the same for a person in Vedado to be able to rent a room in his apartment or house as it is [for someone] in Zapata Swamp. So, if they both have to pay the same taxes, you're discouraging the possibility of economic activity in a place because of the huge differences that exist.

In all this, Ramy, I think it's very important that we take into account the following: we are not spouting dogma; we are not saying, “Here we have a model of how socialism should be.” We are trying to reinvent it, to recast it. Therefore, everything is being looked at with a practical, pragmatic sense, as the Americans would say. Experience must be constantly revised and, as Raul said, we must keep our eyes and ears glued to the ground.

Venezuela to increase minimum wage

Venezuela: President Chavez announces 25% increase in minimum wage
Source: Correo del Orinoco International, No 61, April 29, 2011.

An additional 45% increase was announced for those working in the public sector at all different pay grades and levels, marking the first increase for public servants earning above minimum wage since 2008.

In celebration of International Workers’ Day on May 1st, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced last Monday that residents earning the nation’s monthly minimum wage of 1,224 bolivars ($284) will soon see a 25 percent increase in their salary as well as other, non-monetary benefits designed to further enhance living standards for the population.

“For the twelfth consecutive time, we are announcing a salary increase. Here, we aren’t going around cutting wages or pensions” like in other countries, Chavez said during a Ministerial Cabinet meeting that took place in the presidential palace of Miraflores. The raise will be divided into two stages. The first hike, of 15 percent, will be made effective as of May 1st and the second, of 10 percent, will be allocated to workers beginning in September.

As a result of the raise, the total monthly minimum of those working in Venezuela will now be set at 1,548 bolivars ($360), one of the highest in Latin America.

PENSIONS & STIPENDS INCLUDED
According to the Venezuelan head of state, the measure will also increase incomes for more than 2 million pensioners and will benefit nearly 350 thousand state workers currently earning the minimum wage. Also benefiting from the measure will be nearly 100 thousand economically disadvantaged women who are granted 80 percent of the minimum wage salary through the government program Madres del Barrio or Mothers of the Shantytowns.

The program, first started in 2006 by presidential decree, “is directed towards all women who perform house work and have dependents (children, parents or other family members) whose families do not receive an income or whose income is less than the cost of the basic food basket”, a government website states.

“Taking into account that house work should be compensated”, the site continues, “Madres del Barrio recognizes the value of the labor that women carry out in the domestic realm”.

FOOD BENEFITS
In addition to the monetary increase, other benefits including food tickets used in the nation’s grocery stores in order to guarantee the affordability of basic staples will be added to the wage hike. Venezuela’s Food Law now mandates that all private companies provide their workers, irrespective of the number of employees, a basic food ticket package. Previous food ticket measures exempted employers with less than 20 workers from providing the additional benefit.

More than 5.7 billion bolivars ($1.32 billion) of state money has been allocated for the new increases as vacations and a yearly three month salary bonus, Chavez affirmed, will continue to be effective for all state employees. “We’ve been working a lot, calculating figures and looking for a way to sustain our decisions from the point of view of incomes and how to responsibly continue to raise the living standards for our working families”, Chavez said.

During the Ministerial Cabinet meeting on Monday, Labor Minister, Maria Cristina Iglesia, reminded the public that the raise in the minimum wage is effective for all sectors of the Venezuelan economy. “The minimum wage is obligatory. No active worker can earn less than this salary in the public or the private sector and no pensioner can earn less that the legally established minimum wage. Workers must demand compliance with this measure”, she said.

PUBLIC SECTOR
On Tuesday, the Venezuelan President also met with workers in a major event celebrating workers’ advances during the Bolivarian Revolution. During the mass act, Chavez announced an additional 45 percent increase for public service workers at all pay grades, a step not made since 2008. “The increase on the pay scale is 45 percent. This raise I’m announcing is for all pay grades, 45% above the current salary level. This is justice, and this will contribute to creating more consciousness and will help provide more resources for the country and for our families”, exclaimed the Venezuelan head of state.

DIGNIFIED HOUSING
Also during the Cabinet meeting, President Chavez officially signed off on the delivery of 46 new housing units for residents left homeless after torrential rains flooded parts of the country late last year. “It’s very beautiful what’s happening. We’re taking steps in the direction that we set for ourselves in December. We’ve told refugees that they will leave the shelters and will be given houses, dignified houses. We set a goal and we’re achieving it”, the head of state said. The apartments form part of a new building built by the Caracas Metro located downtown in the capital city.

The beneficiaries of the apartments had been taking shelter in the presidential palace of Miraflores since December when Chavez ordered the opening of his residence to the displaced. According to Haiman El Troudi, president of the state owned Caracas Metro company, many refugees with construction experience worked to make the new building, called the Three Roots, a reality. El Troudi informed that in addition to the construction, many refugees who organized themselves in Socially Productive Units with government assistance, worked on the 250 wooden doors that were installed in the new building.

Many of these workers will continue to have employment opportunities as the government ramps up its housing construction efforts, the Metro president said. Providing affordable housing to refugees and the public at large, Chavez reminded the viewing public last Monday, will continue to be a foremost priority of his government as it seeks to build 2 million new homes by 2017.

With respect to costs, the majority of homes will be subsidized by the state. “Those families that receive housing and have an income less than the minimum wage will have a subsidy of up to 100 percent the cost of the home. If the family possesses an income equivalent to the minimum wage, they will pay 20 percent of the homes and if the family has an income twice that of the minimum wage, they will need to pay 50% [the cost of the home]”, Chavez specified.

The Venezuelan President also renewed his call to turn housing complexes into economically viable production centers with employment and education opportunities for residents. “We have to remember that it’s a commitment and that the construction of socio-productive spaces is very important. It’s from there that people can work in textiles, food and other productive activities for the benefit of all of us”, he stated.

56,000 Cuban eye operations in Mexico

Zacatecas Thanks Cuba for Operation Miracle
Source: Prensa Latina, 08 May 2011.

The Zacatecas state legislature thanked Cuba for its contribution to the Operation Miracle program, via which 4,800 patients have received free eyesight restoration surgery since 2007.

Lawmaker Blas Avalos presented a certificate of recognition to Cuban Consul Luis Quirantes, conferred by the State Legislature. The Zacateca recognition goes first of all to the leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro, Avalos stated.

During the ceremony, Avalos said that about 56,000 ophthalmological surgeries were performed at Republica de Cuba Hospital in the neighboring city of Saltillo, state of Coahuila, since the opening of that medical center in 2007. Nearly 2,300 patients with different eye afflictions have been assisted there this year, the legislator said.

What About The Terrorist Mastermind The U.S. Is Harboring?

Source: NewsOne.com, 03 May 2011.
by Casey Gane-McCalla.

Now that Bin Laden has been killed, there is still a major terrorist on the loose. A terrorist mastermind who is wanted in several countries for blowing up a plane, bombing tourist locations and trying to assassinate a prime minister.

The terrorist mastermind is Luis Posada Carrilles, a Cuban born former aide to the dictator Batista who Castro overthrew. Posada would leave Cuba after the Cuban revolution and be a major planner in the failed Bay Of Pigs invasion of Cuba.

Terrorists: Two former CIA agents, Luis Posada Carriles (l) and Osama bin Laden (r).

Posada would be trained by the CIA in America in explosives in sabotage in the USA and served as the CIA’s principal agent for Cuba.

While he was serving as an agent for the CIA, the agency began to suspect he was tied to Latin American gangsters and was involved in cocaine trafficking. Posada would embark on a plan to overthrow the leftist government in Guatemala through terrorist bombings.

In 1976, a Cuban plane flying from Barbados to Jamaica exploded mid air as a result of bombs placed on the plane. 73 people were killed including the whole Cuban fencing team, women and children. The bombs were traced to two employees of Posada’s in Venezuela.

Both of Posada’s employees confessed to the bombing and implicated Posada as the mastermind. Posada was on trial in Venezuela for the crime when he escaped from prison.

Records show that the CIA was fully aware of Posada’s plot to blow up the airplane, but did nothing to stop it or alert Cuban authorities.

Rather than disowning Posada after the plane bombing, the CIA continued to used him as an asset in El Salvador where he became a principal agent in the Iran Contra scandal, which involved trading weapons to Iran to support the Contra rebels in El Salvador [Posada was based in El Salvador, but weren't the Contras in Nicaragua? - RATB] who were fighting against the communist government.

After the scandal, Posada moved to Honduras, where the FBI said he was responsible for 41 bombings across the country.

In 1997, Posada was implicated in a series of bombing of Cuban tourist locations, that wounded eleven people, and killed a Canadian citizen. Posada would tell the New York Times that he planned the attack.

In 2000, Posada was caught with 200 pounds of explosives and arrested for plotting an assassination attempt on Fidel Castro. He was convicted but later pardoned by the Panamanian President in 2004, allegedly at the request of the U.S.A.

Posada would eventually return to the U.S.A. where he would eventually be charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and immigration fraud for entering the country under false pretenses. The jury acquitted Posada and the U.S. refused to extradite him to any of the countries he is wanted for terrorism.

Today, Posada is a free man living in Miami, despite the fact that he is wanted for mass murder in Venezuela and Cuba. Posada employed the same tactics as Bin Laden and is also responsible for the deaths of countless civilians. If the U.S. can invade Pakistan to kill an arch terrorist, what can stop Cuba or Venezuela from using special forces to invade Miami and kill Posada.

The U.S.A. has claimed that they don’t want to extradite Posada to Cuba or Venezuela for fear that he may be tortured, despite the fact [that] the U.S.A. has tortured their own terrorist suspects in Cuba themselves.

If the killing of Bin Laden was “justice,” the U.S.A. must allow Posada to be brought to justice. If not the war on terror will be marred by hypocrisy. Anybody who kills innocent people for a political cause is a terrorist, even if they worked with the U.S.A.

The U.S. can not longer harbor Posada if they want to have any sort of moral authority in the world. Like Bin Laden, Posada was trained by the CIA, and like Bin Laden Posada has been implicated in plots against the U.S.A. The CIA believed that Posada was involved in assassination plot against Henry Kissinger.

Now that Bin Laden is dead, it is time to bring the “Bin Laden of the western hemisphere” to justice. We cannot condemn terrorism against us while condoning terrorism against country's who’s policies we disagree with.

Reflections of Fidel: The murder of Osama Bin Laden

Source: Granma International, May 5 2011.

by Fidel Castro Ruz



THOSE who pay attention to these issues know that, on September 11, 2001, our people expressed solidarity with the United States and offered the modest support we could provide in the area of emergency care for the victims of the brutal attack on the Twin Towers in New York.

We also immediately offered our country’s runways to U.S. aircraft with no place to land given the chaos which reigned in the first few hours after the strike.

The Cuba Revolution’s historic position in opposition to acts which endanger the lives of civilians is well known.

Unwavering participants in the armed struggle against the Batista dictatorship we were, but opposed, in principle, to any terrorist act which would lead to the death of innocent people. Such a position, maintained over half a century, allows us the right to express a point of view on this delicate issue.

In a massive public event that day at [Havana’s] Ciudad Deportiva, I expressed the conviction that international terrorism would never be ended through violence and war.

He was clearly, for years, a friend of the United States, trained by it, and an adversary of the USSR and socialism, but whatever the acts attributed to Bin Laden, the murder of an unarmed human being surrounded by his family constitutes an abhorrent deed. This is apparently what the government of the most powerful nation ever to exist did.

The carefully crafted speech given by Obama announcing the death of Bin Laden affirms, "…we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts."

This paragraph contains a dramatic truth, but it does not deter honest people from remembering the unjust wars unleashed by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan, the hundreds of thousands of children forced to grow up without their mother or their father and the parents who would never know the feeling of their child's embrace.

Millions of citizens fled far from their peoples in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba and other countries of the world.

Nor have hundreds of millions of people forgotten the horrific images of human beings in Guantánamo, occupied Cuban territory, filing by silently, subjected to months, even years, of unbearable, maddening torture. They are individuals kidnapped and transported to secret prisons with the hypocritical complicity of supposedly civilized societies.

Obama cannot conceal the fact that Osama was executed in the presence of his children and wives, now being held by authorities in Pakistan, a Muslim country of almost 200 million inhabitants which has seen its laws violated, its national dignity offended and its religious traditions debased.

How will he prevent the women and children of the person executed outside of the law, without a trial, from explaining what happened and the images from being transmitted around the world?

On January 28, 2002, CBS journalist Dan Rather reported on this television network that on September 10, 2001, the day before the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, Osama Bin Laden was treated with kidney dialysis in a Pakistani military hospital. He was in no position to hide or seek refuge in deep caverns.

Murdering him and consigning his body to the depths of the ocean demonstrates fear and insecurity, making him a much more dangerous figure.

After the initial euphoria, public opinion in the very United States will eventually turn against the methods used, which far from protecting its citizens, will multiply the hatred and vengeful feelings against them.

RATB Reports: An apt celebration

by RATB, 08 May 2011.

RATB commemorates the 50th anniversary of Cuba's victory at the Bay of Pigs and the declaration of socialism

On Friday 6 May Rock Around the Blockade (RATB) packed Bolivar Hall in London for an event to commemorate the Cuban victory against the US-backed invasion at Bay of Pigs (Playa Giron) in April 1961 and the declaration by Fidel Castro of the socialist character of the Cuban Revolution.

The event opened with live music from Peruvian singer Betty Rhaza and Chilean guitarist Fernando Vergara playing revolutionary songs dedicated to Camilo Torres and Che Guevara. They were followed by an impressive range of speakers covering many different aspects of the anniversary.

The first two speakers were Henry Suarez, First Secretary of the Venezuelan Embassy and Alex Von Tunzelman, author of a new book Red Heat: Conspiracy, Murder and the Cold War in the Caribbean, which deals with the US covert war in the Caribbean from 1957 to 1967. Tony Kapcia, Director of the Cuba Research Forum at Nottingham University, described why 1961 – which saw the victory at Playa Giron, the declaration of socialism, the launch of the literacy campaign, and the founding of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution - was such a significant year for the Cuba Revolution and how it gave the people the confidence to stand together against subsequent threats and hardships.

Helen Yaffe, author of Che Guevara: the Economics of Revolution, spoke about the continuation of the US’ war against the Revolution, Cuba’s phenomenal achievements in health and education and how Cuba survived the austerity of the Special Period, whilst increasing spending on health and education – contrasting this to both the experience of neo-liberalism in Latin America and to the current cuts directed against the working class in imperialist countries. She also spoke about the importance of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) in which Cuba plays a leading role.

The final speaker was the Cuban ambassador Esther Armanteros who spoke about her personal experience of 1961, from the point when, aged 13, she saw US propaganda leaflets dropped on the beaches, warning against ‘Marxist dictatorship’ and had to ask her uncle what Marxist meant. She then joined the militia formed to protect the Revolution against invasion and later participated in the literacy campaign, and explained to the audience how this meant that when the socialist character of the Revolution was proclaimed, the people welcomed it as they had come to understand in practice what socialism actually meant for those who previously had nothing.

The speakers were followed by questions and comments taken from the floor. RATB thanks all those who helped to make this event a resounding success: the comrades at the Venezuelan and Cuban embassies, all the speakers, the musicians, Diego who translated and everyone who turned up on the night.

In addition to the monthly RATB film showings in London, we have initiated a 2011 educational programme which begins on Sunday 22 May with a discussion about the recent Cuban Communist Party Congress and the economic changes underway.

The death of Orlando Bosch – ‘unrepentant terrorist’

written for RATB by Ben Watson, 08 May 2011.

On Wednesday 27 April 2011, Orlando Bosch Avila died peacefully, after a four-month spell in a hospital in Miami at the ripe age of 84 years. His wife, Adriana Bosch said she wants her husband to be remembered as a great father, husband and doctor. His daughter, Karen Bosch added: ‘I never considered him a violent man, growing up with him and I don’t relate him to any violence’. Thank goodness for family, as there are many who would disagree and with good reason.

Orlando Bosch was born in Cuba on 18 August 1926 (within a week of his contemporary, Fidel Castro) in Potrerillo village, 150 miles east of Havana. His father was a policeman and later a restaurant owner. His mother was a teacher.

In 1946 Bosch enrolled in the medical school at the University of Havana where he first met Fidel. Both were leading figures in their respective fields: Bosch was president of the medical school student body while Fidel was head of the law school student body.

The two men, from similarly middle class backgrounds, became allies. Bosch participated in the struggle against dictator Fulgencio Batista, which culminated in the successful 1959 revolution headed by Fidel. During the struggle, Bosch fled to the United States to escape arrest. On his return, Fidel rewarded Bosch with an appointment as governor of a province. The relationship turned sour as Bosch rejecting the radicalization of the revolutionary process. He quit and retreated to the mountains in central Cuba to lead an armed rebellion against the revolution. By mid-1960, Bosch returned to the United States with his family. According to his autobiography he refused to participate in the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion because the USA had refused to help his rebellion.

The US National Security Archive Bosch records that Bosch was in contact with the CIA in 1962 and 1963. He became a case officer for Operation 40, a covert operation to mount another Cuban exile invasion force to depose Fidel. He also ran the Insurrectional Movement of Revolutionary Recovery (MIRR), one of a number of ultra-violent Cuban exile groups which launched attacks against their native country, killing innocent families and destroying agriculture crops. Overthrowing and killing Fidel became Bosch’s sole mission in life.

The following are a few examples of his activities:

1964: Arrested in Miami for ‘towing a homemade, radio-operated torpedo through downtown in rush-hour traffic’.

1965: Arrested for attempting to smuggle bombs out of the country.

1966: Arrested for ferrying ‘six dynamite-stuffed, 100 pound surplus aerial bombs’ up the Tamiami Trail ‘to a secret base where there was a boat we could use to bomb Castro’.

None of these charges resulted in convictions.

1970: Finally convicted for misfiring a bazooka at a freighter docked at the Port of Miami, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison but paroled after only 4 years! He violated the terms of his parole by leaving the US for other Latin American countries when he was wanted for questioning in connection with the assassination of another Cuban exile leader, Jose Elias de la Torriente.

1974-1976: US authorities rejected offers from Venezuela and Costa Rica to return him to the United States.

1976: Bosch helped found the Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), an umbrella organization for the most extreme anti-Castro groups. US government documentation shows that CORU was directly responsible for 50 terrorist operations in the next 5 years. The most lethal operation happened on 6 October 1976, just west of the Caribbean island of Barbados, when 2 bombs were set-off on a Cubana Airlines civilian aeroplane in mid-air, killing all 73 people on-board.

The CIA, who had been keeping track of Bosch and his associates for years, identified Bosch, along with CORU co-founder Luis Posada, as masterminds for the outrageous action. Other participants were found guilty after trial and sentenced to 20 years, but Bosch’s case dragged on until 1986 when he was acquitted on a technicality.

In 1987, Bosch was arrested in the United States on a parole violation and held for 6 months. The powerful Cuban-American lobby put pressure on wannabe Florida governor Jeb Bush, son of the then President George Bush Senior, to intervene. Despite strong objections from the President’s own Defense Department, which labelled him as one of the most deadly terrorists within the hemisphere, all the charges were dropped and Bosch was released. He had acquired friends in high places.

Federal attorneys told a judge in 1990 that they had tried to deport Bosch to 31 different countries but all had refused to take him. Cuba’s request for Bosch to be sent to back for trial on the island was denied by the United States.

A former US attorney called Bosch an ‘unrepentant terrorist’. With so much evidence stacked against him and no final words of regret or remorse, that is exactly how he should be remembered.

US prevents Cuba from buying anesthetics for children

Source: CubaMinrex.cu via Cuba-L Analysis.
By Juan Leandro, 03 May 2011.

The president of the Cuban Society of Anesthesiology, Prof. Humberto Sainz Cabrera, said despite repeated complaints, the U.S. continues to put obstacles to the purchase of Sevoflurane inhalation agent produced by Abbott Laboratories, regarded by experts as an excellent child's general anaesthetic.

Another drug that the U.S. company is prevented from selling to Cuba is the Dexmetomidina, used mainly in Anesthesiology for its analgesic and sedative properties.

Prior the IX Cuban Congress of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, which will take place from May 11 to 13 at the National Hotel, the scientist noted that this irrational policy of blockade, affects all sectors of our society, including drugs and technical equipment for the healthcare system. (Cubaminrex-RHC)

Ecuador: Correa set for victory in Referendum

by Gonzalo Ortiz, 05 May 2011.
Source: IPS News.

Pollsters predict that a majority of voters in Ecuador will approve a package of reforms backed by leftwing President Rafael Correa, in a May 7 referendum that has further polarised the population.

Spokespersons for Consult Marketing Solutions, Informe Confidencial, Perfiles de Opinión and Opinión Pública Ecuador informed IPS that between 51 and 60 percent of respondents were in favour of the proposed reforms. The results of the opinion polls were provided to foreign correspondents for publication outside the country, due to the ban on releasing pre-election poll results in Ecuador.

Voting is compulsory in this South American country except for those over 65 or between the ages of 16 and 18. The pollsters estimate that at least 2.7 million of the country's 11.2 million registered voters will not cast ballots on Saturday.

Five of the 10 questions in the referendum would amend articles of the constitution, and the rest would require the passage of new laws, on a broad range of issues.

The first two questions would cancel the constitutional limit on the length of preventive detention when detainees purposely delay the judicial process through legal manoeuvres, and would regulate alternatives to remand custody.

The third question asks voters whether they want to amend the constitution to limit private banks to owning companies only in the financial sector and to forbid private media companies from participating in economic ventures in other areas. The aim is to prevent conflicts of interest.

The fourth would create a "transitional" council of the judiciary, made up of one member appointed by the government, another by the legislature, and a third by the Council of Citizen Participation and Social Control, a fourth branch of the state.

The transitional council would have 18 months to completely overhaul the judicial system, which is widely seen as corrupt.

The fifth question would permanently modify the make-up of the council of the judiciary, whose functions include the appointment of judges. The council would no longer solely be made up of members of the judicial system, but would include delegates of the other branches of the state.

The opposition argues that these measures would make it possible for the president to limit the independence of the courts, while Correa says they would make the judiciary more efficient and curtail corruption.

In the sixth question, voters will be asked whether the country's single-chamber parliament should pass a law to criminalise the illegal acquisition of wealth by individuals in the private sector. Illicit enrichment is already classified as a crime in the public sector.

Casinos and gambling in general would be banned if voters approve the seventh question, and the mistreatment and killing of animals for entertainment, as in bullfighting and cockfighting, would be made illegal by the eighth item.

The ninth question asks voters whether the legislature should pass a law that would create a media regulatory council to monitor violent, explicitly sexual or discriminatory content in broadcast and print media, in order to establish responsibility by communicators or media outlets.

The tenth question would make it a crime for employers not to register their employees in the Social Security Institute.

The polling companies all found the highest level of public support for this last point, with between 60 and 70 percent of respondents saying they would vote "yes" on question 10.

More than 54 percent of those interviewed by Consult Marketing Solutions said they would vote the same way on all questions, whether "yes" or "no", Blasco Moscoso, the director of the polling firm, told foreign correspondents.

Another 30 percent said they would vote "yes" to some questions and "no" to others.

Between seven and 12 percent of respondents said they were undecided, according to the different pollsters, who rule out any surprise in the results, however.

"The undecided voters are mainly people who never listen to news on the radio or watch the news on TV, and do not even read the newspapers that are handed out for free in bus, train and subway stations," said Santiago Pérez, director of Opinión Pública Ecuador.

The poor are still the government's main support base. The pollsters say Correa has lost the middle and upper classes of Quito, the country's second-largest city, who had backed him in the 2006 and 2009 presidential elections, in the vote for the constituent assembly that rewrote the constitution, and in the referendum in which the new constitution was approved.

"I wouldn't say he has lost them, but I would agree that there is a higher proportion among those classes who now reject Correa," said Pérez. "There is an ethical and aesthetic condemnation of the president, which conceals an underlying question: that there are no concrete benefits for these classes in the current government."

The only question to be decided by voters of each specific province is the ban on public events involving the killing of animals. Off-the-record, some pollsters said question eight might be rejected in Quito and some other areas with strong bullfighting or cockfighting traditions.

The experts say they found no distinguishable voting patterns along gender or age lines, and they point out that Ecuador is a geographically and culturally diverse country, with Amazon rainforest, Andean highlands and coastal lowlands, and a mestizo or mixed-race majority, a large Amerindian minority, and small white, black and Asian minorities.

They explained that a referendum in Ecuador is different than a vote in countries like Uruguay or Costa Rica, which have much more homogeneous populations, and where polls carried out among small samples have higher statistical significance. In Ecuador, polling is more complex, due to the different provincial and regional breakdowns of the population, the pollsters said.

While many observers are describing the referendum as a key test of confidence in the Correa administration, Pérez believes there are people who are interested in the specific content of each question, although the referendum form has lengthy annexes "which 90 percent of the population hasn't read, and won't read," according to Moscoso.

"To portray the referendum as a survey on Correa's popularity reflects a mistaken and incomplete interpretation," said Pérez, whose polling company is generally seen as the government's favourite.

According to his firm, Opinión Pública Ecuador, 28 percent of respondents have taken an interest in the questions and will vote on the basis of whether each one is good for them, their families or the country. Only 25 percent do not care about the content of the referendum, another 25 percent will vote "yes" to support Correa, and 14 percent will vote "no" to punish him, the polling firm found.

The campaign, in which Correa and his party have been very active, while the opposition has been fragmented, ends Thursday.

The world is changing and we have an important role to play

by Michel Collon, 11 March 2011.
Source: Correo del Orinoco English Edition, no 55.

After the Latin Americans, came the Arabs. And tomorrow, the Africans? Why did Washington and Paris have to draw back in Tunisia and Egypt. How are they going to save the foundations of the neo-colonial system. And what is our role in seeing that the world truly transforms itself?

For a long time the Empire seemed to be invincible. The United States could at will, using the most absurd pretexts, violate the United Nations Charter, impose cruel embargoes, bomb or occupy countries, assassinate heads of state, provoke civil wars, finance terrorists, organize coups d’état, arm Israel for its aggressions.

It seemed the US could do anything it wanted and pessimism prevailed. How many times have I heard people say: “They are too strong, how can we get rid of these corrupt Arab regimes that are accomplices of Israel?” The response has come from below: the people are stronger than the tyrants. But we all feel that the struggle has not ended by only eliminating Ben Ali and Mubarak. It has just begun. To wrest real changes, those who are pulling the strings from behind must be neutralized. Hence it is vitally important to figure out the mechanisms of this system that produces tyrants, protects them and, when necessary, replaces them. And to understand why this Empire is weakening and how it will try to maintain its power at all costs.

No Empire is eternal. Sooner or later, the arrogance of their crimes provokes general resistance. Sooner or later, the cost of ‘maintaining order’ is greater than the profits that these wars bring to the multinationals. Sooner or later, the investments in the military will be at the expense of other sectors of the economy, so that they will lose their international competitiveness.

And the US is no exception to the rule. The rate of profit of their multinationals has decreased since 1965 and the indebtedness and speculation bubbles have only delayed and worsened the situation. Their share in the world economy dropped from 50% in 1945 to 30% in the 1960s. Today it is around 20% and it will be about 10% in 20 years. No army can be stronger than its economy and the US is therefore increasingly less able to be the world’s policeman.

Now the planet is becoming multipolar: there is a different balance between the US, Europe, Russia and, above all, the large countries of the South. China in particular has proved that to be independent is the best way to make progress. The US and Europe cannot impose their will as they used to do. Their neo-colonialism seems to be heading for an early demise. In fact, this US decline has been increasingly visible over the last decade. In 2000 the Internet bubble burst. In 2002, the Venezuelan population foiled the ‘made in the USA’ coup d’état and Hugo Chavez embarked on his great social reforms that led to peoples’ resistance all over Latin America.

In 2003 Bush’s war machine bogged down in Iraq, as in Afghanistan. In 2006 Israel failed in Lebanon and in 2009 in Gaza. The defeats are mounting up. The wonderful revolt of the Tunisians and Egyptians has wrought miracles. We now hear the US extolling the ‘democratic transition’ while for decades they have been supplying tyrants with tanks, machine guns and training seminars in torture!

But we must go into the roots of the situation. Rejoicing over the first steps must not mean overlooking the path that remains to be pursued. It is not only Ben Ali who plundered Tunisia, it was a whole class of profiteers. It was not only Mubarak who oppressed the Egyptians, it was the whole regime around him. And behind this regime, the US. What was important was not the marionette, but who was pulling the strings. Washington, like Paris, is only trying to replace the worn-out marionettes by other, more presentable ones. What the Tunisians, Egyptians and others want to resolve is not which ‘new’ leader will make new promises. Their question is rather “Will I have a real job with a real wage and a decent life for my family?



Only recently Latin America was experiencing the same poverty and the same despair. The enormous profits from oil, gas and other raw materials went to swell the coffers of Exxon and Shell while one Latino out of two lived below the poverty threshold, without being able to pay a doctor or a good school for the children. Everything started to change when Hugo Chavez nationalized oil, changed all the contracts with the multinationals, demanding that they pay taxes and that profits be shared. The following year $11.4 billion were paid into the State Treasury (for 20 years the figure was zero!) and this started the implementation of social programs: health care and school for everyone, doubling of the minimum wage, support for cooperatives and small businesses that create jobs. In Bolivia Evo Morales is doing the same thing. And the example is spreading. Will it reach the Mediterranean and the Middle East? When will there be an Arab Chavez or an Arab Evo? The courage of these masses of people who are rebelling deserves an organization and a leader who is honest and determined to see it through.

Real political democracy is impossible without social justice. In fact the two problems are intricately linked. No one sets up a dictatorship for pleasure or simple perversion. It is always to maintain the privileges of a small clique who grab all the wealth. The dictators are the employees of the multinationals.

Five years ago, Védrine, former French minister of foreign affairs, had the gall to claim that Arab people were not ready for democracy. This theory remains dominant among a French elite who, more or less openly practice anti-Arab Islamophobia. In fact, it is France that is not ready for democracy. It is France who massacred the Tunisians in 1937 and 1952 and the Moroccans in 1945. It is France that has led a long and bloody war to stop the Algerians from exercising their legitimate right to sovereignty. It is France who, through a statement by their revisionist president, refused to recognize its crimes and pay its debts to the Arabs and the Africans. It is France who protected Ben Ali right up until he got on to the plane that took him away. It is France who has imposed and maintained the worst tyrants in Africa.

The current anti-Muslim racism kills two birds with one stone. First, in Europe, it divides the workers according to their origin, and while there is all this fantasizing about the burqa, the employers happily attack wages, the conditions of work and the pensions of all the workers, with veils or without. Instead of wondering “But who imposed these dictators on them?” By reversing the victim and the guilty one, the former is demonized.

This is the fundamental debate and it depends on all of us to see that it is highlighted. Why the US, France & Co. – who have the word ‘democracy’ always on their lips –do not want real democracy? Because if the people can decide how to use their wealth and their work, then the privileges of the corrupt and the profiteers will be in great danger!

To hide their refusal of democracy, the US and their allies agitate in the media about the ‘Islamist peril’. Do we see them alerting us and leading huge media campaigns about the Islamists who are submissive to them like the odious regime of Saudi Arabia? Do we hear them excusing themselves for having financed the Islamists of Bin Laden in order to overturn a leftwing Afghan government that had emancipated the women?

Our world is changing very quickly. The decline of the US opens new prospects for the liberation of peoples. Great upheavals are likely. But what direction will they take? If they are to be positive, it depends on each of us circulating genuine information so the shameful stories of the past become known, so the secret strategies are unmasked. All this will help to establish a great debate, popular and international.

What kind of economy, and model of social justice do people really need? The official information on this issue is catastrophic. So if the debate is to be started and spread about, each of us has an important role to play. Information is the key.

Venezuela’s Chávez responds to criticisms over Pérez Becerra deportation

by Tamara Pearson, 03 May 2011.
Source: Venezuelanalysis.com

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has responded to criticisms from the international left as well as his own supporters over the deportation of alternative journalist, Joaquin Perez Becerra, from Venezuela to Colombia, where the Colombian government is accusing Becerra of “terrorism” because his news site, Anncol, allegedly “supports” the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC).

Venezuelan authorities arrested Becerra on 23 April at Maiquetia International Airport, outside of Caracas, after a phone call from Colombian President Juan Santos requesting Becerra’s detention and deportation.

On both Saturday, while launching the new housing mission, and on Sunday, during his speech at the large May Day march in Caracas, Chavez responded to criticism of the Becerra deportation, saying he took responsibility for his actions, and that the Becerra Case appeared to be a set up.

“It’s not my responsibility – the main blame goes to this gentleman who came here knowing that he was being looked for by Interpol, with a code red. Each person assumes their own responsibility,” Chavez said. “If we capture [Becerra] I’m bad, and if we don’t, I’m also bad. I fulfilled my responsibility and we captured him.”

Further, in response to the burning of doll versions of some government ministers, which coincided with a Venezuelan tradition around Easter time, Chavez said, “Those compatriots who burnt the doll with Nicolas’ [Maduro, minister for foreign affairs] face, with [Andres Izarra, communications ministers]’s face, made a mistake, they should have burnt a doll with my face, because I’m responsible for the decisions the government makes.

“[Becerra] got off the plane and we captured him, and just like we handed over the [accused terrorist] Chavez Abarca to the Cuban government, we handed [Becerra] over to the Colombian government,” Chavez said. “I had to comply with international agreements Venezuela had signed, that’s all.”

“The Colombian government, the International Police (INTERPOL), and the CIA even knew the seat that the Colombian journalist, Joaquin Perez Becerra, was sitting on as he traveled to Venezuela.”

“Also, someone would have to say who invited [Becerra] here, who set up the trap, why they set it up... they set it up here and they were hunting him...In my modest opinion... they set him up in order to stick the dagger in my chest, they passed me a hot potato.”

Chavez expressed hope that the Colombian government would respect Becerra’s rights, “I’m not saying that [Becerra] is a terrorist, or that he’s guilty of what Colombian government accuses him of.”

“Those who want to criticise me, do so, and those who want to burn me, do so, but I assume my responsibility, and each person should assume theirs with maturity,” he concluded.

In Venezuela, a range of pro-government groups have argued that as a person with political asylum in Sweden the Venezuelan government should have respected Becerra’s political refugee status.

China aids Venezuela to food sovereignty

by Edward Ellis, 11 March 2011.
Source: Correo del Orinoco English Edition, no 55.

Strengthening Venezuela’s agricultural production and the nation’s capacity to supply both its domestic and international food markets has been the impetus behind the creation of a new mixed Venezuelan-Chinese company.

Heilongjiang Beidahuang, an agricultural company that manages various state farms in China and specializes in technological and seed supply, will comprise the Asian component of the new business that will operate in Venezuelan territory. Venezuela’s Agriculture and Land Ministry will head up the Latin American side of the enterprise, which was solidified last Saturday when President Hugo Chavez met with company representatives and Chinese agricultural experts. “We cannot continue to depend only on oil”, Chavez said during the meeting. “That was the [economic] model that was imposed upon us by imperialism, the oil dependent model. We have to produce our own food. First for self-sustenance and then to export even as far as China. That’s what were planning with this alliance”, he affirmed.

The new joint venture has planned the supply of rice, corn and bean seeds from the Chinese firm as well as technological transfer that will be used to develop millions of acres of currently underutilized Venezuelan farmland.

FERTILE FARMLANDS
“We have very good, fertile land that isn’t being cultivated which could facilitate the production of food for around 500 million people”, Chavez explained.

As part of the preparations for the agricultural initiative, Qian Baim, President of the Heilongjiang Beidahuang company submitted a report during Saturday’s meeting outlining the results of a Chinese delegation’s evaluation of Venezuelan farmlands in the states of Apure, Bolivar, Barinas, Anzoategui and Guarico.

“Venezuela has very fertile land, well suited for cultivation and the Venezuelan government has made agricultural production a priority. Our company has a lot of experience in the production of different crops. We have the technology and know-how that can be applied here and with our collaboration, Venezuela will be at the front of world agricultural development. [It] will be a producer and exporter of cereals to supply the people of the world”, President Baim said.

The study carried out by the Chinese delegation focused on soil and water quality and was handed over to the Agriculture an Land Minister Juan Carlos Loyo who signed an Act of Commitment with the foreign firm to create the new joint venture.

According to President Chavez, the new company will begin to plant rice in the Venezuelan state of Apure as early as June of this year. “This demonstrates the willingness that both parties have. We have to prepare the irrigation systems, canals, ponds and wells in order to reap two or three rice harvests in one year”, the Venezuelan head of state said.

The formation of the joint company marks the second agreement signed between the Venezuelan government and Heilongjiang Beidahuang this year. In January, the Chavez administration gave the go ahead to import soybeans and soybean oil from the Chinese company to ensure a three month supply of the commodities in its food reserves.

“[Heilongjiang Beidahuang] is a company dedicated to food production. That’s why I’ve asked for their help in order to increase our country’s food reserves”, Chavez said.

STRENGHTENING TIES
This latest agreement with a Chinese forms part of the strengthening of ties between
Venezuela and the Asian economic powerhouse. Indeed, Chinese–Venezuelan relations have been growing exponentially over recent years with trade between the two nations now reaching over $5 billion a year.

In 2008, the Asian nation built and launched Venezuela’s first telecommunications satellite and last year, China approved a $20 billion loan to Venezuela, the largest in the country’s history. As part of its push to ensure food security in the face of rapidly rising prices, Venezuela has, in addition to China, reached out to its neighbor Colombia, signing a series of accords designed to accelerate agricultural production.

“We’re becoming integrated. Soon we’ll be importing twenty thousand cows from Colombia to strengthen our milk production”, announced President Chavez.

DOMESTIC PRODUCTION
In October of last year, the Venezuelan government also nationalized the Spain-based agricultural supply chain, Agroisleña, in a bid to make farming equipment, seeds and fertilizers more accessible to small farmers. Referred to as the Monsanto of Venezuela, Agroisleña exercised control over seventy percent of the distribution of staple crops such as corn and rice, as well as exerting a monopoly over the distribution of seeds.

“Agroisleña was an apparatus that exploited the campesinos who ended up being dependent on the business for basic supplies such as pesticides… It bankrupted many small farmers”, said Elisa Osorio, leader of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, at the time of the nationalization.

HELPING LOCAL FARMERS
In February, the Chavez government launched a new social program, or mission, called Agro Venezuela, with the intent of re-invigorating agricultural production in the country and breaking with a past dominated by fallow estates and transnational agro-businesses. The mission, currently collecting registry information on all producers who wish to participate in the program, has already begun to provide low interest loans, machinery, and technical assistance to farmers enrolled in the initiative.

Yulitma Arroyo, a small producer from state of Lara is one such beneficiary. “We’ve received financing for twenty-three hectares of potatoes, coffee and vegetables”, she reported. Many producers who were adversely affected by torrential rains at the end of 2010, have also received government support.

“[The Mission] has financed cacao and plantain production, which was lost as a consequence of the rains we had last year”, said Damasco Villamizar from the community of Barlovento in the state of Miranda. According to the government, more than 500 thousand producers who have registered for the program will benefit from government aid.

The war which left Bolivia without access to the sea

• On April 29 Bolivians commemorate their Right to Maritime Recuperation • On this occasion Granma International responds to the common question: How is it that this country has no coastline?

by FÉLIX LÓPEZ, Granma International, 28 April 2011.

EDUARDO Galeano recounts that a Bolivian child once asked his father to take him to see the ocean. Together they began the journey which seemed interminable. Once arriving and seeing the immense blue before his eyes, the little one made another request, "Father, now teach me to look at it."

Beyond the poetry in this image, it represents a synthesis of a mental outlook, a national problem for Bolivians: the loss of the ocean they once treasured as part of their national territory. What happens when wars change borders drawn on maps? Who stripped Bolivia of its access to the sea? How legitimate is Bolivia’s claim?

THE BONE OF CONTENTION
By the middle of the 19th century, the Atacama Desert had acquired significant economic importance with the discovery of valuable guano and saltpeter deposits which were fetching good prices on the international market. Within no time, these resources became a bone of contention, drawing Bolivia, Chile and Peru into the Pacific War.

The conflict continued for 150 years and there are still disagreements between Bolivian and Chilean historians and geographers. Bolivia maintains that the territory within the Spanish colonial Audencia de Charcas, first part of the Peruvian Viceroyalty and then the Río de la Plata, included the coast. Chile denies and casts doubts. What is certain is that when the Republic of Bolivia was founded (1825), initially designated the Republic of Bolívar, Simon Bolívar described the country’s access to the sea at Cobija (Puerto La Mar).

It is also clear that before the war, the Republics of Bolivia and Chile had signed two treaties delineating borders, the first in 1866 and the second in 1874. Both were ratified and solemnly exchanged in Santiago and La Paz. According to its preamble, the 1866 treaty had as its objective "putting an amicable and mutually satisfactory end to the long-standing disagreement over the location of respective territorial borders in the Atacama Desert and the exploitation of guano deposits existing along the coast of said desert." [1]

In Article 1, the border between the two countries is established as "the 24th parallel south, from the Pacific coast to the eastern border of Chile." [2]

On November 27, 1873, the Antofagasta Railroad and Saltpeter Company, a Chilean organization formed by Chilean and British investors, signed an agreement with the Bolivian government authorizing their unencumbered exploitation of saltpeter for 15 years, from the bay of Antofagasta to Salinas, including the Carmen salt flats. The agreement was not ratified by the Bolivian Congress, which was at that time considering the negotiations with Chile leading up to the 1874 treaty.

The war took place. The dead were forgotten. Bolivia continued as one of only two countries in Latin America without a coastline. There are 42 nations around the world in this situation, and 30 of them are among the least developed and poorest. The position they find themselves in is considered a disadvantage, not only because it prevents their benefiting from the ocean’s natural wealth, but also because it makes participation in international commerce difficult, which still depends, in great measure, on maritime transportation.

OCEAN FOR BOLIVIA
With the dignity and perseverance that the issue merits, the Aymara leader Evo Morales, the first indigenous President of Bolivia, has since 2006 asserted his people’s sovereign right to access to the sea. His arguments are sustained by the view that in 1825, his country’s territory stretched west to the Pacific. Along the coast, the northern border was with Peru and with Chile to the south. For Bolivians, their rights to the Pacific coast have prehispanic roots given the presence of the Tiahuanacu culture in the area and the subsequent Inca control of the coast. The Peruvian Viceroyalty clearly delineated its southern frontier as the 25th parallel at Paposo, in the Copiapó Valley. This border was inherited by Bolivia as can be seen in all international maps from that era. The country’s coastal territory included approximately 120,000 square kilometers.

The detractors of this point of view point out that the colonial borders were vague, especially when they passed through an area like the Atacama Desert. There are Chilean texts which assert that Bolivia never had a coastline. Official history has seen to it that Bolivia has no coastline even in books.

To unravel the tangle of claims and denials, it’s important to know that before the Pacific War, Chile’s export economy was based on the exploitation of the saltpeter deposits which stretched from the Atacama Desert north to the southern reaches of Peruvian territory. Britain had an enormous interest in the saltpeter trade, with British and Chilean capital holding 33% of Peruvian saltpeter. Everything was going well until the Bolivian government imposed a tax of ten cents for every quintal exported. Chile invaded its territory, arguing that Bolivia had violated the treaty of 1874 which said that Bolivia would not raise taxes on saltpeter for 25 years - until 1899.

The conflict was settled on the battlefield. Chile declared war on Bolivia and its ally Peru and the fighting lasted five years, 1879-1884. A victorious Chile moved its border north and left Bolivia with no access to the sea. Another war then began: the legal one which has never ended. The Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Trade between Bolivia and Chile, known as the Treaty of 1904, set the current territorial limits with Chilean sovereignty extending to the Peruvian border and Bolivia’s far removed from the Pacific.

As a consolation, the document concedes Bolivia, in perpetuity, broad, unencumbered rights to commercial transport through Chilean territory and use of its Pacific ports. By all rights, Juan Ignacio Siles, former Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs (2003-2005), declared that the Treaty of 1904 is "disgraceful, profoundly unfair, entirely lacking in generosity on the part of a country which has defeated another." [3].

GETTING THE MAP IN ORDER
This April 29, when Bolivians celebrate their Día del Derecho a la Recuperación Marítima, those of us who have the good fortune to see the ocean every day understand the justice of their demand. As a minimum, Bolivia is fighting for a corridor ten kilometers wide extending some 160 kilometers from its border with Chile to the Pacific, including a section of coastline where it can develop industrial and commercial facilities under its own flag.

Historically Chilean officials have rejected the idea that their country is hindering the economic development of Bolivia, by denying it a small section of the Pacific coastline. They emphasize that under the provisions of the 1904 treaty, Bolivia has tax-free access to the northern Chilean port of Arica and that Chile has built a railroad linking Arica with La Paz. To counter the notion that the Treaty of 1904 was imposed on the defeated by the victor, Chileans emphasize that it was signed well after the conclusion of hostilities, according to established norms of diplomatic relations between states.

The repercussions of the conflict seriously affected the three countries involved. Chile emerged with a much more powerful army. The expansion of its territory contributed to the development of the country, allowing Chile to consolidate its position as a South American power in that era. Peru and Bolivia, on the other hand, faced societies extremely demoralized by the outcome of the war, making normal development impossible for their peoples. The first were ruined. The second had lost their ocean, which they are still seeking.

Thus when Evo Morales demands with so much conviction "a sea for Bolivia" he is not only thinking about restoring the lines drawn on old maps and building the long-awaited port needed for the development of his country. He does so to heal the age-old wounds of history and so children in his country no longer think of the ocean as an impossible destination.

NOTAS
[1] «Tratado de 1866», Guerra del Pacífico 1879, disponible en: http://www.laguerradelpacifico1879.cl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=693

[2] Ídem.

[3] «Claves: Bolivia, Chile y el mar», BBC Mundo.com, disponible en: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin_america/
newsid_3759000/3759740.stm

Putting the deportation of Joaquín Pérez Becerra in context

written for RATB by Sam McGill, 03 May 2011.

On the demand of the Colombian government, on 22 April 2011, left-wing journalist Joaquín Pérez Becerra, allegedly an ex-leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), was arrested at a Venezuelan airport on arrival from Frankfurt in Germany. Two days later, he was deported by the Venezuelan government to Colombia. The arrest and deportation has caused a domestic and international outcry against Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela. Pérez Becerra is the director of The New Colombia News Agency (ANNCOL) and a source of re-published communiqués of the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP).

Pérez Becerra survived during the mass murder of leaders of the Patriotic Union (UP), which was the legal political party, a coalition of a range of social actors, including the FARC and the Colombian Communist Party. Some 5,000 members of the UP have been killed since 1984, including Pérez ’s first wife. Pérez was a leader of the group during the 1990s. He received political asylum in Sweden in 2000 where he was living until he boarded a plane to Venezuela. Pérez Becerra was wanted by the Colombian Legal system and according to the Colombian and Venezuelan Government; Pérez Becerra had an INTERPOL order out for him.

There have been protests in Venezuela against his arrest and deportation by representatives from Pro-Chávez organisations, including: Coordinadora Simón Bolívar (CSB), the Simón Bolívar National Communal Front (FNCSB), the “Clara Zetkin” Women’s Movement, the Front for the Detained and Disappeared of the Continent, and the Revolutionary Tupamaros Movement. Also in attendance were former Venezuelan Trade Minister Eduardo Samán, current Venezuelan lawmaker Oscar Figueras Yul Yalbur, and investigative journalist Eva Golinger.

Whilst the deportation is a blow to the sovereignty of Venezuela and the struggle for freedom in Colombia, it must be considered in the context of international relations between Venezuela, Colombia and Latin America. Below we detail the current context and analyse the difficult situation that both the Venezuelan government and Joaquin Pérez Becerra were put in.

Political battles over extraditions: Posada Carriles and Walid Makled
In an interview on Telesur the Venezuelan foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro made it clear that they felt obliged to honour the Interpol order for the Pérez Becerra’s extradition to Colombia and that if they didn't they would lose all their grounds for demanding the extradition of Posada Carriles, a Cuban-exile with Venezuelan citizenship, who escaped from a Venezuelan prison in 1985. Posada Carriles is wanted by Cuba and Venezuela for his involvement in various terrorist attacks including the 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian aeroplane that killed all 73 people on board, and the 1997 bombings of four Havana hotels that killed an Italian tourist. Carriles walks free in Miami today despite Venezuela’s demand that he be extradited to stand trial.

Colombia has recently agreed to extradite accused drug trafficker Walid Makled, a Venezuelan businessman, back to Venezuela. Makled is wanted in Colombia, Venezuela and the US for drug trafficking, money laundering and involvement in 3 separate murders. The US are also calling for Colombia to deport him to be tried in US courts. There is significant US interest in the case due to Makled’s spurious claims, exploited by the Venezuelan opposition to demonise the Bolivarian Revolution, that the Venezuelan government is involved in narco-trafficking and the funding of terrorist groups. There have been several investigations, seizures and denunciations by Venezuela’s National Anti-drug Office (ONA) into Makled’s businesses and his $1.2 billion fortune.

US military threats to Venezuelan security
In 2009 the previous Uribe administration in Colombia signed an agreement to establish seven new US military bases in Colombia, with provisions for the US to use any land, sea or airspace of Colombia as it saw necessary. Furthermore in July 2010, Colombia and Costa Rica agreed to the deployment of 6,000 US troops whilst presenting various arguments to the Organization of American States (OAS) for intervention in Venezuela on the alleged basis of the presence of FARC camps in Venezuelan territory. Chavez placed Venezuela on high alert for invasion and broke off diplomatic relations with Colombia.

These military threats emerged within a regional context that included two new US military bases in Panama, the June 2009 military coup in Honduras, where there are two US military bases, the deployment of up to 10,000 US troops and 47 US warships in Costa Rican territory, the reactivation after 60 years of the US Fourth Fleet to patrol South American and Caribbean waters and the occupation of Haiti by 10,000 US troops following the January 2010 earthquake.

In August 2010, Uribe was replaced in Colombian elections by the new administration of President Juan Manuel Santos. Santos had previously served as the Minister of National Defence under Uribe’s Administration and continues to represent the Social Party of National Unity (Partido Social de Unidad Nacional) of which Uribe was president. Although Santos in no way represents a break from the politics of Uribe, at present he is adopting different tactics, by restoring trade relationships with Venezuela and halting the establishment of the US bases. The Colombian Supreme Court ruled that the US-Colombia Defence Co-operation Agreement was unconstitutional as it had not been passed by Congress. The Santos administration has upheld this decision so far.

The decreased threat of a large-scale, US backed military intervention in Venezuela is clearly something that Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution need to maintain in order to preserve stability and security in Venezuela, not to mention to prevent loss of life. It removes the necessity of huge military spending increases which means more resources for the Revolution’s social and development programmes.

International and bilateral trade
Economist Mark Weisbrot has analysed recent trade and diplomatic relations between Colombia and Venezuela, including a cross-border security committee, the resumption of fuel shipments from Venezuela to Colombia and the payment of $800 million outstanding debt owed to Colombian exporters.

Weisbrot highlights that during 2009-2010 when Venezuela cut off relations with Colombia in the face of military threats, Colombian exports to Venezuela fell from 15.6% to just 3.6%. This represented $2.3 billion in trade for Colombia and 11.2% of their total exports. To break this down further, the loss in trade represented more than 20% of Colombia’s non fuel exports, 83% of total livestock exports and 63% of textile exports.

In the context of a global economic crisis and widespread flooding across the region, Colombia accepted further loans from the World Bank totalling US$250 million in December 2010 alone. Given these factors, it seems that Santos is pursuing the normalisation of relations with Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution through economic necessity rather than any political change of heart. However it is an economic and diplomatic relationship that benefits Venezuela also and will no doubt have influenced the Venezuelan government’s decision to deport Pérez Becerra. It is easier to maintain popular support for the revolutionary process if people do not lack basic necessities which are imported from Colombia.

The strength of revolutionaries in Venezuela
Since the 2010 national assembly elections, the opposition are more represented in the national assembly and can block decisions requiring a two-thirds agreement: the Bolivarian forces are having to choose their battles.

The murders of several peasant leaders in the Colombian border regions in April 2011, demonstrates the intensity of the struggle in which Venezuela is engaged. Despite land reforms being enshrined in law, campesinos (farmers/peasants) have been fighting to reclaim land from large land estate owners who in turn are hiring private police and paramilitary squads to murder activists.

Although Chávez has been able to intervene and positively support some prisoner swaps between FARC and the Colombian government, the Venezuelan government is not in a position to declare support for the FARC or to deny Interpol regulations requesting deportations. That is not to say there are not significant forces in Venezuela calling for this kind of position.

Reflections from Iván Maiza
The article by Iván Maiza in the opinion section of TeleSur’s website sets out a very considered explanation of the deportation and sets it in the context of the Bolivarian Revolution’s position globally and its political strengths.

Maiza points out that:

“The fact is that Joaquín was not in Maicao being chased by a pack from the AUC [United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia] and forced to cross the border, nor was he in hiding, nor even terribly upset. He was in Sweden putting together his publication, in peace. So then, he hops on a plane, comes to Venezuela and all of a sudden lands at Maiquetía. And before he arrives, there’s a call from Santos to Chávez, “Hey pal, how’s it going? Somebody I’ve been looking for is headed there, get him for me and send him over, ok? You’re not going to wreck our new friendship, are you?

“And of course to answer that we must first answer the first question: Who told Pérez Becerra to get on that plane? Who told him that everything was ok? Who gave him assurances that everything was in order? I’m sure that if someone told him that the Venezuelan government was not apprised and not prepared to defend him, and that Santos would be riled, he’d never have come. I’m sure he must have asked several times about his security and someone told him, “everything’s ok buddy, we’re waiting for you here.

“The timing was ideal. Negotiations in Cartegena between Lobo and Zelaya, a reopening of trade and relations between Venezuela and Colombia, and the expected extradition of Makled. It was just the moment to make Chávez choose between his leftist friends on the continent, or return to the days of closed borders, of the accusations that his government is an outlaw government that defends terrorists, a return to militarization at the border states of Zulia, Táchira and Apure.

“We are going to elections in a year. The Bolivarian Revolution should be confirmed once again for President Chávez’ last and most important presidential term, and for that we’re looking at two basic fronts in the struggle, both with the premise of granting a better life to the majority of the people. For the people who seek to consolidate their definitive independence, these fronts are housing and food sovereignty, which would allow for increased happiness for the people, guarantee a good life for the country’s children, allow us to prove that socialism is more productive than capitalism and consolidate a new model of development and production in the region.

"All that implies:
1. Not being at war.
2. Not being forced to increase military spending.
3. Not having a closed border (just try to win an election without sanitary napkins or diapers).
4. Stopping the murder for hire of popular leaders in agricultural zones.
5. Being able to rely on construction materials to build housing.

The main task is to guarantee that the objectives set for the election in 2012 are met, that homes, buildings, and communities can be built and that crops be planted, and in that we’ve decided to bet on the continuity of the revolutionary process, giving our best day to day, so that later in 2013 and 2019 when we face the need to consolidate the revolution beyond a particular leader, the revolution can walk on its own two feet.”

Conclusions
When drawing any conclusions from this series of events, it’s clearly a difficult and regrettable state of affairs that has lead to the arrest and deportation of Pérez Becerra. It represents a blow for the anti-imperialist struggle in Colombia and Venezuela. However, given the economic, political and military pressures facing Venezuela currently, it seems that the decision was forced when Becerra boarded the plane in Frankfurt (where the Interpol order was not implemented).

The deportation has been used inside and outside Venezuela by groups on the left and the right alike to denounce Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. However, we must recognise that the project of building socialism in Venezuela is not a utopia or some idealist dogma that exists in a political and economic vacuum, free to be guided by absolute principles. The Bolivarian struggle develops in a hostile world dominated by imperialist interests which seek to destroy it at each turn, it is forced to make concessions, sometimes taking two steps back to take one step forward.

Is it still a process worth fighting for and defending, warts and all? The millions of Venezuelans who have started to take control of their own lives through communal councils and other organs of people power, who have benefited from free healthcare and education for the first time in history, and who have won control over nationalised natural resources will answer this with their actions. No doubt, they will continue to strengthen and deepen the revolutionary process demanding more and greater radicalisation in their own interests and in the interests of the poor and oppressed throughout the world.

Washington hides proof of innocence of Cuban antiterrorists

Source: Prensa Latina, 02 May 2011.

Washington continues to hide the evidence exposing its corruption in the case of five Cuban antiterrorists imprisoned in that country, and uses its media dictatorship to do so, charged Ricardo Alarcon, president of the Cuban Parliament.

During an International Union Solidarity Conference, at Havana's International Convention Center, the Cuban leader urged the 900 guests from 42 countries to redouble their fight in a battle for life, and against secrecy and infamy.

"A year ago I told you about the situation of the Five, and I explained about the collateral or habeas corpus appeal to be filed on behalf of the fighter Gerardo Hernandez, an innocent young man weighed down by two life sentences plus 15 years in prison," said Alarcon.

Exactly one week ago, prosecutors, meaning Washington, asked the Miami court to summarily rejected the motion without granting a hearing to discuss it, without reviewing the new evidence and arguments, and without allowing Gerardo to appear in court, Alarcon explained.

The corporate media has not said a word about this unjust action by Washington, protected by the total silence of the media and behind the back of public opinion, the parliament leader noted.

Gerardo Hernandez, along with Rene Gonzalez, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando Gonzalez and Ramon Labañino, are serving long sentences for alerting Cuba to subversive plans hatched in southern Florida.

The U.S. government has also refused for 15 years to submit its satellite images of the February 24, 1996, incident around which the farce of a trial revolved, Alarcon noted.

That refusal can only be explained with an obvious statement: the incident occurred over Cuban territory and therefore the Miami court had no jurisdiction.

The president of the National Assembly of the People's Power urged the international solidarity movement to persevere in its struggle to defeat a government that is supported by lies and prevents the U.S. people from discovering the reality.

Cuba condemns killing of Gaddafi relatives

Source: Prensa Latina, 02 May 2011

The military aggression against Libya is a confirmation of the warnings made by the leader of the Cuban Revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz, about a NATO military intervention against the country, the Foreign Ministry said Monday.

In a statement published in the Monday edition of Granma newspaper, the Foreign Ministry strongly condemned the brutal murder of one of the sons of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

The Cuban ambassador in Libya visited the scene of the attack on Sunday and confirmed that the property, a walled complex of one-story buildings, is located in a residential Tripoli neighborhood that includes diplomatic buildings, the statement said.

It also referred to similar attacks two days earlier on Libyan television facilities, saying that these criminal actions came in addition to heaving bombings, including with cutting-edge U.S. drones, in which innocent people die; the delivery of weapons and equipment to the so-called rebel forces, and the deployment of military advisers in Libya.

The ambassador also accused NATO of manipulating the very same resolution that it imposed on the UN Security Council resolution, No. 1973, which is completely illegitimate, under the pretext of protecting civilian lives.

The Cuban Foreign Ministry emphasized its strongest condemnation of the indiscriminate attacks against the Libyan people, demanded an immediate halt to the armed aggression, and joined the call of the African Union and other countries for an urgent search for a peaceful solution to the situation in that country.

The solution should be based on full respect for the independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty (of Libya) over its natural resources and self-determination, without any foreign interference of any kind, the statement said.

Regarding Joaquín Pérez Becerra

By Iván Maiza, 28 April 2011.
Source: TeleSur (español)
Translation: by Machetera, 01 May 2011.

The capacity of the Latin American left to go straight ahead without looking to either side, without long term plans, without observing the world in which it lives, never ceases to amaze me. Without taking into account whose life is at stake in matters that are not strategic, nor even tactical, what matters is always the sacrifice, proving that one is not betraying the highest revolutionary values, “never bowing one’s head” like that person in the story by Osvaldo Soriano, “A sus plantas rendido un León” [A defeated lion at their feet].*

It’s sad that the Bolivarian government was forced to deport comrade Joaquín Pérez Becerra, a comrade from the Bolivarian movement in greater Colombia. It’s sad and regrettable, it’s painful and shameful, but I don’t blame the [Venezuelan] Bolivarian Government in the least, rather I sympathize, I feel solidarity with my comrades who had to carry out this abominable act, and above all with our comrade the Comandante, who must have suffered greatly.

The fact is that Joaquín was not in Maicao being chased by a pack from the AUC [United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia] and forced to cross the border, nor was he in hiding, nor even terribly upset. He was in Sweden putting together his publication, in peace. So then, he hops on a plane, comes to Venezuela and all of a sudden lands at Maiquetía. And before he arrives, there’s a call from Santos to Chávez, “Hey pal, how’s it going? Somebody I’ve been looking for is headed there, get him for me and send him over, ok? You’re not going to wreck our new friendship, are you?”

Joaquín, in mid-air, was already sentenced, and so was the Bolivarian Government. It’s worth mentioning, for all the obtuse comrades who can only see straight ahead, that until the moment in which Joaquín took to the skies, and Santos picked up the phone to call Chávez, the Bolivarian Government had absolutely nothing to do with the subject. After Santos’s call, there were two options remaining.

1. Arrest him.

2. Don’t arrest him.

You don’t have to be a genius to realize that both were shitty options. If he were arrested, the entire left staring straight ahead would be sure to pile on, and if he weren’t, you’d be screwing with a thuggish, bellicose neighbor with backup. If you do it you’re fucked. If you don’t do it you’re fucked. If you do it you’re a piece of shit, if you don’t do it, you’re a piece of shit, depending on who’s doing the judging, whether they’re your brothers or semi-peaceful neighbors.

It was a strategy that put Venezuela in a lose-lose situation, and the Colombian rightwing in a win-win. When Joaquín got on the plane, the Colombian rightwing won. When Joaquín got on the plane and Santos picked up the phone, the Comandante was already a prisoner, not Joaquín. It was Comandante Chávez who was made prisoner of a decision that he ought never have had put before him.

Now the question is, how did they manage to put Chávez in such a tight spot? And of course to answer that we must first answer the first question: Who told Pérez Becerra to get on that plane? Who told him that everything was ok? Who gave him assurances that everything was in order? I’m sure that if someone told him that the Venezuelan government was not apprised and not prepared to defend him, and that Santos would be riled, he’d never have come. I’m sure he must have asked several times about his security and someone told him, “everything’s ok buddy, we’re waiting for you here.”

The timing was ideal. Negotiations in Cartegena between Lobo and Zelaya, a reopening of trade and relations between Venezuela and Colombia, and the expected extradition of Makled. It was just the moment to make Chávez choose between his leftist friends on the continent, or return to the days of closed borders, of the accusations that his government is an outlaw government that defends terrorists, a return to militarization at the border states of Zulia, Táchira and Apure.

One day after the Joaquín Pérez Becerra affair, that asshole who still thinks he’s the Spanish president, Zapatero, denied a report that the most wanted member of the ETA was on his way to Venezuela. Coincidence? Part of the plan? Maybe yes, maybe no. What’s certain is that whoever put Joaquín on that plane would seem to be working for that side, along with Zapatero, and it would appear that they didn’t expect the response from Chávez and so Zapatero was left without a part to play in the movie.

I believe that Joaquín understands all of this; that he knows that you don’t put a strategic operation at risk for anything in the entire world, and that if a militant loses his bearings and makes things too easy for his opponent, putting the entire operation at risk, one will suffer the consequences. He knows perfectly well that there is a set order and line of command, a compartmentalization of information, and that the information is divulged when the conditions are right, and that unity among revolutionary forces is what guarantees victory.

He knows all that, I’m sure, and I want to believe that he was not the one who violated the basic norms of militancy. Believe me, I wouldn’t say the same if this were a case of displaced persons being forced to return to a place where AUC commandos awaited them; the Colombian people deserve a defense that has been lacking on this side, but….this man was in Sweden! That’s why I ask these questions, that’s why it seems to me like foul play, a trick put together with the consent of someone here, and that’s why I denounce it as a setup, because it was unnecessary, avoidable, and stupidly unjustifiable.

We are going to elections in a year. The Bolivarian Revolution should be confirmed once again for President Chávez’ last and most important presidential term, and for that we’re looking at two basic fronts in the struggle, both with the premise of granting a better life to the majority of the people. For the people who seek to consolidate their definitive independence, these fronts are housing and food sovereignty, which would allow for increased happiness for the people, guarantee a good life for the country’s children, allow us to prove that socialism is more productive than capitalism and consolidate a new model of development and production in the region. All that implies:

1. Not being at war.

2. Not being forced to increase military spending.

3. Not having a closed border (just try to win an election without sanitary napkins or diapers).

4. Stopping the murder for hire of popular leaders in agricultural zones.

5. Being able to rely on construction materials to build housing.

The main task is to guarantee that the objectives set for the election in 2012 are met, that homes, buildings, and communities can be built and that crops be planted, and in that we’ve decided to bet on the continuity of the revolutionary process, giving our best day to day, so that later in 2013 and 2019 when we face the need to consolidate the revolution beyond a particular leader, the revolution can walk on its own two feet, socialism will be consolidated and the bourgeois state will be transformed into the people’s power.

The times in which we live are not our best moments, the world continues moving toward imperial wars, the rightwing is recovering lost ground, those who’ve been able to avoid aggression have remained with their arms folded, and it’s also true that our Venezuelan society has not moved toward socialism as quickly as desired, the economy based on extraction of raw materials has refused to stop existing, and although we’ve achieved important things, the time to move to the next level is upon us. We ought to be more capable than ever, more careful than ever, and in order to do that, strategic pathways must be established.

Where is the part in the strategy in which we fight with Santos because a comrade cheerfully decided to come and set off a diplomatic scuffle? Where’s the part where we’ve said that this is the time for a confrontation with the Colombian oligarchy that has so damaged us? Hasn’t it been clear for several months that we are at another stage in the strategy? Once more, who put Joaquín on that plane at this particular moment? Who sold him out to put the Bolivarian Revolution at risk of losing its general strategy?

The truth, comrades, is that we’ve learned, and have had to learn to move offensively as well as regressively, to conceal ourselves in order to return again and fight propitiously. The Bolivarian Revolution has learned to be agile, to take one step forward and two back, yet still move ahead, learning to wait and deliver precise blows without a fatiguing exchange that leads to exhaustion. We’ve learned to figure out the rightwing’s tricks and all of this we’ve come to learn day to day with our strategically minded President. Could it be that the forever forward-focused left doesn’t want us to be agile against a rightwing that is always astute and cunning? Are they bothered by the rightwing or is it just that they don’t understand it? Or could it be….that there are sectors within the revolutionary left who are taking orders from the DAS [Colombian security]?

And what if it’s not even necessary for the DAS to infiltrate the popular movement?

Well then, we’d be facing a scenario in which certain “comrades” or some “revolutionary parties” have ventured plans to sabotage the strategies put forth by the Comandante – even going so far as to entrap comrades in the struggle? – comrades who cannot accept that the Comandante has made the decision to get closer to Santos and who’ll do anything to “break the trust” between Chávez and his people, between Chávez and the people of the continent. Comrades who are willing to set the agenda of the Bolivarian government even if it means sabotage. Is it possible? Like when comrades sold out el Ché or sabotaged the M-26? I’d prefer to think that it was the DAS.

The other option is that some cocky Venezuelan militant might have said “a revolutionary can invite someone else to his revolution whenever he wants,” without bothering to look sideways, without observing what’s going on in the world, without reading his surroundings, without calculating the risks, without thinking about possible scenarios, putting so many things at risk, skimming over so many others, always forward, forward, forward….right up to the precipice.

Another day will dawn, and we’ll see.

*Translator’s note: My translation for the Spanish language wikipedia entry for “A sus plantas rendido un león” follows:

“A sus plantas rendido un león” is a novel by the Argentine writer Osvaldo Soriano. As the author explains in a preface, the title is a verse from the old version of the Argentine national anthem. While that verse referred to Spain, defeated in the independence struggles, in this novel, the lion that ought to be defeated is the U.K., the victor in the Guerra de las Malvinas [referred to in Anglo media as the Falklands war], during which a socialist revolution is set off in the African country of Bongwutsi. Summary: The Guerra de Malvinas (1982) begins and, in Bongwutsi, a remote African country, a forgotten Argentine consul starts his own battle against England. At the same time, in Europe, a conspiracy is hatched to turn Bongwutsi into a socialist republic. Another Argentine is a participant and both Argentines, along with unforgettable revolutionaries, come together in the delirious and moving plot.

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