Venezuela Blogs

BY EVA GOLINGER

Washington has made no secret of its disdain for Venezuela’s President Chavez and mass media have turned a democratic leader into a dictatorship. Does Venezuela really represent a threat to the United States or is the hype just an excuse for regime change?


[NOTE: I accompanied President Chavez on his last trip to Iran in October 2010 and can attest to the legitimate relationship between both nations. We did not visit nuclear plants, instead we visited housing construction sites which were subsequently used as models for a public housing program currently underway in Venezuela in joint venture with Iran. I also personally visited the Iranian-Venezuelan tractor factory in southeastern Bolivar state in Venezuela several years ago and rode on one of the tractors. I can solidly say it was not radioactive nor a front for an atomic bomb.]

The visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Latin America this week caused a frenzy in Washington. The thought of US Enemy #1 just miles away, south of the border, cozying up to nations once dominated by Washington’s agenda was too much to bear for a government desperately trying to isolate Iran and rid the Persian nation of the Islamic Revolution. Days before Ahmadinejad’s arrival to Venezuela, his first stop on a four-country Latin American tour, the US State Department warned the region of receiving the Iranian President and strengthening ties while Washington was intensifying sanctions against Iran and increasing pressure on Ahmadinejad’s government. As a sign of its severity, Washington also expelled a Venezuelan diplomat serving as General Consul in Miami, for alleged links to an unsubstantiated Iranian plot against the United States.

Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez laughed off Washington’s warnings as words from a “ridiculous empire” that no longer “dominates us in Latin America”. “We are sovereign nations”, Chavez made clear, as he received the Iranian President with open arms. Chavez even ironized about Washington’s accusations that the Iranian-Venezuelan relationship represents a threat to the United States.

“They accuse us over and over again of plans to attack the United States. They say we are building a bomb to launch against Washington. See that hill right there”, said President Chavez to journalists at the presidential palace covering Ahmadinejad’s arrival. “The grass will open up to reveal a big atomic bomb that President Ahmadinejad and I will launch against the White House”, he joked.

“The only war Venezuela and Iran are waging together is the war against hunger, against poverty, against exclusion”, clarified Chavez in a stern tone.

For years now, US government officials, outside analysts, think tanks, government consultants and media commentators have made wild-eyed accusations against Venezuela, claiming it is building missile bases with Iran to plan attacks against the US and hosting terrorist training camps for members of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. These absurd claims go as far to allege Venezuelan-Iranian joint ventures, such as car and bicycle factories and milk processing plants are fronts for secret underground uranium enrichment sites where nuclear bombs are being made right now for use against the United States. Even a commercial flight between Caracas and Teheran was claimed by these US “analysts” and some members of Congress, such as Connie Mack and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (both Florida Republicans), as a “terror flight” used to transport “radioactive materials” and “terrorists”.

As ridiculous as Washington’s allegations against Venezuela may seem, these dangerous, unsubstantied accusations are being used to amp up hostilities against the South American nation, channel multimillion-dollar funding to anti-Chavez groups in an attempt to destabilize the Venezuelan government and to further perpetuate a media campaign demonizing the Venezuelan head of state, painting the oil-producing country as a dictatorship.

Over the past few years, as the campaign against Venezuela has intensified, common jargon in mass media referring to Venezuela and President Chavez includes terms such as “dictator”, “authoritarian”, “tyrant”, “terrorist”, “threat” and portrays the Latin American country as a “failed state” where human rights are constantly “violated” and freedom of expression is non-existent. Anyone who has ever visited Venezuela during the Chavez administration knows that not only is there no dictatorship, but democracy is open, vibrant and participatory, free speech flourishes and Venezuelans enjoy more human rights guarantees than their northern neighbors in the United States. Media need be reminded that President Chavez has been elected by more than 60% of the vote in transparent electoral processes with 80% voter participation certified by international observers.

As President Chavez pointed out recently, the Venezuelan government is investing more in social programs and anti-poverty measures each year while countries such as the United States are cutting back social services. In Venezuela, poverty has been reduced by over 50% during the last ten years, thanks to the social policies of the Chavez administration, while in the United States, 1 in 5 children are currently living in extreme poverty. Unemployment in Venezuela was 6.5% in December 2011, while in the US, the rate sat at 8.5%. Exclusion, lack of opportunity, voter abstention and other social ills are on the rise in the United States.

“Obama, forget about it. Mind your own business and take care of your own country, where you have a lot of problems”, suggested President Chavez during a recent speech. Chavez was also quick to point out that Obama just cut federal assistance for home heating oil costs for low income families, leaving thousands to suffer through a bitter cold winter, choosing between food or warmth. Meanwhile, the Venezuelan government just renewed and expanded its home heating oil assistance program to communities in the US through Citgo, its US-based oil company. For the past 7 years, the Venezuelan company Citgo has been the only oil corporation in the US willing to provide reduced-cost home heating oil to those in need. It’s ironic that the Venezuelan government is helping people in the US while the US government and US companies refuse to do so.

VENEZUELA & IRAN: THE REAL THREAT

The relationship between Venezuela and Iran may cause alarm in some circles in Washington, but it’s not for the reasons portrayed in the media. As founding members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1960, Venezuela and Iran have shared close relations for decades. Both countries have strategic interests around the world. However, it wasn’t until recently that these relations broadened beyond energy.

Iran’s entry into Latin America as a trade partner, along with China and Russia, is the real threat to US hegemony in the region. US companies, that have monopolized the hemisphere for over a century, are now being replaced by Asian, Middle Eastern and European ventures willing to provide more enticing offers to countries such as Venezuela. Agreements with Iran, for example, include technology transfer, not just the purchase of products. The car factories Iranian companies have built in Venezuela are not just for assembly of an Iranian product. The agreements include providing Venezuelans with the know-how to produce cars from the raw materials to the end product. This knowledge is essential to ensure long-term development, growth and economic stability.

The hyped-up, falsified accusations of terrorism and warmongering against Venezuela – none of which have ever been substantiated with real evidence – are dangerous attempts to scare public opinion into justifying some kind of aggression against a peaceful nation. Venezuela has never invaded, attacked, threatened or intervened in another country, nor has it bombed or assassinated the citizens of other nations. Venezuela has a policy of peace, and it’s never broken or violated that promise.

Venezuela also has the sovereign right to engage in relations with other nations as it sees fit and to develop its own internal policies to best benefit the well being of its people. That seems to be the greatest threat of all to the United States.

Ejército de EEUU busca la radiación para matar a los líderes de la Guerra Fría

{Original in English here]

Por Robert Burns - The Associated Press

Publicado: Martes 09 de octubre 2007


En uno de los secretos más duraderos de la Guerra Fría, el Ejército de Estados Unidos exploró la posibilidad de utilizar venenos radioactivos para asesinar a "personas importantes", como líderes militares o civiles, según documentos desclasificados obtenidos por The Associated Press.

Aprobados por los niveles más altos del Ejército estadounidense en 1948, el esfuerzo formó parte de la búsqueda secreta de los militares para un "nuevo concepto de guerra" usando materiales radiactivos de la bomba atómica para contaminar franjas de tierra enemiga o para utilizar contra bases militares, fábricas o tropas enemigas.

Los historiadores militares que han investigado el amplio programa de guerra radiológica, dijeron en entrevistas que nunca antes habían visto evidencia de la búsqueda de un arma de asesinato, hasta ahora. Usando armas así contra figuras públicas tiene precedentes. El año pasado, un atacante desconocido utilizó una pequeña cantidad de polonio-210 para asesinar al crítico del Kremlin Alexander Litvinenko en Londres.

No se mencionan personas afectadas en las referencias sobre las armas de asesinato en los documentos desclasificados del gobierno, que fueron recibidos en respuesta a una solicitud bajo la Ley de Acceso a la Información (FOIA) presentada por la AP en 1995.

Los antiguos documentos dados recientemente a la AP fueron censurados por el gobierno estadounidense para eliminar detalles sobre los agentes de guerra radiológica y otros detalles. La censura refleja que la preocupación sobre el potencial para el uso de venenos radiactivos como arma es más que una nota histórica, sino que se cree que es buscado por la actual terroristas empeñados en atacar objetivos de los EE.UU.

Los documentos no indican si un arma radiológica para asesinar a individuos de alto rango fue usado alguna vez o incluso si fue finalmente desarrollado por los EE.UU. Los documentos no indican hasta qué punto llegó el proyecto del Ejército. Un memorando de diciembre 1948 describe el proyecto, y otra nota de ese mes indicó que estaba en marcha. Las principales secciones de varios informes de progreso en 1949 fueron censuradas antes de la liberación de los documentos a la AP.

El esfuerzo más amplio del uso ofensivo de guerra radiológica al parecer murió alrededor de 1954, al menos en parte debido a la convicción del Departamento de Defensa de que las armas nucleares eran una mejor opción.

No está claro si el trabajo pasó a otra agencia como la CIA. El proyecto recibió la aprobación final en noviembre de 1948 y comenzó el mes siguiente, justo un año después de la creación de la CIA en 1947.

Fue una época turbulenta en la escena internacional. En agosto 1949, la Unión Soviética probó con éxito su primera bomba atómica, y dos meses más tarde los comunistas de Mao Zedong triunfaron en la guerra civil china.

Mientras los científicos de EE.UU. desarrollaron la bomba atómica durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial, fue reconocido que los agentes radiactivos utilizados o creados en el proceso de fabricación tenían un potencial letal. El primer informe público del gobierno estadounidense sobre el proyecto de la bomba, publicado en 1945, señaló que los productos radiactivos de fisión de un reactor de uranio como combustible podrían ser extraídos y utilizados "como una forma particularmente cruel de gas venenoso."

Entre los documentos entregados a la AP - una nota del Ejército de fecha 16 de diciembre 1948, y clasificada secreto - se describe un programa intensivo para desarrollar una variedad de usos militares de los materiales radiactivos. Trabajar en un "arma de ataque subversivo de los individuos o grupos pequeños" fue catalogado como una prioridad secundaria, que se limitó a estudios de viabilidad y experiencias.

Las principales prioridades enumeradas fueron:

• Armas de contaminar "las zonas pobladas o de otra manera críticas por largos períodos de tiempo."

• Municiones de la combinación de explosivos de alta potencia con material radiactivo "para lograr daños físicos y contaminación radiactiva simultáneamente".

• Armas de aire y / o armas de superficie que se extendieran la contaminación a través de un área para ser evacuado, por lo que éste no podrá utilizarse por las fuerzas enemigas.

El objetivo declarado era crear un prototipo de armas de prioridad para el No. 1 y No. 2 para el 31 de diciembre de 1950.

La cuarta prioridad del ranking fue "municiones para atacar a los individuos" usando agentes radiactivos para los que "no hay curas ni terapia."

"Esta clase de municiones se proponía para el uso de agentes secretos o unidades subversivas en ataques letales contra grupos pequeños de individuos importantes, por ejemplo, durante las reuniones de líderes civiles o militares", decían los documentos.

El asesinato de personalidades extranjeras por parte de agentes del gobierno de EE.UU. no fue prohibido explícitamente hasta que el presidente Gerald R. Ford firmó una orden ejecutiva en 1976 en respuesta a las revelaciones de que la CIA había planeado en la década de 1960 el asesinato del presidente cubano Fidel Castro, incluso por envenenamiento.

El 16 de diciembre 1948, un informe destacó que un ataque letal contra una persona utilizando material radiactivo se debería hacer de una manera que hiciera que sea imposible rastrear la participación del gobierno de EE.UU., un concepto conocido como "negación plausible" que es fundamental para las acciones encubiertas de EE.UU.

"El origen de la munición, el hecho de que un ataque se ha hecho, y el tipo de ataque no debe ser determinable, si es posible", decía. "La munición debe ser discreta y fácilmente transportable."

Se pensaban que los agentes radiactivos eran ideales para este uso, según el documento, debido a su alta toxicidad y el hecho de que las personas afectadas no podían oler, gustar o sentir el ataque.

"Debería ser posible, por ejemplo, desarrollar una munición muy pequeña, que podría funcionar imperceptiblemente y que establecería una concentración invisible, pero altamente letal en una habitación, con los efectos visibles sólo mucho después de la hora del ataque," decía.

Tom Bielefeld, un físico de Harvard que ha estudiado el tema de armas radiológicas, dice que aunque nunca había oído hablar sobre este proyecto, sus objetivos técnicos suenan factibles.

Bielefeld señaló que el polonio, la sustancia radiactiva utilizada para matar a Litvinenko en noviembre de 2006, tiene exactamente el tipo de características que serían adecuadas para la misión letal que se describe en la nota de 16 de diciembre de 1948.

Barton Bernstein, profesor de historia de la Universidad Stanford en California que ha realizado una amplia investigación sobre los esfuerzos de los militares de EE.UU. para desarrollar la guerra radiológica, dijo que este aspecto no había llegado anteriormente a la luz pública.

"Este es uno de los elementos que nos sorprende, pero no debe sorprendernos, ya que en la Guerra Fría, todo tipo de formas de matar a la gente, de todas las maneras - inhumanas, bárbaras y hasta peor - se contemplaron periódicamente a altos niveles del gobierno de Estados Unidos en lo que fue visto como una guerra justa contra un enemigo odiado y odioso", dijo Bernstein.

El proyecto fue dirigido por el Cuerpo Químico del Ejército, comandado por el general de división Alden H. Waitt, y supervisado por un organismo ya desaparecido llamado el Proyecto de Armas Especiales de las Fuerzas Armadas. El primer jefe del proyecto fue el mayor general Leslie R. Groves, jefe del Ejército del Proyecto Manhattan que construyó las primeras bombas atómicas. El proyecto fue aprobado por el sucesor de Groves, el general de división Kenneth D. Nichols.

Los documentos desclasificados fueron puestos en público en los archivos del Proyecto de Armas Especiales de las Fuerzas Armadas en el Archivo Nacional de Estados Unidos.

Entre los receptores del documento del 16 de diciembre se encontraban Herbert Scoville, Jr., el director técnico del Proyecto de Armas Especiales de las Fuerzas Armadas y el subdirector de la CIA para la investigación, y Samuel T. Cohen, un físico de Rand Corp. que había trabajado en el Proyecto Manhattan.

El primer visto bueno para el Ejército de llevar a cabo su proyecto de armas radiológicas se dio en mayo de 1948, un punto importante de la historia de EE.UU., porque fue justo después de la utilización con éxito de dos bombas atómicas contra Japón para poner fin a la Segunda Guerra Mundial. El ejército estaba ansioso para explorar las implicaciones de la ciencia atómica para el futuro de la guerra.

En un documento desclasificado de julio 1948 delineando la intención del programa antes de haber recibido los detalles para la aprobación final, un punto de enfoque fue la larga duración de la contaminación de grandes extensiones de tierra donde los residentes tendrían que salir o morirían de la radiación dentro de uno a 10 años.

"Se cree que este es un nuevo concepto de la guerra, con resultados que no se pueden predecir", decía el documento.

Por Eva Golinger

Desde el fracaso del intento de golpe apoyado por Estados Unidos en contra del Presidente Hugo Chávez en Venezuela en abril de 2002, Washington sigue buscando una variedad de estrategias para sacar del poder al abrumadoramente popular Jefe de Estado Suramericano. El financiamiento multimillonario a grupos antichavistas en Venezuela a través de los organismos del Gobierno estadounidense, como la Fundación Nacional para la Democracia (NED por sus siglas en inglés) y la Agencia del Desarrollo de los EEUU (USAID por sus siglas en inglés), se ha incrementado exponencialmente en los últimos diez años; así como el apoyo político directo a través de asesores, estrategas y consultores, todos buscando ayudar a una oposición impopular y desfasada para llegar al poder.

Los organismos gubernamentales estadounidenses, incluyendo el Departamento de Estado, la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA por sus siglas en inglés), La Dirección Nacional de Inteligencia y el Pentágono, han abultado su lenguaje hostil contra el Gobierno de Venezuela en los últimos años. La importante nación productora de petróleo ha sido incluida en las innumerables e infundadas “listas” producidas anualmente por Washington, como por ejemplo, “incumplimiento en la cooperación en la lucha antinarcóticos”, “incumplimiento en el apoyo en la guerra contra el terrorismo”, “trata de personas” y otros, basados en decisiones políticas y no en evidencia concreta y sustancial para apoyar sus acusaciones. Estas calificaciones han permitido a Washington no sólo justificar el uso de millones dólares de los contribuyentes estadounidenses distribuidos a grupos antichavistas con fachada de ONG, sino incrementar la presencia militar en la región y convencer a la opinión pública de que Hugo Chávez es un enemigo.

A pesar de las “promesas” de relaciones respetuosas y de no intervención, el lenguaje hostil y las acciones hacia Venezuela del Gobierno de Obama han llevado a congelar las relaciones diplomáticas entre ambas naciones, sumado a los planes expansivos dentro de Washington para incluir a la nación Suramericana en el “eje terrorista del mal”. El proceso en contra de Venezuela, que comenzó durante la administración de George W. Bush, ha sido rápidamente acelerado por Obama. Con el Comité de Asuntos Exteriores de la Cámara de Representantes de EEUU en manos de los republicanos de Florida, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen y Connie Mack (ambos furibundos enemigos de Chávez), el Congreso ha estado presionando para lograr acciones directas contra Venezuela buscando provocar la expulsión de Chávez y colocar a un Gobierno “Amigable con EEUU” en el poder.

Venezuela no sólo tiene las reservas de petróleo más grandes del planeta, con posiblemente más de 500 billones de barriles, aproximadamente 300 certificables, sino que la posición geopolítica del país como puerto de Suramérica, con fronteras en el Caribe, los Andes y el Amazonas, la convierten en una de las naciones estratégicamente más importantes del mundo. Adicionalmente al petróleo, Venezuela tiene inmensas reservas minerales, metales pesados, uranio y agua.

El creciente liderazgo de Chávez y su influencia en la región han enojado a Washington desde hace algún tiempo. Los esfuerzos por demonizar, ridiculizar y hasta ignorar al Jefe de Estado venezolano han sido utilizados por el Gobierno de EEUU y los medios de comunicación masivos durante los últimos años, creando una percepción distorsionada de la realidad de Venezuela en la opinión pública. A pesar de las numerosas elecciones realizadas, todas supervisadas por observadores internacionales, en las cuales Chávez ha ganado con alrededor del 60% de los votos, los medios internacionales proyectan al Presidente venezolano como un “dictador” y a la nación como un “Estado fallido”. Sin embargo, la creciente y vibrante democracia venezolana, en la que una mayoría anteriormente excluida y silenciada por Gobiernos anteriores apoyados por EEUU, hoy participan libre y ampliamente, han logrado cambios extraordinarios en la nación, incluyendo una reducción de un 50% de la pobreza, garantía de asistencia médica y educación gratuitas, una tasa de desempleo del 6% (una baja respecto al 15% anterior) y un gran desarrollo en cuanto a infraestructura.

Aunque el Presidente Obama se había abstenido de hablar sobre Venezuela (igual que su predecesor Bush) una reciente entrevista en un periódico nacional antichavista, El Universal, evidencia un cambio en la política. La entrevista, que se apoya en una alarmante transmisión de un “reporte” no corroborado que intenta vincular a Venezuela, Cuba e Irán con un complot terrorista en contra de EEUU, aparecida en el canal latino más grande de Estados Unidos, Univisión, se lee como una página sacada del grueso libro de falsas acusaciones hechas en contra de Venezuela desde que Chávez llegó al poder en 1999.

En respuestas escritas al periódico venezolano, Obama (o su equipo de asesores) insinuó que Venezuela era una dictadura y manifestó su “preocupación por las medidas del Gobierno que han restringido los derechos universales de los venezolanos, amenazan los principales valores democráticos y fracasaron en contribuir con la seguridad en la región”. Por supuesto Obama omite citar ejemplos reales para confirmar su “preocupación”. Estas son simplemente el tipo de declaraciones que han sido regurgitadas por los voceros de Washington durante la última década, nunca con una sola prueba de evidencia viable para respaldar sus afirmaciones condenatorias.

Ningún derecho ha sido restringido en Venezuela por el Gobierno. De hecho, los derechos se han ampliado bajo la nueva Constitución que fue escrita y ratificada por los venezolanos en un Referéndum Nacional en 1999. Los venezolanos tienen los derechos básicos de atención médica, educación, alimentación, vivienda, trabajo digno, salario mínimo, participación, expresión, recreación y cultura, lo que los 300 millones de habitantes de Estados Unidos no tienen. Y es cínico decir que Venezuela, un país con un poder militar mínimo que jamás ha atacado a otra nación ni amenazado o invadido a ningún vecino, es “una amenaza regional para la seguridad”. La historia del Gobierno de EEUU de 200 años de invasiones, masacres, golpes, intervenciones y otras agresiones en contra de casi todas las naciones de América Latina y el Caribe no puede quedar “en el pasado” como quisiera Obama.

Obama no omitió mencionar su “preocupación” acerca de la relación de Venezuela con Irán, sobre la cual afirmó “Tomamos muy en serio las actividades de Irán, incluyendo las de Venezuela y continuaremos monitoreándolas de cerca”. No es coincidencia que estas declaraciones vinieron seguidas del documental al estilo Hollywood de Univisión, “La Amenaza Iraní”, que hace peligrosas afirmaciones difamatorias en contra de la administración de Chávez en un intento por incluir a Venezuela en un falso complot terrorista.

A pesar de la ridiculez de las afirmaciones de Univisión, miembros del Congreso están conversando con Obama para que tome acciones preventivas en contra de Irán y Venezuela. Otros “comentaristas” y “analistas” están ocupados escribiendo blogs y columnas advirtiendo sobre la creciente amenaza terrorista al Sur de la frontera estadounidense. Estas peligrosas e infundadas acusaciones pueden fácilmente ser usadas para justificar un ataque contra Venezuela, como usaron las armas de destrucción masiva en contra de Iraq y “proteger a la población” se uso en contra de Libia.

Irán y Venezuela tienen una relación comercial normal. Ambos países comparten tecnología y recursos para hacer carros y bicicletas, construir viviendas y operar fabricas de leche. Desde luego los carros, las viviendas y la leche no se equiparan a una amenaza terrorista. Una y otra vez, Venezuela ha demostrado que no hay “campos de entrenamiento terrorista” en su territorio. Ni tampoco está construyendo en secreto una bomba para atacar a EEUU. Venezuela es una nación pacifica. No invade, ataca ni amenaza a otros países.

Las temerarias agresiones de Obama en contra de Venezuela podrían llevar a una atrocidad innecesaria. Como dijo el Presidente Chávez, a Obama le iría mejor enfocándose en los problemas que tiene en casa, en lugar de crear otros más en el exterior.

By Eva Golinger

Ever since the US-supported coup attempt against President Hugo Chavez in Venezuela failed in April 2002, Washington has been pursuing a variety of strategies to remove the overwhelmingly popular South American head of state from power. Multimillion-dollar funding to anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela through US government agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), has increased exponentially over the past ten years, as has direct political support through advisors, strategists and consultants- all aiming to help an unpopular and outdated opposition rise to power.

US government agencies, including the State Department, Central Intelligence Agency, National Directorate of Intelligence and the Pentagon, have pumped up their hostile language towards the Venezuelan government in recent years. The major oil-producing nation has been placed on the countless, and baseless “lists” produced annually by Washington, including “failure to cooperate with counter-narcotics efforts”, “failure to aid in the war on terror”, “trafficking in persons”, and others, that are based on political decisions instead of concrete, substantial evidence to support their accusations. These classifications have enabled Washington to justify not only the millions of US taxpayer dollars channeled to anti-Chavez groups fronting as NGOs, but also to increase military presence in the region and convince public opinion that Hugo Chavez is an enemy.

Despite “promises” of respectful relations and non-intervention, the Obama government’s hostile language and actions towards Venezuela have led to a freezing of diplomatic relations between both nations coupled with expanding plans within Washington to include the South American nation in the “terrorist axis of evil”. The build-up against Venezuela that began during the George W. Bush administration has been rapidly excelerated by Obama. With the House Foreign Relations Committee in the hands of Florida Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Connie Mack – both rabid Chavez-haters – Congress has been pushing hard for direct actions against Venezuela to provoke Chavez’s ouster and place a “US-friendly” government in power.

Not only does Venezuela have the largest oil reserves on the planet, with possibly over 500 billion barrels, about 300 certifiable, but the country’s geopolitical position as the port of South America, with borders on the Caribbean, Andean and Amazon, make it one of the most strategically important nations in the world. In addition to oil, Venezuela has vast mineral reserves, heavy metals, uranium and water.

President Chavez’s growing leadership and influence in the region has angered Washington for some time. Efforts to demonize, ridicule and even ignore the Venezuelan head of state have been employed by the US government and mass media over the past several years, creating a distorted perception amongst public opinion of Venezuela’s reality. Despite numerous elections, all overseen by international observers and in which Chavez has won with around 60% of the vote, international media portray the Venezuelan President as a “dictator” and the nation as a “failing state”. But Venezuela’s growing, vibrant democracy, in which a majority previously excluded and silenced by prior US-supported governments today participate freely and widely, has achieved extraordinary changes in the nation, including a 50% reduction in poverty, a guarantee of free, universal healthcare and education, a 6% unemployment rate (down from 15%) and major infrastructure development.

While President Obama has largely refrained from personally commenting on Venezuela, as did his predecessor Bush, a recent interview provided to an anti-Chavez national daily newspaper, El Universal, evidences a shift in policy. The interview, given on the heels of an alarming broadcast of an uncorroborated “report” attempting to link Venezuela, Cuba and Iran to a terrorist plot against the US, which aired on the largest Spanish-language station in the United States, Univision, reads like a page right out of the thick book of false accusations made against Venezuela since Chavez came to power in 1999.

In written responses to the Venezuelan newspaper, Obama (or his team of advisors) insinuated Venezuela was a dictatorship and expressed his “concern about the government’s actions, which have restricted the universal rights of the Venezuelan people, threatened basic democratic values, and failed to contribute to security in the region”. Obama, of course, fails to cite any real examples to substantiate his “concerns”. These are merely the types of statements that have been regurgitated by Washington’s spokespeople over the past decade, never with a shred of viable evidence to back their damning claims.

No rights have been restricted in Venezuela by the government. In fact, rights have been amplified under the new constitution that was written and ratified by the people of Venezuela in national referendum in 1999. Venezuelans have the basic rights to healthcare, education, food, housing, dignified work, a living wage, participation, expression, recreation and culture that the 300 million citizens of the United States don’t have. And it’s cynical to say that Venezuela, a country with minimal military power that has never attacked another nation, threatened or invaded a neighbor, is a “regional security threat”. The US government’s 200-year history of invasions, massacres, coups, interventions and other aggressions against almost every Latin American and Caribbean nation cannot be left “in the past” as Obama would prefer.

Obama didn’t fail to mention his “concern” about Venezuela’s relationship with Iran, regarding which he stated, “We take Iranian activities, including in Venezuela, very seriously and we will continue to monitor them closely”. It’s no coincidence that these statements follow the airing of the Hollywood-esque Univision documentary, “The Iranian Threat”, which makes dangerous defamatory claims against the Chavez administration in an attempt to include Venezuela in a bogus terrorist plot.

Despite the ridiculousness of the Univision claims, members of Congress are bantering Obama to take preemptive action against both Iran and Venezuela. Other “commentators” and “analysts” are busy writing blogs and columns warning of the growing terrorist threat south of the US border. These dangerous, unfounded accusations could easily be used to justify an attack against Venezuela, as weapons of mass destruction was used against Iraq and “protecting the population” was used against Libya.

Iran and Venezuela have a normal commercial relationship. The two countries share technology and resources to make automobiles and bicycles, build housing construction and run milk factories. Surely cars, homes and milk don’t equate to a terrorist threat. Time again, Venezuela has shown there are no “terrorist training camps” on its soil. Nor is it secretly building a bomb to attack the US. Venezuela is a nation of peace. It does not invade, attack or threaten other countries.

Obama’s reckless bandwagoning of aggression against Venezuela could lead to an unnecessary atrocity. As President Chavez said, Obama would be better off focusing on the troubles at home, rather than trying to create new ones abroad.

By Eva Golinger



While much of the world is in crisis and protests are erupting throughout Europe and the United States, Latin American and Caribbean nations are building consensus, advancing social justice and increasing positive cooperation in the region. Social, political and economic transformations have been taking place through democratic processes in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil throughout the past decade, leading to a massive reduction in poverty and income disparity in the region, and a substantial increase in social services, quality of life and direct participation in political process.

One of the major initiatives of progressive Latin American governments this century has been the creation of new regional organizations that promote integration, cooperation and solidarity amongst neighboring nations. Cuba and Venezuela began this process in 2004 with the founding of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), that now includes Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Dominica, St. Vincent’s and the Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda. ALBA was initially launched in response to the US government’s failed attempt to impose its Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) throughout the region. Today ALBA is a thriving multilateral organization with member nations that share similar political visions for their countries and for the region, and includes numerous cooperation agreements in economic, social and cultural areas. The fundamental basis of trade amongst ALBA nations is solidarity and mutual benefit. There is no competition, exploitation or attempt to dominate amongst ALBA states. ALBA even counts on its own currency, the SUCRE, which allows for trade between member nations without dependence on the US dollar.

In 2008, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) was formally established as a regional body representing South American states. While ALBA is much more consolidated as a unified political voice, UNASUR represents a diversity of political positions, economic models and visions for the region. But UNASUR members share the common goal of working towards regional unity and guaranteeing the resolution of conflicts through peaceful and diplomatic means. UNASUR has already played a key role in peacefully resolving disputes in Bolivia, particularly during an attempted coup against the government of Evo Morales in 2008, and has also successfully moderated a severe conflict between Colombia and Venezuela, leading to the reestablishment of relations in 2010.

Two hundred years ago, South American Independence hero Simon Bolivar, a native of Venezuela, dreamed of building regional unity and creating a “Patria Grande” (Grand Homeland) in Latin America. After achieving independence for Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Colombia, and fighting colonialists in several Caribbean nations, Bolivar attempted to turn this dream of Latin American unity into reality. His efforts were sabotaged by powerful interests opposing the creation of a solid regional bloc, and eventually, with the aid of the United States, Bolivar was ousted from his rule in Venezuela and died isolated in Colombia several years later. Meanwhile, the US government had proceeded to implement its Monroe Doctrine, a decree first declared by President James Monroe in 1823 to ensure US domination and control over the newly-freed nations in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Nearly two hundred years of invasions, interventions, aggressions, coup d’etats and hostilities led by the US government against Latin American nations shadowed the 19th and 20th centuries. By the end of the 20th century, Washington had successfully imposed governments in every Latin American and Caribbean nation that were subordinate to its agenda, with the exception of Cuba. The Monroe Doctrine had been achieved, and the US felt confident in its control over its “backyard”.

The unexpected turn at the beginning of the 21st century in Venezuela, formerly one of Washington’s most stable and subservient partners, came as a shock to the US. Hugo Chavez had been elected President and a Revolution had begun. A coup d’etat attempt in 2002 failed to subvert the advancement of the Bolivarian Revolution and the spread of revolutionary fever throughout the region. Soon Bolivia followed, then Nicaragua and Ecuador. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay elected socialist presidents, two of them former guerrilla fighters. Major changes began to occur throughout the region as the peoples of this vast, diverse and rich continent assumed power and made their voices heard.

Social transformations in Venezuela that gave voice to people’s power became exemplary for others in the region, as did President Chavez’s defiance of US imperialism. A powerful sentiment of Latin American sovereignty and independence grew stronger, even reaching those with governments aligned with US interests and multinational control.

On December 2-3, 2011, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) was born and the overwhelming force of a continent nearly 600 million strong, achieved a 200-year dream of unity. The 33 member nations of CELAC all agree on the unquestionable necessity to build a regional organization that represents their interests, and that excludes the overbearing presence of the US and Canada. While CELAC will take time to consolidate, the exceptional commitment evidenced by the 33 states present at its launching in Caracas, Venezuela, cannot be underestimated.

CELAC will have to overcome attempts to sabotage and neutralize its expansion and endurance, and the threats against it and intents to divide member nations will be numerous and frequent. But the resistance of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean who have resumed this path of unity and independence after nearly two hundred years of imperialist aggression, demonstrates the powerful force that has led this region to become an inspiration for those seeking social justice and true freedom around the world.

Inspiration South of the Border

By Eva Golinger

The Occupy Wall Street protests spreading across the United States have finally garnered the attention of national and international public opinion. The prolonged economic crisis and exclusionary political structure have propelled thousands of people in the United States to step out of their comfort zones, take to the streets and demand change. Brutal police repression in response to peaceful demonstrations in cities throughout the US has made international headlines, evidencing the hypocrisy of a government quick to accuse and criticize others for human rights violations, while perpetuating the same, if not worse, nasty behavior at home.

Many analysts and commentators have attributed the protests in the US to the so-called “Arab Spring” taking place in Tunisia, Egypt and other Middle Eastern and African nations. The movements in the US and Arab world have shared similar tactics and characteristics, including the use of social media such as Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to mobilize demonstrations and publicize protest activities and state repression. The protagonists of these revolts have been primarily young people and those outraged and disgruntled at systems that have failed them and left millions impoverished with no opportunities.

In Spain and Chile, similar demonstrations have taken place since the beginning of 2011, led by thousands of youth and students protesting unfair and unequal political and economic systems. The demands of all these protests, from the Arab World, to Europe to the United States, have included basic rights such as free education, dignified jobs, housing, healthcare and more inclusion and participation in politics and government. Less representation, more participation – these are the cries of the “indignados” rising up around the world.

What few have noted, or have intentionally omitted, is how the peoples of Latin America arose at the beginning of this century, with demands and dreams identical to those protesting today in the US, Europe and Arab nations, and were able to take power democratically and begin re-building their nations. The influence of the twenty-first century revolutions in Latin America on the Occupy Movement and the Arab Spring cannot be underestimated.

INSPIRATION SOUTH OF THE BORDER

Slogans, chants and comments by Occupy Wall Street protestors calling for an end to corporate rule and demanding more equitable public spending and opportunities for the majority (the 99%) are familiar to those heard throughout Venezuela in the 1990s, when privatization overtook the oil-wealthy nation, multinationals ruled and the people were relegated to shantytowns.
Decades of exclusion, repression and mismanagement of government and resources in Venezuela led the people (the 99%) to revolt in 1989 against an administration quickly selling their nation to the highest buyer. The “Caracazo” on February 27, 1989, was a mass popular uprising in Venezuela’s capital, Caracas, against privatization and globalization; against corporatocracy. The government, led by then President Carlos Andres Perez, responded with brutal repression. Over 3,000 were violently killed by state authorities. Bodies were hurled into mass graves and left to rot.

But the brutality of state violence did not stop the Venezuelan majority. Throughout the 1990s, the people began to organize their frustrations into a nationwide coalition seeking to break free of the two-party “representative” system that had ruled for decades. As the economy faltered, banks collapsed, politicians embezzled and stole what they could and tried to sell the rest, the people mobilized. In 1998, a new president was elected by this grassroots movement, ending the reign of corporate rule guised as democracy.

The new government, led by Hugo Chavez, promised a complete transformation of the system. It would be deconstructed and rebuilt by the people. Democracy would no longer be “representative”, it would be participatory. There would be a redistribution of public resources to ensure the 99% were included. Healthcare and education would be free, universal and accessible to all. A new constitution would be drafted and ratified by the people, to reflect the needs, dreams and realities of today’s society. People would govern on a grassroots level through community councils and assemblies, which would control local resources and provide community members with decision-making power over how resources should be used. Community, alternative and public media would proliferate and be encouraged by the state, in order to broaden access and ensure all voices were heard.

Foreign debts would be ended and relationships with international financial institutions terminated. Important strategic resources would be nationalized and taken back from multinational corporations and placed under worker control. Public enterprises would become worker-run and owned. Foreign policy would be based on sovereignty and respect for other nations, with an emphasis on integration, cooperation and solidarity instead of exploitation, competition and domination.

This is not a utopia, this is the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela. It has taken years to build and there are still decades to go and many problems and difficulties to overcome, but the people of Venezuela, the 99%, were able to take power democratically and transform their nation.

In 2005, the indigenous peoples of Bolivia won power through democratic elections, after centuries of exclusion, colonialism and domination by a minority ruling class. They rose up and mobilized against the racist, corporatocracy ruling their nation and took it back. Under the presidency of Evo Morales, the nation’s first indigenous head of state, a new constitution was drafted and ratified by the people in national referendum and major social transformations have been taking place to implement a system of social justice.

In Ecuador, after years of political and economic turmoil, revolts, coup d’etats and several ousted presidents, the people elected Rafael Correa and the Citizen’s Revolution came to power in 2007. Freeing the nation from the reigns of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, reviving the economy and transferring power to the people are actions that are transforming Ecuador into a sovereign, dignified nation.

NEUTRALIZE, DESTROY OR CO-OPT THE REVOLUTION

While all of these Latin American revolutions are still in process, their emphasis on grassroots nation-building, people’s power, social justice and true sovereignty have clearly inspired others around the world to fight for change in their own nations. But why have so few failed to see the importance of the influence of these revolutions on what is taking place today in the US, Europe and the Arab world?

Primarily because these are successful, democratic, peaceful revolutions by the people, of the people and for the people. There was no “outside” influence that directed them, manipulated them or tried to “co-opt” them, as has happened in the case of the “Arab Spring”. They did not come about by wars or violent revolts, but rather through democratic processes. Of course there have been many attempts to neutralize and destroy these Latin American revolutions, including a coup d’etat in Venezuela in 2002, an attempted coup in Bolivia in 2008 and another attempted coup in Ecuador in 2010. All have failed to date.

US agencies, such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, Open Society Institute and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), have been funding and manipulating many of those groups and organizations involved in the different revolts in Arab nations. The Obama administration has been heavily involved in the movements in Tunisia and Egypt, evidenced by continuous visits by State Department representatives to these nations to ensure the political outcome is favorable to US interests. Washington has also been attempting to promote similar uprisings in nation’s with inconvenient governments, such as in Syria and Iran. The brutal war against Libya and extrajudicial assassination of Muammar al-Gaddafi was a skewed attempt by the US to front a “people’s revolution” in the North African nation.

The manipulation and infiltration by external forces in movements in the Arab world have contributed to their chaos, disorder and failure to materialize into real revolutions- true transformations of their political, economic and social structures. It would be a bitter, tumultuous defeat for the US and its Western allies were these Arab nations to build the sovereign, revolutionary movements millions in those lands are demanding.

And back in the US, the violent repression against the Occupy movement is a clear attempt to neutralize and discredit the first possible coalition that could grow into a powerful political force which could free the country from the democrat-republican reign. While this movement struggles to consolidate and define its objectives, the revolutions south of the border continue to expand.

Corporate media censors, distorts and attempts to silence the advances of the people’s movements in Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela and other Latin American nations. The leaders of these movements are demonized by mass media in an effort to diminish the importance of their actions and to turn them into fearful characters viewed as “madmen”.

Despite these attempts to tarnish them, Latin America’s revolutions of the twenty-first century have paved the way for others in the Global South, and the North, to raise their voices and join together to build a better world.