por Salim Lamrani*
La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) lleva una campaña contra le presidente Hugo Chávez a quien presenta como un dictador tratando de amordazar a la prensa. En realidad, el CIDH de la OEA está muy ligada por no decir bajo supervisión del Departamento de estado de los EEUU para el cual cumple la función de portavoz propagandista. Salim Lamrani analiza las incoherencias de las acusaciones lanzadas con Venezuela.
__________________________________________
En abril de 2007, tras las presiones de Washington, la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), decidió abrir una investigación a Venezuela por “atentado a la libertad de expresión”. La CIDH se refiere a las agresiones de las que habrían sido víctimas algunos periodistas de los canales de televisión golpistas RCTV y Globovisión, durante el golpe de Estado –que por otra parte apoyaron– contra el presidente Hugo Chávez en abril de 2002. Cinco años después de los hechos, la Comisión consideró súbitamente que las demandas eran admisibles (1).
La CIDH guardó un asombroso silencio después del golpe del 11 de abril de 2002 en el que varias personas fueron salvajemente asesinadas. En vez de pronunciarse sobre las masivas violaciones de los derechos humanos que siguieron al golpe de Estado que derrocó a Chávez durante 48 horas, prefirió al contrario dar crédito a las denuncias que presentó la oposición, responsable de la ruptura del orden constitucional. En realidad, el timing (momento oportuno) de este procedimiento, con motivaciones politiqueras, está íntimamente ligado a la decisión del gobierno venezolano de no renovar la concesión audiovisual a RCTV, que finalizará el 27 de mayo de 2007.
El presidente Chávez no tardó en reaccionar para denunciar la hipocresía de la CIDH que, según él, no dispone de ninguna autoridad moral “para emitir cualquier juicio referente a asuntos constitucionales de Venezuela [...], pues apoyó descaradamente con su silencio la violación de derechos humanos durante el golpe de Estado de abril de 2002”. También criticó la falta de independencia de la Comisión cuyas instrucciones “obedecen a los intereses de la administración Bush”. “¿Cómo van a venir a opinar con propiedad, cuando no se pronunciaron ante los hechos inconstitucionales e inmorales del golpe de Estado?”, cuestionó (2).
La posición partidista de la CIDH muestra desgraciadamente hasta qué punto depende de la influencia de la Casa Blanca. En efecto, es sorprendente ver a esta Comisión de la OEA acusar a las autoridades venezolanas de algunas agresiones esporádicas de las que fueron víctimas algunos profesionales de los medios privados, cuando se ha negado siempre a condenar el cierre de la cadena pública Canal 8 que orquestaron los golpistas en abril de 2002 y las violencias que siguieron. Mediante esta acción con el timing dudoso, la CIDH se presta a la campaña hostil contra el gobierno bolivariano y acaba de perder la poca credibilidad que le quedaba.
El asunto RCTV
La decisión del gobierno venezolano de no renovarle la concesión a RCTV es una acción perfectamente legal ya que el espectro de las ondas hertzianas pertenece al Estado. Además la población, que todavía tiene en la memoria la participación activa de este canal en los sangrientos eventos de abril de 2002, respaldó ampliamente esta posición. Numerosos observadores se han asombrado del hecho de que los cuatro principales canales de información privados Univisión, Globovisión, RCVT y Televen, todos cómplices del golpe de Estado que dirigió Washington, no se hayan nacionalizado.
Efectuando un flagrante acto de injerencia en los asuntos internos de un país vecino, el Senado chileno aprobó una resolución exigiendo a su presidenta, Michelle Bachelet, que protestara contra la no renovación de la concesión de RCTV ante la OEA. El acuerdo suscrito por 18 votos contra 6 denuncia “la trasgresión de la libertad de pensamiento y de expresión”, sin mencionar de ninguna forma la implicación del canal en los acontecimientos de 2002. La adopción de ese texto por un Senado dominado por una mayoría de derecha es poco sorprendente, según el presidente Chávez: “Se trata de la misma derecha que aplaudió el golpe de Estado” de 2002, “esa extrema derecha que nos odia” (3). Este virulento intercambio suscitó algunas tensiones entre las dos naciones (4).
Jesse Chacón, ministro del Poder Popular para las Telecomunicaciones y la Informática, explicó que la no renovación de la concesión a RCTV era un hecho natural e inexorable. En efecto, conforme a los artículos 1 y 4 de Reglamento sobre las Concesiones para Televisoras y Radiodifusoras, el acuerdo que se firmó el 27 de mayo de 1987 con RCTV por una duración de 20 años finaliza el 27 de mayo de 2007. El espacio radioeléctrico que ocupa actualmente RCTV se destinará a un nuevo canal público conforme al artículo 108 de la Constitución que estipula que el Estado “garantizará servicios públicos de radio y televisión y redes de bibliotecas e informática, con el fin de proporcionar el acceso universal a la información” (5).
Chacón insiste precisamente en el hecho de que no se trata de una decisión política: “Si se tratara de una decisión política, el 14, 15 ó 16 de abril [de 2002] aquí se habría abierto un procedimiento administrativo y se habrían cerrado todos los canales de televisión, pues los venezolanos sabemos cómo participaron activamente en el golpe de Estado del 11 de abril”. El ministro subrayó que los tiempos habían cambiado desde 1987 y que ahora se daba prioridad al servicio público de información (6).
RCTV, además de su participación en el golpe de 2002, es el canal de televisión que ha sido más sancionado en la historia de Venezuela. Desde su creación en noviembre de 1953, las autoridades sancionaron por lo menos seis veces a este medio privado. En 1976, bajo el primer gobierno de Carlos Andrés Pérez, RCTV fue cerrado durante tres días por violar la ley sobre los programas televisivos. En 1980, el gobierno de Luis Herrera Campins también decretó un cierre de 36 horas por las mismas razones. En 1981, RCTV fue cerrado también durante 24 horas por divulgar escenas de carácter pornográfico. Bajo el segundo gobierno de Carlos Andrés Pérez, RCTV fue sancionado durante un día por difundir propaganda comercial a favor del consumo de tabaco. En 1991, la Corte Suprema de Justicia prohibió un programa no conforme a la legislación. Por fin, en 2002, bajo el gobierno de Chávez, RCTV fue condenado a una severa multa por acuerdo ilícito con otros canales de televisión y violación de las reglas de competencia (7).
El presidente Chávez reafirmó que la decisión que se tomó en cuanto a RCTV era irrevocable. Ahora, el segundo canal del país se utilizará “en beneficio de la nación y no contra la dignidad de los venezolanos” (8).
Hostilidad creciente de Washington
El líder venezolano acusó también al gobierno de Estados Unidos de estimular a la oposición interna con vistas a desestabilizar el país. Un informe reciente del Departamento de Estado acusaba a Chávez, quien obtuvo cerca de 12 victorias electorales democráticas sucesivas desde 1998, de representar una “amenaza para la democracia venezolana”. La administración Bush, que ha intentado varias veces derrocar al presidente bolivariano, no aprecia las políticas independientes de Venezuela y sus éxitos sociales que instalan un peligroso precedente en el continente. Ha demostrado claramente que piensa deshacerse del hombre más popular de América Latina (9).
Animados por las declaraciones de Washington, los sectores extremistas de la oposición venezolana no tardaron en reaccionar. El 26 de abril de 2007, una nueva bomba explotaba cerca de la embajada de Bolivia en Caracas, ocasionado importantes daños materiales, y llevando a once el número de atentados terroristas que se han cometido en los últimos meses. Varias personas fueron arrestadas entre ellas dos abogados, Luis Alberto Rodríguez y Diana Carolina Mora Herrera, quienes colocaron los explosivos (10).
Estados Unidos jamás ha descartado un eventual asesinato del presidente Hugo Chávez. Desde su elección, su seguridad personal se ha reforzado extraordinariamente y los servicios de inteligencia desbarataron varios planes de atentados. Washington, que acaba de liberar al Bin Laden latinoamericano, Luis Posada Carriles, un terrorista responsable, entre otros, de 73 asesinatos, ha lanzado una señal clara a Caracas. La eliminación física de Hugo Chávez está en el orden del día (11).
Notas
(1) Gerardo Reyes, «Comisión de la OEA demanda a Venezuela», El Nuevo Herald, 27 de abril de 2007.
(2) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «CIDH está imposibilitada moralmente para emitir juicio sobre Venezuela», 27 de abril de 2007.
(3) El Nuevo Herald, «El Senado chileno protesta por cierre de Radio Caracas», 13 de abril de 2007.
(4) Associated Press, «Gobierno chileno rechaza críticas de Chávez», 13 de abril de 2007.
(5) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «Decisión de no renovar concesión a RCTV es un hecho natural e inexorable», 29 de marzo de 2007.
(6) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «Cierre de RCTV no responde a una decisión política», 29 de marzo de 2007.
(7) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «RCTV ha sido el canal más sancionado en Venezuela», 29 de marzo de 2007.
(8) Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, « Presidente Chávez: Quedan pocos días al canal de la oligarquía apátrida», 1 de mayo de 2007.
(9) Associated Press, «Chávez acusa a EEUU de estimular conspiraciones en Venezuela», 12 de abril de 2007.
(10) Associated Press, «Detienen abogada por atentado a embajada en Caracas», 27 de abril de 2007.
(11) Associated Press, «Chávez acusa a EEUU de nuevo complot en su contra», 1 de mayo de 2007; Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, «Presidente Chávez denuncia reactivación de planes de magnicidio», 1 de mayo de 2007.
Salim Lamrani
Profesor de espanol y joven investigador en la Universidad Denis-Diderot de Paris
Monday, May 28, 2007
• ¿Alianza EEUU/Brasil para crear Una OPEP del etanol? por Humberto Márquez IPS, Caracas
Imperios: La política de Bush hacia América Latina y el Brasil de Lula
La gira del presidente estadounidense George W. Bush por América Latina en marzo busca impulsar una alianza estratégica con Brasil para desarrollar biocombustibles, lo que ha puesto en guardia al principal exportador de petróleo de la región, Venezuela.
Bush visitará entre el 8 y el 14 de marzo Brasil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala y México, y su diálogo con el presidente brasileño Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva será "una enorme oportunidad" para incentivar la producción y el comercio de etanol, o alcohol carburante sustituto de la gasolina, según Gregory Manuel, consejero especial para asuntos energéticos de la Secretaría de Estado (cancillería) estadounidense.
El diario brasileño O Estado de São Paulo, de la sureña ciudad que será sede del encuentro, adelantó que los mandatarios impulsarán "una especie de OPEP del etanol", es decir, "un mercado hemisférico que garantice el suministro estable de biocombustibles, con producción diversificada por toda la región".
Brasil es el mayor productor mundial de etanol que obtiene de la caña de azúcar y ha desarrollado también la producción de biodiésel a partir de oleaginosas para mezclar o sustituir el combustible fósil de los motores diésel.
"Una OPEP del etanol es imposible, porque ese combustible nunca podrá ser sustituto del petróleo", advirtió a IPS el especialista venezolano Alfredo Michelena. "Pero en cambio puede reemplazar un pequeño porcentaje del consumo estadounidense de carburantes, equivalente al suministro petrolero que recibe de Venezuela", agregó.
La OPEP (Organización de Países Exportadores de Petróleo), integrada por Angola, Arabia Saudita, Argelia, Emiratos Árabes Unidos, Indonesia, Irán, Iraq, Kuwait, Libia, Nigeria, Qatar y Venezuela, produce cerca de 40 por ciento de los 84 millones de barriles diarios de crudo que consume el mundo y son suyos casi dos de cada tres barriles (de 159 litros) que se comercializan internacionalmente.
Estados Unidos devora uno de cada cuatro barriles de crudo que produce el planeta, y uno de cada dos de gasolina. Sus principales proveedores externos son Canadá, México, Arabia Saudita y Venezuela, que le exporta cada día casi 1,4 millones de barriles, cerca de seis por ciento del consumo total estadounidense.
Esa demanda aumenta con el auge de la economía estadounidense --que creció 3,3 por ciento en 2006, según su Departamento de Comercio-- por lo que Washington, "junto con ponderar los riesgos asociados a la situación política en el Medio Oriente, tiene la clara intención de disminuir su dependencia petrolera de Venezuela", apuntó Michelena.
Desde hace tres años, Washington y Caracas mantienen una dura confrontación política y diplomática, al punto de que el Comando Sur --una de las siete divisiones territoriales de las fuerzas armadas estadounidenses en el planeta, cuya área incluye América Latina y el Caribe--, considera a Venezuela " amenaza hemisférica" por su "populismo radical".
Pero pese a ello, el flujo petrolero se ha mantenido sin interrupciones.
Venezuela, cuyo "salario nacional" depende de sus exportaciones de 2,5 millones de barriles diarios, busca por su parte otros mercados, como los de China e India y los vecinos latinoamericanos y caribeños desprovistos de petróleo.
Los volúmenes que despacha Venezuela puede reemplazarlos Estados Unidos con mayor empleo de biocombustibles y el ingreso del petróleo de su boreal estado de Alaska, según Michelena, y por eso trata de conquistar a Brasil, "que no tiene un pacto petrolero con Caracas, aunque ambos son socios del Mercado Común del Sur", recordó.
A su juicio, los estadounidenses "venden la idea de que los países latinoamericanos podrían incorporarse a la producción de ese rubro para abastecer al Norte, con la ventaja de que llegarán inversiones y tecnología para impulsar la agricultura y millones de personas podrán salir de la pobreza".
El auge de los biocombustibles obedece a los principales problemas que se achacan al petróleo: su elevado precio, su responsabilidad en el recalentamiento global y su carácter de fuente de energía no renovable.
"Lo que Estados Unidos pretende es imposible", afirmó en una de sus charlas por radio y televisión el presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez. "Para sostener con etanol su estilo de vida, en el cual 70 de cada 100 personas tienen vehículo, habría que sembrar con maíz cinco o seis veces la superficie del planeta Tierra", advirtió.
Estados Unidos obtiene etanol del maíz, en tanto Brasil y Colombia, y en menor medida Cuba y Venezuela, lo extraen de la caña de azúcar. La capacidad de producción estadounidense se cifra en 300.000 barriles diarios, pero sólo 600 de sus 200.000 gasolineras expenden la mezcla E85, carburante con 85 por ciento de etanol.
Brasil, primer productor mundial de etanol (con 600.000 barriles diarios), es también el mayor consumidor, con más de 80 por ciento de sus vehículos equipados para usar gasolina, alcohol o una mezcla de ambos, y no oculta su interés por ampliar su horizonte de mercados, lo que puede llevar a un nuevo entendimiento Lula-Bush.
Chávez sostiene una fuerte alianza política con Lula, en tanto sus gobiernos impulsan la construcción de un gasoducto que cruzará Brasil desde yacimientos en el Caribe hasta mercados en el Río de la Plata. El venezolano hizo un disparo por elevación hacia un acuerdo Washington-Brasilia en materia de etanol.
El mandatario apeló a razones éticas, como el hambre en el mundo. "Para producir un millón de barriles de etanol habría que sembrar 20 millones de hectáreas de maíz. ¿Es justo hacerlo si hay 800 millones de hambrientos en el planeta? ¿Cuántas personas comerían con esa producción?", se preguntó.
"Para llenar el tanque de combustible de 25 galones (95 litros) de un vehículo una vez haría falta la cantidad de granos suficientes para alimentar a una persona durante un año", según el cálculo de Chávez, un argumento ya utilizado por organizaciones ambientalistas.
El mandatario invocó informes según los cuales la agricultura ya compromete 70 por ciento del agua dulce del mundo, "y la expansión de los cultivos comprometerá más ese recurso necesario para la gente, sin hablar del impacto sobre el suelo del mayor uso de agroquímicos y la tendencia al monocultivo para alimentar las plantas de etanol".
Lester Brown, presidente de la institución ecologista estadounidense Earth Policy Institute, ha advertido que son los automóviles, y no las personas, los responsables de que se incremente en ese país el consumo de cereales, mientras que para los 2.000 millones de personas más pobres del mundo el aumento en el precio de los granos es una amenaza.
Chávez evocó en su admonición que "hemos visto en México gente protestando por el alza en el precio de las tortillas (de maíz) ¿Por qué? Porque en la medida en que Estados Unidos instale plantas de biocombustible se llevarán para allá el maíz mexicano, y esa es una causa de los aumentos".
Venezuela, entretanto, se mantiene desafiante respecto de los suministros de petróleo a Estados Unidos. "Si no lo quieren, pues no lo compren", declaró el canciller Nicolás Maduro, en respuesta a las frecuentes advertencias sobre esa relación que llegan desde el Departamento de Estado o el Congreso legislativo estadounidense.
Mientras, la fiebre del etanol recorre el mundo, desde pequeñas producciones como las de Nicaragua o Panamá hasta grandes proyectos, como el de Japón, que espera producir dentro de dos décadas al menos 100.000 barriles diarios de ese combustible renovable.
También Venezuela, que importa etanol brasileño para sus mezclas de gasolinas (por ser menos contaminante que el aditivo Metil-Terbutil-Eter, MTBE, que agrega octanaje) proyecta sembrar 276.000 hectáreas de caña destinadas a la producción, una vez extraídos los azúcares, de unos 25.000 barriles diarios del alcohol carburante.■
Heather Wokusch on US WMD, 1
Biological weapons, white phosphorus use in Fallujah, the use of US WMD against Americans
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Coup Co-Conspirators as Free-Speech Martyrs - Distorting the Venezuelan media story
Media Advisory
The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.
According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chavez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."
Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."
In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with [RCTV owner Marcel] Granier and RCTV is political."
In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.
RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks' participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup?hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.
On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."
That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), "[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."
As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it's doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."
When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs?in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):
What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles?. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.
The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.
When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists?all groups that have condemned Venezuela's action in denying RCTV's license renewal?he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV's actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups' arguments, "Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?"
McElwee acknowledged the critics' point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."
Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
The story is framed in U.S. news media as a simple matter of censorship: Prominent Venezuelan TV station RCTV is being silenced by the authoritarian government of President Hugo Chávez, who is punishing the station for its political criticism of his government.
According to CNN reporter T.J. Holmes (5/21/07), the issues are easy to understand: RCTV "is going to be shut down, is going to get off the air, because of President Hugo Chávez, not a big fan of it." Dubbing RCTV "a voice of free speech," Holmes explained, "Chavez, in a move that's angered a lot of free-speech groups, is refusing now to renew the license of this television station that has been critical of his government."
Though straighter, a news story by the Associated Press (5/20/07) still maintained the theme that the license denial was based simply on political differences, with reporter Elizabeth Munoz describing RCTV as "a network that has been critical of Chávez."
In a May 14 column, Washington Post deputy editorial page editor Jackson Diehl called the action an attempt to silence opponents and more "proof" that Chávez is a "dictator." Wrote Diehl, "Chávez has made clear that his problem with [RCTV owner Marcel] Granier and RCTV is political."
In keeping with the media script that has bad guy Chávez brutishly silencing good guys in the democratic opposition, all these articles skimmed lightly over RCTV's history, the Venezuelan government's explanation for the license denial and the process that led to it.
RCTV and other commercial TV stations were key players in the April 2002 coup that briefly ousted Chávez's democratically elected government. During the short-lived insurrection, coup leaders took to commercial TV airwaves to thank the networks. "I must thank Venevisión and RCTV," one grateful leader remarked in an appearance captured in the Irish film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The film documents the networks' participation in the short-lived coup, in which stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup?hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy.
On April 11, 2002, the day of the coup, when military and civilian opposition leaders held press conferences calling for Chávez's ouster, RCTV hosted top coup plotter Carlos Ortega, who rallied demonstrators to the march on the presidential palace. On the same day, after the anti-democratic overthrow appeared to have succeeded, another coup leader, Vice-Admiral Victor Ramírez Pérez, told a Venevisión reporter (4/11/02): "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you."
That commercial TV outlets including RCTV participated in the coup is not at question; even mainstream outlets have acknowledged as much. As reporter Juan Forero, Jackson Diehl's colleague at the Washington Post, explained (1/18/07), "RCTV, like three other major private television stations, encouraged the protests," resulting in the coup, "and, once Chávez was ousted, cheered his removal." The conservative British newspaper the Financial Times reported (5/21/07), "[Venezuelan] officials argue with some justification that RCTV actively supported the 2002 coup attempt against Mr. Chávez."
As FAIR's magazine Extra! argued last November, "Were a similar event to happen in the U.S., and TV journalists and executives were caught conspiring with coup plotters, it's doubtful they would stay out of jail, let alone be allowed to continue to run television stations, as they have in Venezuela."
When Chávez returned to power the commercial stations refused to cover the news, airing instead entertainment programs?in RCTV's case, the American film Pretty Woman. By refusing to cover such a newsworthy story, the stations abandoned the public interest and violated the public trust that is seen in Venezuela (and in the U.S.) as a requirement for operating on the public airwaves. Regarding RCTV's refusal to cover the return of Chavez to power, Columbia University professor and former NPR editor John Dinges told Marketplace (5/8/07):
What RCTV did simply can't be justified under any stretch of journalistic principles?. When a television channel simply fails to report, simply goes off the air during a period of national crisis, not because they're forced to, but simply because they don't agree with what's happening, you've lost your ability to defend what you do on journalistic principles.
The Venezuelan government is basing its denial of license on RCTV's involvement in the 2002 coup, not on the station's criticisms of or political opposition to the government. Many American pundits and some human rights spokespersons have confused the issue by claiming the action is based merely on political differences, failing to note that Venezuela's media, including its commercial broadcasters, are still among the most vigorously dissident on the planet.
When Patrick McElwee of the U.S.-based group Just Foreign Policy interviewed representatives of Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists?all groups that have condemned Venezuela's action in denying RCTV's license renewal?he found that none of the spokespersons thought broadcasters were automatically entitled to license renewals, though none of them thought RCTV's actions in support of the coup should have resulted in the station having its license renewal denied. This led McElwee to wonder, based on the rights groups' arguments, "Could it be that governments like Venezuela have the theoretical right to not to renew a broadcast license, but that no responsible government would ever do it?"
McElwee acknowledged the critics' point that some form of due process should have been involved in the decisions, but explained that laws preexisting Chávez's presidency placed licensing decision with the executive branch, with no real provisions for a hearings process: "Unfortunately, this is what the law, first enacted in 1987, long before Chávez entered the political scene, allows. It charges the executive branch with decisions about license renewal, but does not seem to require any administrative hearing. The law should be changed, but at the current moment when broadcast licenses are up for renewal, it is the prevailing law and thus lays out the framework in which decisions are made."
Government actions weighing on journalism and broadcast licensing deserve strong scrutiny. However, on the central question of whether a government is bound to renew the license of a broadcaster when that broadcaster had been involved in a coup against the democratically elected government, the answer should be clear, as McElwee concludes:
The RCTV case is not about censorship of political opinion. It is about the government, through a flawed process, declining to renew a broadcast license to a company that would not get a license in other democracies, including the United States. In fact, it is frankly amazing that this company has been allowed to broadcast for 5 years after the coup, and that the Chávez government waited until its license expired to end its use of the public airwaves.
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org.
"IN TIMES OF UNIVERSAL DECEIT, TELLING THE TRUTH WILL BE A REVOLUTIONARY ACT." - George Orwell
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to turn it over to get it to stand up straight?” - Eduardo Galeano
The real reason Wolfowitz is under fire
By Robert Dobrow
From the bloody ground battles in Iraq to the lush board rooms of the World Bank, U.S. imperialism’s “New American Century” is in trouble these days.
Former deputy Pentagon chief and now World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, prince of the neocons and architect of the Iraq invasion, is knee-deep in scandal. The man who began his tenure two years ago as head of the world’s largest so-called public financial institution with calls to battle “global corruption” stands charged with peddling favors to a woman friend at the bank.
Let’s not waste any ink on this tenth-rate issue. We’ll leave it to the right-wing enablers in the mass media who have turned objective political commentary into scandal-ridden drivel to spin the Wolfowitz story as a titillating tale of sex, lies and payola.
The real story is how the Bush administration has tried to shape the World Bank into a tool of its war agenda, and the limits of its ability to force the rest of the world to bend to its will.
When Wolfowitz was appointed by George W. Bush two years ago to head the World Bank, the European business journal The Economist, staunchly rightwing and conservative, editorialized that, “His appointment tells the world that Mr. Bush wants to capture the World Bank and make it an arm of American foreign policy.”
It should be added, however, that The Economist has no problem with the World Bank as an arm of European imperialist foreign policy.
Aid as a political weapon
Wolfowitz, next to Bush, has been one of the most visible and hated figures around the world for his role in Iraq, for the lies that justified the invasion, for the torture policies of the occupation, for the arrogance and the ruthless conduct of the war.
And now as head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz has imposed a brazen pro-U.S. agenda there as well. A feature story in the April 9 New Yorker magazine by John Cassidy titled “The Next Crusade” cites numerous instances to support this view.
For instance, in July 2005, the Central Asian republic of Uzbekistan ordered the U.S. to remove its troops and aircraft from an Uzbek base it had been using to support the war against Afghanistan. Two months later, Wolfowitz cut off an aid package to the country which was mostly going to rural water and health projects. No cutoff of monies was suggested for neighboring Tajikistan, a brutally repressive but pro-U.S. regime that gets millions in World Bank loans.
Wolfowitz has selectively used the “corruption” charge to deny loans to countries that try to exert a measure of independence from U.S. influence, like Congo-Brazzaville and Chad, poor African nations with rich natural resources. Both countries were denied development aid in the past year by the World Bank.
With Iraq, however, Wolfowitz has been most active in placing the World Bank at the service of the Pentagon.
First Wolfowitz made a series of top-level appointments at the bank to political cronies of right-wing governments that had been some of the strongest backers of U.S. policy in Iraq, such as El Salvador, Spain and Jordan. “He used his tenure in part to reward those governments and individuals who were particularly helpful to the U.S. in the Iraq war,” says Steven Clemmens of the New America Foundation.
World Bank and Big Oil
Then, last fall, Wolfowitz set up a permanent World Bank office in Baghdad. According to the Bank Information Center, a liberal nongovernmental organization that monitors the bank’s policies: “The institution is advising the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the development of the oil sector strategy. More broadly, the Bank is advising Iraq on attracting foreign direct investment through quickly developing investor friendly laws and also advising on reforming [privatizing—BD] state-owned enterprises. In addition, the Bank is participating in meetings with the IMF, Iraq Minister of Finance, and the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) on Iraq’s oil sector. The ITIC is a business lobby group comprised of BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell and Total.”
“Wolfowitz’s apparent determination to use the World Bank to further questionable American military goals in the Middle East is a ... violation of its founding Articles of Agreement, and a reckless waste of donor resources,” said Bea Edwards, International Program Director of the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit public interest group and whistleblower protection organization.
“In fact, the Bank is prohibited from operating in a conflict like this,” added Edwards. “In the simplest financial terms, there is no functioning banking system, the government does not control its territory.”
The World Bank and the IMF are leaning on the Iraqi Parliament to establish a Federal Oil and Gas Council, staffed by Big Oil executives. “The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts,” Juan Gonzalez reported in the Daily News on Feb. 21. The Iraqi National Oil Co. would be defenseless against these foreign companies.
“Since most of Iraq’s 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be developed, the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse,” Gonzalez wrote. Contracts with international companies will likely be similar to controversial production-sharing agreements, which sign away the lion’s share of oil profits to foreign investors.
The World Bank was formed in 1945 with the specific intent of projecting U.S. power in the post-war era. The bank’s president is always from the U.S., the bank’s headquarters are in Washington, and the U.S. has a permanent veto. It is under fire in many countries around the world for the severe austerity measures that it forces upon developing nations, including demands for privatizing industries and looting national resources and native industries for the sake of foreign capital.
But the World Bank in the past has also been a coalition effort by U.S., European and Japanese capital, with significant bank funds provided by non-U.S. sources.
Today, however, the Bush administration and its big business masters are not interested in coalitions. They demand total control. This is nowhere better revealed than in the infamous document co-authored by Wolfowitz himself seven years ago titled “Rebuilding American’s Defenses.” This manifesto of the so-called Project for the New American Century has been called the “Mein Kampf” of the neocon movement. It projects a world of U.S. global domination, calling for massive increases in military spending, for covering the planet with Pentagon bases, for a near-permanent state of military readiness, and for regime change wherever U.S. capitalism’s political and economic interests are threatened.
But this reactionary utopia is collapsing on the ground in Iraq, where popular resistance to U.S. aggression continues to grow. And while we would much rather see Wolfowitz brought up on charges of war crimes than on a two-bit misdemeanor for influence peddling, the fact is that his woes at the World Bank are yet another sign that the Bush administration is on the defensive and unable to impose its will on an unwilling world.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
From the bloody ground battles in Iraq to the lush board rooms of the World Bank, U.S. imperialism’s “New American Century” is in trouble these days.
Former deputy Pentagon chief and now World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, prince of the neocons and architect of the Iraq invasion, is knee-deep in scandal. The man who began his tenure two years ago as head of the world’s largest so-called public financial institution with calls to battle “global corruption” stands charged with peddling favors to a woman friend at the bank.
Let’s not waste any ink on this tenth-rate issue. We’ll leave it to the right-wing enablers in the mass media who have turned objective political commentary into scandal-ridden drivel to spin the Wolfowitz story as a titillating tale of sex, lies and payola.
The real story is how the Bush administration has tried to shape the World Bank into a tool of its war agenda, and the limits of its ability to force the rest of the world to bend to its will.
When Wolfowitz was appointed by George W. Bush two years ago to head the World Bank, the European business journal The Economist, staunchly rightwing and conservative, editorialized that, “His appointment tells the world that Mr. Bush wants to capture the World Bank and make it an arm of American foreign policy.”
It should be added, however, that The Economist has no problem with the World Bank as an arm of European imperialist foreign policy.
Aid as a political weapon
Wolfowitz, next to Bush, has been one of the most visible and hated figures around the world for his role in Iraq, for the lies that justified the invasion, for the torture policies of the occupation, for the arrogance and the ruthless conduct of the war.
And now as head of the World Bank, Wolfowitz has imposed a brazen pro-U.S. agenda there as well. A feature story in the April 9 New Yorker magazine by John Cassidy titled “The Next Crusade” cites numerous instances to support this view.
For instance, in July 2005, the Central Asian republic of Uzbekistan ordered the U.S. to remove its troops and aircraft from an Uzbek base it had been using to support the war against Afghanistan. Two months later, Wolfowitz cut off an aid package to the country which was mostly going to rural water and health projects. No cutoff of monies was suggested for neighboring Tajikistan, a brutally repressive but pro-U.S. regime that gets millions in World Bank loans.
Wolfowitz has selectively used the “corruption” charge to deny loans to countries that try to exert a measure of independence from U.S. influence, like Congo-Brazzaville and Chad, poor African nations with rich natural resources. Both countries were denied development aid in the past year by the World Bank.
With Iraq, however, Wolfowitz has been most active in placing the World Bank at the service of the Pentagon.
First Wolfowitz made a series of top-level appointments at the bank to political cronies of right-wing governments that had been some of the strongest backers of U.S. policy in Iraq, such as El Salvador, Spain and Jordan. “He used his tenure in part to reward those governments and individuals who were particularly helpful to the U.S. in the Iraq war,” says Steven Clemmens of the New America Foundation.
World Bank and Big Oil
Then, last fall, Wolfowitz set up a permanent World Bank office in Baghdad. According to the Bank Information Center, a liberal nongovernmental organization that monitors the bank’s policies: “The institution is advising the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the development of the oil sector strategy. More broadly, the Bank is advising Iraq on attracting foreign direct investment through quickly developing investor friendly laws and also advising on reforming [privatizing—BD] state-owned enterprises. In addition, the Bank is participating in meetings with the IMF, Iraq Minister of Finance, and the International Tax and Investment Center (ITIC) on Iraq’s oil sector. The ITIC is a business lobby group comprised of BP, Chevron, Eni, ExxonMobil, Shell and Total.”
“Wolfowitz’s apparent determination to use the World Bank to further questionable American military goals in the Middle East is a ... violation of its founding Articles of Agreement, and a reckless waste of donor resources,” said Bea Edwards, International Program Director of the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit public interest group and whistleblower protection organization.
“In fact, the Bank is prohibited from operating in a conflict like this,” added Edwards. “In the simplest financial terms, there is no functioning banking system, the government does not control its territory.”
The World Bank and the IMF are leaning on the Iraqi Parliament to establish a Federal Oil and Gas Council, staffed by Big Oil executives. “The new law would grant the council virtually all power to develop policies and plans for undeveloped oil fields and to review and change all exploration and production contracts,” Juan Gonzalez reported in the Daily News on Feb. 21. The Iraqi National Oil Co. would be defenseless against these foreign companies.
“Since most of Iraq’s 73 proven petroleum fields have yet to be developed, the new council would instantly become a world energy powerhouse,” Gonzalez wrote. Contracts with international companies will likely be similar to controversial production-sharing agreements, which sign away the lion’s share of oil profits to foreign investors.
The World Bank was formed in 1945 with the specific intent of projecting U.S. power in the post-war era. The bank’s president is always from the U.S., the bank’s headquarters are in Washington, and the U.S. has a permanent veto. It is under fire in many countries around the world for the severe austerity measures that it forces upon developing nations, including demands for privatizing industries and looting national resources and native industries for the sake of foreign capital.
But the World Bank in the past has also been a coalition effort by U.S., European and Japanese capital, with significant bank funds provided by non-U.S. sources.
Today, however, the Bush administration and its big business masters are not interested in coalitions. They demand total control. This is nowhere better revealed than in the infamous document co-authored by Wolfowitz himself seven years ago titled “Rebuilding American’s Defenses.” This manifesto of the so-called Project for the New American Century has been called the “Mein Kampf” of the neocon movement. It projects a world of U.S. global domination, calling for massive increases in military spending, for covering the planet with Pentagon bases, for a near-permanent state of military readiness, and for regime change wherever U.S. capitalism’s political and economic interests are threatened.
But this reactionary utopia is collapsing on the ground in Iraq, where popular resistance to U.S. aggression continues to grow. And while we would much rather see Wolfowitz brought up on charges of war crimes than on a two-bit misdemeanor for influence peddling, the fact is that his woes at the World Bank are yet another sign that the Bush administration is on the defensive and unable to impose its will on an unwilling world.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Why the U.S. is targeting Iran
Oil and social gains
By Sara Flounders
Why is Iran increasingly a target of U.S. threats? Who in Iran will be affected if the Pentagon implements plans, already drawn up, to strike more than 10,000 targets in the first hours of a U.S. air barrage on Iran?
What changes in policy is Washington demanding of the Iranian government?
In the face of the debacle U.S. imperialism is facing in Iraq, U.S. threats against Iran are discussed daily. This is not a secret operation. They can’t be considered idle threats.
Two aircraft carriers—USS Eisenhower and USS Stennis—are still off the coast of Iran, each one accompanied by a carrier strike group containing Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, electronic warfare aircraft, anti-submarine and refueler planes, and airborne command-and-control planes. Six guided-missile destroyers are also part of the armada.
Besides this vast array of firepower, the Pentagon has bases throughout the Middle East able to attack Iran with cruise missiles and hundreds of warplanes.
In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in a war on Iran. Ever-tightening sanctions, from both the U.S. and U.N., restrict trade and the ordering of equipment, spare parts and supplies.
Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine a year ago that U.S. special operations forces were already opepating inside Iran in preparation for a possible attack. U.S.-backed covert operatives had entered Iran to organize sabotage, car bombings, kidnappings and attacks on civilians, to collect targeting data and to foment anti-government ethnic-minority groups.
News articles have reported in recent months that the Pentagon has drawn up plans for a military blitz that would strike 10,000 targets in the first day of attacks. The aim is to destroy not just military targets but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communication centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals and public buildings.
It is important to understand internal developments in Iran today in order to understand why this country is the focus of such continued hatred by U.S. corporate power.
Every leading U.S. political figure has weighed in on the issue, from George W. Bush, who has the power to order strikes, to Hillary Clinton, who has made her support for an attack on Iran clear, to John McCain, who answered a reporter’s question on policy toward Iran by chanting “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ song, “Barbara Ann.” The media—from the New York Times to the Washington Post to banner headlines in the tabloid press to right-wing radio talk shows—are playing a role in preparing the public for an attack.
The significance of oil production and oil reserves in Iran is well known. Every news article, analysis or politician’s threat makes mention of Iran’s oil. But the impact of Iran’s nationalization of its oil resources is not well known.
The corporate owners in the U.S. want to keep it a secret from the people here. They use all the power of their media to demonize the Iranian leadership and caricature and ridicule the entire population, their culture and religion.
What’s been achieved?
The focus of media coverage here is to describe Iran as medieval, backward and feudal while somehow becoming a nuclear power.
It is never mentioned that more than half the university students in Iran are women, or that more than a third of the doctors, 60 percent of civil servants and 80 percent of all teachers in Iran are women. At the time of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, 90 percent of rural women were illiterate; in towns the figure was over 45 percent.
Also ignored is the stunning achievement of full literacy for Iranian youth.
Even the World Bank, now headed by Bush’s neocon appointee Paul Wolfowitz, in its development report on countries admits that Iran has exceeded the social gains of other countries in the Middle East.
According to that report, Iran has made the most progress in eliminating gender disparities in education. Large numbers of increasingly well-educated women have entered the work force.
Iran’s comprehensive social protection system includes the highest level of pensions, disability insurance, job training programs, unemployment insurance and disaster-relief programs. National subsidies make basic food, housing and energy affordable to all.
An extensive national network going from primary health and preventive care to sophisticated hospital care covers the entire population, both urban and rural. More than 16,000 “health houses” are the cornerstone of the health care system. Using simple technology, they provide vaccines, preventive care, care for respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, family planning and contraceptive information, and pre-natal care. And they monitor children’s nutrition and general health.
Since 1990, Iran nearly halved the infant mortality rate and increased life expectancy by 10 years.
Iran sets record in family planning
A national family planning program, delivered through the primary health care facilities and accompanied by a dramatic increase in contraceptive use, which is approved by Islamic law, has led to a world record demographic change in family size and maternal and child health. All forms of contraception are now available for free.
In addition, promoting women’s education and employment while extending social security and retirement benefits has alleviated the pressure to have many children to protect security as parents grow older. The fertility rate between 1976 and 2000 declined from 8.1 births per woman to 2.4 births in rural areas and 1.8 births in urban areas.
These social programs, which cover the entire population of almost 70 million people, should be compared to conditions in countries in the region that remain under U.S. military and economic domination.
In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, only a tiny part of the population has benefited from the vast profits generated by oil and gas resources. In each of these countries the bulk of the people are not even considered citizens. Millions are immigrant workers, usually the overwhelming majority of the population, who have no rights to any representation, participation or any social, health or educational programs or union protection.
Women in these countries face much more than religious restrictions on clothing. They are barred from jobs, equal education and the right to control their own bodies or their own funds. They cannot vote or even drive a car.
In Iraq, which before U.S. attacks began in 1991 had some of the best conditions in the region for women, plus a high level of education, health, nutrition and social services, the conditions of life have now deteriorated to the level of the very poorest countries in the world. Legislation passed by the U.S.-installed puppet government has stripped women of rights that were guaranteed earlier.
Revolution made it all possible
The social gains of millions of Iranians are based on the upsurge of the Iranian masses in the 1979 revolution. The overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty broke the hold of U.S. corporate power in Iran.
The Iranian Revolution was not a socialist revolution. Bourgeois rights to own businesses, land, wealth and inheritance are still protected by law and by the state apparatus.
But the greatest source of wealth—Iran’s oil and gas—was nationalized. Nationalization means the transfer of privately owned assets and operations into public ownership. The exploration, drilling, maintenance, transport, refining and shipping of oil and gas became the national property of the Iranian people. Formerly this entire process was controlled at every step by Western imperialists, particularly U.S. and British corporations.
Most of the administrators, executives, technicians and engineers who controlled the process used to be from the West. Through hundreds of thousands of contracts and sub-contracts, U.S. and British firms extracted a profit not just through the sale of oil on the world markets but at every step of its extraction and refining. The small portion of profit the Shah’s government received, as in the Gulf States today, was spent on luxury items imported from Western corporations for the small ruling elite and on infrastructure and weapons systems purchased from U.S. military corporations, again at an enormous profit.
The 1979 Iranian revolution, even though it brought a religious group to power, was a profoundly radical and anti-imperialist revolution. Demonstrations of millions openly confronted the brutally repressive police apparatus called the Savak, who protected the small handful of corrupt U.S. collaborators. Religious fervor, demands for social justice and militant anti-imperialism were bound together in opposition to the U.S.-imposed Shah and the Pahlavi royal family, which was hated for its program of a glitzy modernization of the urban infrastructure alongside the growing impoverishment of both urban and rural workers, farmers and much of the middle class.
All classes of society were profoundly shaken as millions of revolutionary workers took to the streets. This was reflected not only in laws passed in Parliament but in the Iranian constitution itself. The constitution states that the government is required to provide every citizen with access to social security for retirement, unemployment, old age, disability, accidents, health and medical treatment—out of public revenue.
Prior to the revolution Iran had a shortage of medical staff and of trained personnel of every kind. During the upheaval of the revolution and the years of the Iran-Iraq war, many physicians, scientific and skilled personnel emigrated.
Having broken free of U.S. corporate domination and control of its resources, Iran was able to develop education, industry and infrastructure with unprecedented speed. By 2004 the number of university students had increased by six times over 1979. There are currently 2.2 million college students. The largest and most prestigious programs encompass 54 state universities and 42 state medical schools where tuition, room and board are totally free. In addition, 289 major private universities also receive substantial funding.
Millions of scientists, engineers, technicians, administrators, military officers, teachers, civil servants and doctors have been trained.
Today Iran boasts modern cities, a large auto industry, and miles of new roads, railroads and subways. Currently 55 Iranian pharmaceutical companies produce 96 percent of the medicines on the market in Iran. This allows a national insurance system to reimburse drug expenses.
Soon to become operational is the largest pharmaceutical complex in southwest Asia, which will produce compound drugs, making Iran a pioneer in biotechnology.
Years of U.S. sanctions and pressure on international financial institutions have had an unexpected result: Iran is free of the crippling debt that has strangled so many developing countries. According to World Bank figures, Iran’s external debt is one of the lowest for its size: $11.9 billion, or 8.8 percent of the GDP. From the point of view of the imperialist world bankers, this means the loss of many billions each year in interest payments to them.
Different approaches
Since 1979 there have been deep struggles inside Iran over how to deal with the unrelenting pressure of the imperialist powers. There are differing approaches on developments plans and who is favored or benefits most from these plans. But all of the present forces are committed to maintaining Iran’s control of its resources.
Iran is not a monolithic state. No state is or could be. There are contending groups even within the Muslim clergy that reflect different economic interests and class forces. This is true also in the Iranian Parliament and among various political parties and leaders.
Under President Mohammed Khatami, from 1997 to 2005, a “Reform Movement” eased religious and social restrictions. But it also allowed the introduction of neo-liberal economic policies, structural reforms and the de-nationalizing or privatizing of some social programs along with the cutting of subsidies. More joint ventures were initiated with European and Japanese capital. Programs that benefited the “private sector” or the wealthy and the middle class grew. This was the core of Khatami’s base.
The current leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s first non-cleric president in 24 years, was elected in 2005 in a landslide victory after promising to extend social security and pensions, improve the subsidies for food and housing, deal with rising unemployment and guarantee a monthly stipend.
The Iranian people are determined to protect the substantial gains they have made since the revolution. They are not interested in any effort that turns the clock back.
A Wall Street Journal Commentary by Francis Fukuyama on Feb. 1 was unusually frank in explaining the growing problem faced by U.S. corporate power on a global scale:
“What is it that leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez have in common that vastly increases their local appeal? A foreign policy built around anti-Americanism is, of course, a core component. But what has allowed them to win elections and build support in their societies is less their foreign-policy stances than their ability to promise, and to a certain extent deliver on, social policy—things like education, health and other social services, particularly for the poor. ...
“The U.S. and the political groups that it tends to support around the world, by contrast, have relatively little to offer in this regard.”
Past and new threats
Iran’s program for nuclear power was actually initiated by the U.S. when the Shah held dictatorial power. Nuclear energy is an important part of modern industrial development. It is important in science, medicine and research. Only after the overthrow of the Shah was Iran’s continued development of the same program branded a threat by Washington.
The U.S. government has made every effort to sabotage all Iranian infrastructure and industrial development, not only nuclear energy. Modern technology—from elevators to cars, ships, jet aircraft and oil refineries—needs constant upkeep. Parts for the re-supply and maintenance of equipment the Iranians had purchased over decades from U.S. corporations were halted.
The most onerous sanctions were imposed in 1995 during the Clinton administration.
The Iranian people, despite many different political currents, are united in their determination not to lose their national sovereignty again. Washington’s past use of sanctions, economic sabotage, political destabilization and regime change is well remembered in Iran today.
Sanctions, the freezing of assets and an embargo on the export of Iranian oil and all trade with Iran were first imposed in March 1951, after Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Iran was the first country in the Middle East to take the bold step of reclaiming its national wealth in the post-colonial era.
In 1953 using internal destabilization and massive external pressure, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Mossadegh’s popularly elected government and placed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Oil was back under the control of the U.S. and Britain, and 26 years of brutal repression followed.
Ever since the 1979 revolution and the decisive overthrow of the U.S.-supported military dictatorship, Iran has had not a moment of peace from the Pentagon or Wall Street.
As Iran continues to grow and develop, U.S. imperialism is becoming increasingly desperate to reverse this revolutionary process, whether through sanctions, sabotage or bombing. But today it faces a population that is stronger, more conscious and more skilled. On a world scale U.S. imperialism is more isolated. Its hated occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has left it overextended.
But the Pentagon is still capable of massive destruction. Its bases surround Iran and it has sent an armada of ships to the Gulf. U.S. government threats against Iran today must be taken as seriously as their devastating occupation of Iraq.
The forces opposing Washington’s policy of endless war—whether waged through sanctions, coups, invasions, bombings or sabotage—should stand with Iran, recognize its accomplishments, defend its gains and oppose imperialism’s efforts to re-colonize the country.
Sources of information about Iran’s social development include: “Iran’s Family Planning Program: Responding to a Nation’s Needs,” by Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, D.C., June 2002; “Tehran University Official Describes Iran Health Care System to Harvard School of Public Health,” HSPH NOW, Jan. 24, 2003; World Bank.org—Iran—Country Brief; UNICEF—Info by Country; Food & Agriculture Organization of UN—Nutrition—Country Profiles; “Biggest Pharmaceutical Plant to Open Soon,” Iran Daily, Feb. 4.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
By Sara Flounders
Why is Iran increasingly a target of U.S. threats? Who in Iran will be affected if the Pentagon implements plans, already drawn up, to strike more than 10,000 targets in the first hours of a U.S. air barrage on Iran?
What changes in policy is Washington demanding of the Iranian government?
In the face of the debacle U.S. imperialism is facing in Iraq, U.S. threats against Iran are discussed daily. This is not a secret operation. They can’t be considered idle threats.
Two aircraft carriers—USS Eisenhower and USS Stennis—are still off the coast of Iran, each one accompanied by a carrier strike group containing Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers, electronic warfare aircraft, anti-submarine and refueler planes, and airborne command-and-control planes. Six guided-missile destroyers are also part of the armada.
Besides this vast array of firepower, the Pentagon has bases throughout the Middle East able to attack Iran with cruise missiles and hundreds of warplanes.
In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in a war on Iran. Ever-tightening sanctions, from both the U.S. and U.N., restrict trade and the ordering of equipment, spare parts and supplies.
Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine a year ago that U.S. special operations forces were already opepating inside Iran in preparation for a possible attack. U.S.-backed covert operatives had entered Iran to organize sabotage, car bombings, kidnappings and attacks on civilians, to collect targeting data and to foment anti-government ethnic-minority groups.
News articles have reported in recent months that the Pentagon has drawn up plans for a military blitz that would strike 10,000 targets in the first day of attacks. The aim is to destroy not just military targets but also airports, rail lines, highways, bridges, ports, communication centers, power grids, industrial centers, hospitals and public buildings.
It is important to understand internal developments in Iran today in order to understand why this country is the focus of such continued hatred by U.S. corporate power.
Every leading U.S. political figure has weighed in on the issue, from George W. Bush, who has the power to order strikes, to Hillary Clinton, who has made her support for an attack on Iran clear, to John McCain, who answered a reporter’s question on policy toward Iran by chanting “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ song, “Barbara Ann.” The media—from the New York Times to the Washington Post to banner headlines in the tabloid press to right-wing radio talk shows—are playing a role in preparing the public for an attack.
The significance of oil production and oil reserves in Iran is well known. Every news article, analysis or politician’s threat makes mention of Iran’s oil. But the impact of Iran’s nationalization of its oil resources is not well known.
The corporate owners in the U.S. want to keep it a secret from the people here. They use all the power of their media to demonize the Iranian leadership and caricature and ridicule the entire population, their culture and religion.
What’s been achieved?
The focus of media coverage here is to describe Iran as medieval, backward and feudal while somehow becoming a nuclear power.
It is never mentioned that more than half the university students in Iran are women, or that more than a third of the doctors, 60 percent of civil servants and 80 percent of all teachers in Iran are women. At the time of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, 90 percent of rural women were illiterate; in towns the figure was over 45 percent.
Also ignored is the stunning achievement of full literacy for Iranian youth.
Even the World Bank, now headed by Bush’s neocon appointee Paul Wolfowitz, in its development report on countries admits that Iran has exceeded the social gains of other countries in the Middle East.
According to that report, Iran has made the most progress in eliminating gender disparities in education. Large numbers of increasingly well-educated women have entered the work force.
Iran’s comprehensive social protection system includes the highest level of pensions, disability insurance, job training programs, unemployment insurance and disaster-relief programs. National subsidies make basic food, housing and energy affordable to all.
An extensive national network going from primary health and preventive care to sophisticated hospital care covers the entire population, both urban and rural. More than 16,000 “health houses” are the cornerstone of the health care system. Using simple technology, they provide vaccines, preventive care, care for respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, family planning and contraceptive information, and pre-natal care. And they monitor children’s nutrition and general health.
Since 1990, Iran nearly halved the infant mortality rate and increased life expectancy by 10 years.
Iran sets record in family planning
A national family planning program, delivered through the primary health care facilities and accompanied by a dramatic increase in contraceptive use, which is approved by Islamic law, has led to a world record demographic change in family size and maternal and child health. All forms of contraception are now available for free.
In addition, promoting women’s education and employment while extending social security and retirement benefits has alleviated the pressure to have many children to protect security as parents grow older. The fertility rate between 1976 and 2000 declined from 8.1 births per woman to 2.4 births in rural areas and 1.8 births in urban areas.
These social programs, which cover the entire population of almost 70 million people, should be compared to conditions in countries in the region that remain under U.S. military and economic domination.
In Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, only a tiny part of the population has benefited from the vast profits generated by oil and gas resources. In each of these countries the bulk of the people are not even considered citizens. Millions are immigrant workers, usually the overwhelming majority of the population, who have no rights to any representation, participation or any social, health or educational programs or union protection.
Women in these countries face much more than religious restrictions on clothing. They are barred from jobs, equal education and the right to control their own bodies or their own funds. They cannot vote or even drive a car.
In Iraq, which before U.S. attacks began in 1991 had some of the best conditions in the region for women, plus a high level of education, health, nutrition and social services, the conditions of life have now deteriorated to the level of the very poorest countries in the world. Legislation passed by the U.S.-installed puppet government has stripped women of rights that were guaranteed earlier.
Revolution made it all possible
The social gains of millions of Iranians are based on the upsurge of the Iranian masses in the 1979 revolution. The overthrow of the U.S.-backed Shah and the Pahlavi dynasty broke the hold of U.S. corporate power in Iran.
The Iranian Revolution was not a socialist revolution. Bourgeois rights to own businesses, land, wealth and inheritance are still protected by law and by the state apparatus.
But the greatest source of wealth—Iran’s oil and gas—was nationalized. Nationalization means the transfer of privately owned assets and operations into public ownership. The exploration, drilling, maintenance, transport, refining and shipping of oil and gas became the national property of the Iranian people. Formerly this entire process was controlled at every step by Western imperialists, particularly U.S. and British corporations.
Most of the administrators, executives, technicians and engineers who controlled the process used to be from the West. Through hundreds of thousands of contracts and sub-contracts, U.S. and British firms extracted a profit not just through the sale of oil on the world markets but at every step of its extraction and refining. The small portion of profit the Shah’s government received, as in the Gulf States today, was spent on luxury items imported from Western corporations for the small ruling elite and on infrastructure and weapons systems purchased from U.S. military corporations, again at an enormous profit.
The 1979 Iranian revolution, even though it brought a religious group to power, was a profoundly radical and anti-imperialist revolution. Demonstrations of millions openly confronted the brutally repressive police apparatus called the Savak, who protected the small handful of corrupt U.S. collaborators. Religious fervor, demands for social justice and militant anti-imperialism were bound together in opposition to the U.S.-imposed Shah and the Pahlavi royal family, which was hated for its program of a glitzy modernization of the urban infrastructure alongside the growing impoverishment of both urban and rural workers, farmers and much of the middle class.
All classes of society were profoundly shaken as millions of revolutionary workers took to the streets. This was reflected not only in laws passed in Parliament but in the Iranian constitution itself. The constitution states that the government is required to provide every citizen with access to social security for retirement, unemployment, old age, disability, accidents, health and medical treatment—out of public revenue.
Prior to the revolution Iran had a shortage of medical staff and of trained personnel of every kind. During the upheaval of the revolution and the years of the Iran-Iraq war, many physicians, scientific and skilled personnel emigrated.
Having broken free of U.S. corporate domination and control of its resources, Iran was able to develop education, industry and infrastructure with unprecedented speed. By 2004 the number of university students had increased by six times over 1979. There are currently 2.2 million college students. The largest and most prestigious programs encompass 54 state universities and 42 state medical schools where tuition, room and board are totally free. In addition, 289 major private universities also receive substantial funding.
Millions of scientists, engineers, technicians, administrators, military officers, teachers, civil servants and doctors have been trained.
Today Iran boasts modern cities, a large auto industry, and miles of new roads, railroads and subways. Currently 55 Iranian pharmaceutical companies produce 96 percent of the medicines on the market in Iran. This allows a national insurance system to reimburse drug expenses.
Soon to become operational is the largest pharmaceutical complex in southwest Asia, which will produce compound drugs, making Iran a pioneer in biotechnology.
Years of U.S. sanctions and pressure on international financial institutions have had an unexpected result: Iran is free of the crippling debt that has strangled so many developing countries. According to World Bank figures, Iran’s external debt is one of the lowest for its size: $11.9 billion, or 8.8 percent of the GDP. From the point of view of the imperialist world bankers, this means the loss of many billions each year in interest payments to them.
Different approaches
Since 1979 there have been deep struggles inside Iran over how to deal with the unrelenting pressure of the imperialist powers. There are differing approaches on developments plans and who is favored or benefits most from these plans. But all of the present forces are committed to maintaining Iran’s control of its resources.
Iran is not a monolithic state. No state is or could be. There are contending groups even within the Muslim clergy that reflect different economic interests and class forces. This is true also in the Iranian Parliament and among various political parties and leaders.
Under President Mohammed Khatami, from 1997 to 2005, a “Reform Movement” eased religious and social restrictions. But it also allowed the introduction of neo-liberal economic policies, structural reforms and the de-nationalizing or privatizing of some social programs along with the cutting of subsidies. More joint ventures were initiated with European and Japanese capital. Programs that benefited the “private sector” or the wealthy and the middle class grew. This was the core of Khatami’s base.
The current leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s first non-cleric president in 24 years, was elected in 2005 in a landslide victory after promising to extend social security and pensions, improve the subsidies for food and housing, deal with rising unemployment and guarantee a monthly stipend.
The Iranian people are determined to protect the substantial gains they have made since the revolution. They are not interested in any effort that turns the clock back.
A Wall Street Journal Commentary by Francis Fukuyama on Feb. 1 was unusually frank in explaining the growing problem faced by U.S. corporate power on a global scale:
“What is it that leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez have in common that vastly increases their local appeal? A foreign policy built around anti-Americanism is, of course, a core component. But what has allowed them to win elections and build support in their societies is less their foreign-policy stances than their ability to promise, and to a certain extent deliver on, social policy—things like education, health and other social services, particularly for the poor. ...
“The U.S. and the political groups that it tends to support around the world, by contrast, have relatively little to offer in this regard.”
Past and new threats
Iran’s program for nuclear power was actually initiated by the U.S. when the Shah held dictatorial power. Nuclear energy is an important part of modern industrial development. It is important in science, medicine and research. Only after the overthrow of the Shah was Iran’s continued development of the same program branded a threat by Washington.
The U.S. government has made every effort to sabotage all Iranian infrastructure and industrial development, not only nuclear energy. Modern technology—from elevators to cars, ships, jet aircraft and oil refineries—needs constant upkeep. Parts for the re-supply and maintenance of equipment the Iranians had purchased over decades from U.S. corporations were halted.
The most onerous sanctions were imposed in 1995 during the Clinton administration.
The Iranian people, despite many different political currents, are united in their determination not to lose their national sovereignty again. Washington’s past use of sanctions, economic sabotage, political destabilization and regime change is well remembered in Iran today.
Sanctions, the freezing of assets and an embargo on the export of Iranian oil and all trade with Iran were first imposed in March 1951, after Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Iran was the first country in the Middle East to take the bold step of reclaiming its national wealth in the post-colonial era.
In 1953 using internal destabilization and massive external pressure, the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Mossadegh’s popularly elected government and placed the Shah on the Peacock Throne. Oil was back under the control of the U.S. and Britain, and 26 years of brutal repression followed.
Ever since the 1979 revolution and the decisive overthrow of the U.S.-supported military dictatorship, Iran has had not a moment of peace from the Pentagon or Wall Street.
As Iran continues to grow and develop, U.S. imperialism is becoming increasingly desperate to reverse this revolutionary process, whether through sanctions, sabotage or bombing. But today it faces a population that is stronger, more conscious and more skilled. On a world scale U.S. imperialism is more isolated. Its hated occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has left it overextended.
But the Pentagon is still capable of massive destruction. Its bases surround Iran and it has sent an armada of ships to the Gulf. U.S. government threats against Iran today must be taken as seriously as their devastating occupation of Iraq.
The forces opposing Washington’s policy of endless war—whether waged through sanctions, coups, invasions, bombings or sabotage—should stand with Iran, recognize its accomplishments, defend its gains and oppose imperialism’s efforts to re-colonize the country.
Sources of information about Iran’s social development include: “Iran’s Family Planning Program: Responding to a Nation’s Needs,” by Farzaneh Roudi-Fahimi, Population Reference Bureau, Washington, D.C., June 2002; “Tehran University Official Describes Iran Health Care System to Harvard School of Public Health,” HSPH NOW, Jan. 24, 2003; World Bank.org—Iran—Country Brief; UNICEF—Info by Country; Food & Agriculture Organization of UN—Nutrition—Country Profiles; “Biggest Pharmaceutical Plant to Open Soon,” Iran Daily, Feb. 4.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php
Venuzuela's Co-op Boom
by Michael Fox
When Estrella Ramirez’s 14-year-old son signed her up to participate in the government’s free literacy program, Mission Robinson, she reluctantly agreed. Ramirez, who lives in the poor western Caracas neighborhood of Catia, lost her right arm in 1991 from an arterial thrombosis. Six years later, her husband left her, leaving her to raise her young children alone. She looked for work but couldn’t find a job. “I lived locked in my house with my children, and I maintained my children sometimes selling coffee at the hospital, making lunches,” she says.
Three months after ramirez started the literacy program, her teacher enrolled her in the government’s new cooperative job-training program, Vuelvan Caras (About Face).
“I thought they wouldn’t accept me or put up with me,” Ramirez says. “There’s discrimination. You’re treated as if you are useless, a cripple.”
Ramirez began the year-long Vuelvan Caras industrial sewing course in spring 2004 with a group of other unemployed women from her community. Some, like Ramirez, were also offered scholarships so they could study and still care for their children.
Three years later, Ramirez is a co-founder and associate of the textile cooperative, Manos Amigas (Friendly Hands). She is also, according to former cooperative president, Maria Ortiz, “one of the hardest workers” of the 15-person outfit.
Ramirez formed Manos Amigas with her fellow Vuelvan Caras graduates shortly after finishing the program. They received an $80,000 zero-interest loan from the Venezuelan National Institute for Small and Medium Industry to buy 20 sewing machines and purchase their first materials. The government provided a prime location—free of charge—from which to run their cooperative, in a rundown building in downtown Caracas. They invested part of their loan in fixing up their space on the fourth floor.
At Manos Amigas, members voted to work eight hours a day, five days a week, and to pay themselves minimum wage, or around $200 a month. They also receive a bonus at the end of the year, depending on the cooperative’s yearly profits. As is the norm under the 2001 Venezuelan Cooperative Law, a president, secretary, and treasurer are elected yearly. The co-op holds a general assembly once a month, and decisions are made by consensus or by majority. “No one is boss, everyone is part of the team,” said one member.
Manos Amigas is just one of the 8,000 cooperatives, or worker-collectives, formed by the nearly 300,000 graduates of the Vuelvan Caras cooperative job-training program since it began in 2004. It is also just one of the 181,000 cooperatives officially registered in Venezuela as of the end of last year—an astonishing figure that puts the South American nation at the top of the list of countries in the world with the most cooperatives.
Over 99 percent of Venezuela’s cooperatives have registered since President Hugo Chávez Frias took office in 1999. The cooperative boom is key to the shift by the Venezuelan government towards an economy based on the inclusion of traditionally excluded sectors of society and the promotion of alternative business models as part of its drive towards what Chávez calls “socialism of the 21st century.”
Seeds of Venezuela’s Co-op Boom
At the time that President Chávez was elected in 1998, poverty had been on a slow but constant rise since the middle half of the century. The consolidation of lands into a few hands had displaced farmers who migrated in large numbers to the cities in search of work. As a result, Venezuela became the most urbanized country in Latin America; its capital, Caracas, is surrounded by poor barrios that house almost half of its population of nearly 5 million in substandard conditions. The implantation of neoliberal policies during the 1990s only aggravated the situation by privatizing state-owned businesses, and cutting subsidies and social spending. Inflation skyrocketed and zeros piled on to the end of the national currency, the Bolivar.
Venezuela’s poor were left with few options in a society that former vice-minister of popular economy (MINEP) Juan Carlos Loyo, described last year as “profoundly individualistic ... profoundly unequal, and discriminatory.”
In 1998, however, things began to change. Chávez was elected president with the promise to rewrite the Constitution. As he built on the vision of South America’s liberator, Simón Bolívar, his popularity grew among the poor. His “Bolivarian Revolution,” Loyo says, includes building an economic system “based on solidarity and not exploitation.”
Chávez decreed the Special Law of Cooperative Associations in 2001, which made it easier to form cooperatives, and, in the words of former Cooperative Superintendent (SUNACOOP) Carlos Molina, “transformed cooperatives into a fundamental tool of social inclusion.”
Why cooperativism? “Because cooperativism goes further than purely economic activity, and is based on productive relations which are collective, in solidarity, and above all else inclusive,” says Molina.
The Venezuelan government began promoting the creation of co-ops by prioritizing them for government contracts, offering grants and loans with little or no interest, and eliminating income tax requirements for co-ops. Cooperative numbers immediately began to grow.
Venezuela kicked off Vuelvan Caras in spring 2004 as it began to reinvest its oil wealth in educational, social, and health “missions” in an attempt to incorporate Venezuela’s marginalized poor back into society.
The same year, the Venezuelan government began to promote what it called “Endogenous Development” (economic development from within), directly in contrast to the neoliberal model imposed during the 1990s, which promoted privatization and corporate ownership.
Endogenous Development puts the development of the community in the hands of the residents and builds on the local resources and capacities for the benefit of the region and its inhabitants. The model is based in 130 Nuclei of Endogenous Development (NUDEs) located across the country as centers of local development.
At the pilot Venezuelan NUDE in western Caracas, Fabricio Ojeda, more than 40 worker-collectives intermingle with the government health mission, Barrio Adentro, and the low-priced government-sponsored food store, Mercal.
Unfortunately, the reality of the cooperative boom is not without its problems. According to last fall’s first Venezuelan Cooperative Census, less than 40 percent of the cooperatives registered at the time were actually functioning.
Many of the discrepancies come from businesses that registered and either never got off the ground or failed to comply with the cooperative law. In rare cases, so-called “ghost cooperatives” registered and received loans from the government before disappearing with the cash.
Venezuelan cooperative totals are growing at hundreds per week, and former SUNACOOP director Molina verified last year that they have no hope of being able to audit them all.
Manos Amigas has not been spared its share of difficulties. Only half of the nearly 30 founders remain. The greatest challenge is individualism, say numerous cooperative members. It’s difficult to change overnight. But improvements are being made, and Venezuela’s cooperatives have a long history to learn from, even if the new co-ops don’t necessarily recognize it.
Co-ops that Pre-Date Chávez
In the foothills of the Andes, in Lara’s state capital, Barquisimeto, is one of Venezuela’s oldest, largest, and most important cooperatives.
CECOSESOLA started as a funeral co-op in the late 1960s and now has over 300 associated workers, 20,000 associated members, and is composed of over 80 cooperatives (savings, agricultural, production, civil associations, organizations, and a puppet crew).
Each week they sell groceries and 400 tons of fresh fruits and vegetables from affiliated co-op producers at their low-priced markets to more than 55,000 families, many of them from the poorest communities in the city. CECOSESOLA reports weekly sales of about $800,000, which works out to approximately $40 million annually, but that’s just for starters. CECOSESOLA still provides funeral services and also offers banking services, a home-appliance consignment program, a network of affordable health clinics, and they are in the process of building their own hospital.
For those who cannot get to the markets, CECOSESOLA loads up buses with vegetables and fruits and takes them to the barrios. When a neighborhood begins clamoring for its own local market, CECOSESOLA helps set it up. All is self-financed by the cooperatives without help from government or charities.
Unlike the Chávez government cooperatives, CECOSESOLA has no elected officers or management team. Decisions are made by consensus in meetings that take up a major portion of the work week. Associates rotate through different jobs, and each is expected to take full responsibility—in front of their work mates when necessary—for the choices they make.
“The goal is transformation,” says long-time CECOSESOLA organizer, Gustavo Salas Romer, “The economy is secondary.”
Establishing CECOSESOLA was not easy. During the 1970s, co-op members were labeled subversives, the cooperative was infiltrated by agents from the Venezuelan secret service, and their transportation bus co-op was shut down and looted by the local government for offering services so reasonable that private bus companies couldn’t compete. The struggle drove the co-op into a decade and a half of bankruptcy, from which many members thought they could not escape.
But they did, and when Chávez was elected, members of CECOSESOLA along with dozens of Venezuela’s nearly 800 cooperatives began to push hard to get co-op norms established in the new Constitution.
At the same time, CECOSESOLA maintained its autonomy. “We are a-political and a-religious,” says Salas Romer. “We have been called a lot of things, but we stay with our own process. That is our strength. If we were to get caught up in politics and religion, it would create divisions and we would fall apart.”
Cooperative Realities
Back at Manos Amigas in mid-March, the members were hard at work producing uniforms for their first contract with the Venezuelan Armed Forces. A poster of Chávez watches over their tiny one-room factory, which is filled with the hum of sewing machines and the chatter of voices. In contrast to most factories in Latin America, the atmosphere is relaxed. Although Manos Amigas receives many of their contracts through the Venezuelan state for the production of uniforms, they themselves wear none. There is no punch-card. When someone is suspected of abusing the system, the matter is taken up in a general assembly before all Manos Amigas members.
Meanwhile, many Manos Amigas members continue to study in the government education missions, Ribas and Sucre. Such study is encouraged by the cooperative. Other textile cooperatives have voted to work less, to allow more time for continued study and time with families. Larger co-ops have set up daycare centers to care for the children of the cooperative workers.
“It’s a huge success,” says Angel Ortiz, the only male member of Manos Amigas. “We were workers for others, we were employees, but today we are business people, and we are not only producing for the state, but for our community.”
Manos Amigas members say they are economically viable. The government, they say, pays them four to eight times more for their merchandise than they would receive as individual workers in a private company. Plus, since they cut out the corporate overhead, they can sell the product at less than half the price charged by private businesses.
With billions of dollars invested over the last three years in the training and support of the Vuelvan Caras cooperatives alone, and with the first Vuelvan Caras cooperatives only now beginning to pay off their loans, it is difficult to say what the future holds. Nevertheless, Venezuela is banking heavily on these democratic businesses, which already account for 6 percent of Venezuela’s workforce. There is no doubt that the cooperatives are changing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, who, only a few years ago, didn’t believe they could find a job—not to mention run their own business.
Estrella Ramirez would surely agree, as would her partners at Manos Amigas who have an economic future in a world which, until recently, shut them out.
Michael Fox is a freelance journalist based in South America. In 2006, he was a staff writer with Venezuelanalysis (www.venezuelanalysis.com) and a correspondent with Free Speech Radio News.
To end poverty, put poor people in charge of their livelihood. A co-op boom turns the jobless into worker/owners.
When Estrella Ramirez’s 14-year-old son signed her up to participate in the government’s free literacy program, Mission Robinson, she reluctantly agreed. Ramirez, who lives in the poor western Caracas neighborhood of Catia, lost her right arm in 1991 from an arterial thrombosis. Six years later, her husband left her, leaving her to raise her young children alone. She looked for work but couldn’t find a job. “I lived locked in my house with my children, and I maintained my children sometimes selling coffee at the hospital, making lunches,” she says.
Three months after ramirez started the literacy program, her teacher enrolled her in the government’s new cooperative job-training program, Vuelvan Caras (About Face).
“I thought they wouldn’t accept me or put up with me,” Ramirez says. “There’s discrimination. You’re treated as if you are useless, a cripple.”
Ramirez began the year-long Vuelvan Caras industrial sewing course in spring 2004 with a group of other unemployed women from her community. Some, like Ramirez, were also offered scholarships so they could study and still care for their children.
Three years later, Ramirez is a co-founder and associate of the textile cooperative, Manos Amigas (Friendly Hands). She is also, according to former cooperative president, Maria Ortiz, “one of the hardest workers” of the 15-person outfit.
Ramirez formed Manos Amigas with her fellow Vuelvan Caras graduates shortly after finishing the program. They received an $80,000 zero-interest loan from the Venezuelan National Institute for Small and Medium Industry to buy 20 sewing machines and purchase their first materials. The government provided a prime location—free of charge—from which to run their cooperative, in a rundown building in downtown Caracas. They invested part of their loan in fixing up their space on the fourth floor.
At Manos Amigas, members voted to work eight hours a day, five days a week, and to pay themselves minimum wage, or around $200 a month. They also receive a bonus at the end of the year, depending on the cooperative’s yearly profits. As is the norm under the 2001 Venezuelan Cooperative Law, a president, secretary, and treasurer are elected yearly. The co-op holds a general assembly once a month, and decisions are made by consensus or by majority. “No one is boss, everyone is part of the team,” said one member.
Manos Amigas is just one of the 8,000 cooperatives, or worker-collectives, formed by the nearly 300,000 graduates of the Vuelvan Caras cooperative job-training program since it began in 2004. It is also just one of the 181,000 cooperatives officially registered in Venezuela as of the end of last year—an astonishing figure that puts the South American nation at the top of the list of countries in the world with the most cooperatives.
Over 99 percent of Venezuela’s cooperatives have registered since President Hugo Chávez Frias took office in 1999. The cooperative boom is key to the shift by the Venezuelan government towards an economy based on the inclusion of traditionally excluded sectors of society and the promotion of alternative business models as part of its drive towards what Chávez calls “socialism of the 21st century.”
Seeds of Venezuela’s Co-op Boom
At the time that President Chávez was elected in 1998, poverty had been on a slow but constant rise since the middle half of the century. The consolidation of lands into a few hands had displaced farmers who migrated in large numbers to the cities in search of work. As a result, Venezuela became the most urbanized country in Latin America; its capital, Caracas, is surrounded by poor barrios that house almost half of its population of nearly 5 million in substandard conditions. The implantation of neoliberal policies during the 1990s only aggravated the situation by privatizing state-owned businesses, and cutting subsidies and social spending. Inflation skyrocketed and zeros piled on to the end of the national currency, the Bolivar.
Venezuela’s poor were left with few options in a society that former vice-minister of popular economy (MINEP) Juan Carlos Loyo, described last year as “profoundly individualistic ... profoundly unequal, and discriminatory.”
In 1998, however, things began to change. Chávez was elected president with the promise to rewrite the Constitution. As he built on the vision of South America’s liberator, Simón Bolívar, his popularity grew among the poor. His “Bolivarian Revolution,” Loyo says, includes building an economic system “based on solidarity and not exploitation.”
Chávez decreed the Special Law of Cooperative Associations in 2001, which made it easier to form cooperatives, and, in the words of former Cooperative Superintendent (SUNACOOP) Carlos Molina, “transformed cooperatives into a fundamental tool of social inclusion.”
Why cooperativism? “Because cooperativism goes further than purely economic activity, and is based on productive relations which are collective, in solidarity, and above all else inclusive,” says Molina.
The Venezuelan government began promoting the creation of co-ops by prioritizing them for government contracts, offering grants and loans with little or no interest, and eliminating income tax requirements for co-ops. Cooperative numbers immediately began to grow.
Venezuela kicked off Vuelvan Caras in spring 2004 as it began to reinvest its oil wealth in educational, social, and health “missions” in an attempt to incorporate Venezuela’s marginalized poor back into society.
The same year, the Venezuelan government began to promote what it called “Endogenous Development” (economic development from within), directly in contrast to the neoliberal model imposed during the 1990s, which promoted privatization and corporate ownership.
Endogenous Development puts the development of the community in the hands of the residents and builds on the local resources and capacities for the benefit of the region and its inhabitants. The model is based in 130 Nuclei of Endogenous Development (NUDEs) located across the country as centers of local development.
At the pilot Venezuelan NUDE in western Caracas, Fabricio Ojeda, more than 40 worker-collectives intermingle with the government health mission, Barrio Adentro, and the low-priced government-sponsored food store, Mercal.
Unfortunately, the reality of the cooperative boom is not without its problems. According to last fall’s first Venezuelan Cooperative Census, less than 40 percent of the cooperatives registered at the time were actually functioning.
Many of the discrepancies come from businesses that registered and either never got off the ground or failed to comply with the cooperative law. In rare cases, so-called “ghost cooperatives” registered and received loans from the government before disappearing with the cash.
Venezuelan cooperative totals are growing at hundreds per week, and former SUNACOOP director Molina verified last year that they have no hope of being able to audit them all.
Manos Amigas has not been spared its share of difficulties. Only half of the nearly 30 founders remain. The greatest challenge is individualism, say numerous cooperative members. It’s difficult to change overnight. But improvements are being made, and Venezuela’s cooperatives have a long history to learn from, even if the new co-ops don’t necessarily recognize it.
Co-ops that Pre-Date Chávez
In the foothills of the Andes, in Lara’s state capital, Barquisimeto, is one of Venezuela’s oldest, largest, and most important cooperatives.
CECOSESOLA started as a funeral co-op in the late 1960s and now has over 300 associated workers, 20,000 associated members, and is composed of over 80 cooperatives (savings, agricultural, production, civil associations, organizations, and a puppet crew).
Each week they sell groceries and 400 tons of fresh fruits and vegetables from affiliated co-op producers at their low-priced markets to more than 55,000 families, many of them from the poorest communities in the city. CECOSESOLA reports weekly sales of about $800,000, which works out to approximately $40 million annually, but that’s just for starters. CECOSESOLA still provides funeral services and also offers banking services, a home-appliance consignment program, a network of affordable health clinics, and they are in the process of building their own hospital.
For those who cannot get to the markets, CECOSESOLA loads up buses with vegetables and fruits and takes them to the barrios. When a neighborhood begins clamoring for its own local market, CECOSESOLA helps set it up. All is self-financed by the cooperatives without help from government or charities.
Unlike the Chávez government cooperatives, CECOSESOLA has no elected officers or management team. Decisions are made by consensus in meetings that take up a major portion of the work week. Associates rotate through different jobs, and each is expected to take full responsibility—in front of their work mates when necessary—for the choices they make.
“The goal is transformation,” says long-time CECOSESOLA organizer, Gustavo Salas Romer, “The economy is secondary.”
Establishing CECOSESOLA was not easy. During the 1970s, co-op members were labeled subversives, the cooperative was infiltrated by agents from the Venezuelan secret service, and their transportation bus co-op was shut down and looted by the local government for offering services so reasonable that private bus companies couldn’t compete. The struggle drove the co-op into a decade and a half of bankruptcy, from which many members thought they could not escape.
But they did, and when Chávez was elected, members of CECOSESOLA along with dozens of Venezuela’s nearly 800 cooperatives began to push hard to get co-op norms established in the new Constitution.
At the same time, CECOSESOLA maintained its autonomy. “We are a-political and a-religious,” says Salas Romer. “We have been called a lot of things, but we stay with our own process. That is our strength. If we were to get caught up in politics and religion, it would create divisions and we would fall apart.”
Cooperative Realities
Back at Manos Amigas in mid-March, the members were hard at work producing uniforms for their first contract with the Venezuelan Armed Forces. A poster of Chávez watches over their tiny one-room factory, which is filled with the hum of sewing machines and the chatter of voices. In contrast to most factories in Latin America, the atmosphere is relaxed. Although Manos Amigas receives many of their contracts through the Venezuelan state for the production of uniforms, they themselves wear none. There is no punch-card. When someone is suspected of abusing the system, the matter is taken up in a general assembly before all Manos Amigas members.
Meanwhile, many Manos Amigas members continue to study in the government education missions, Ribas and Sucre. Such study is encouraged by the cooperative. Other textile cooperatives have voted to work less, to allow more time for continued study and time with families. Larger co-ops have set up daycare centers to care for the children of the cooperative workers.
“It’s a huge success,” says Angel Ortiz, the only male member of Manos Amigas. “We were workers for others, we were employees, but today we are business people, and we are not only producing for the state, but for our community.”
Manos Amigas members say they are economically viable. The government, they say, pays them four to eight times more for their merchandise than they would receive as individual workers in a private company. Plus, since they cut out the corporate overhead, they can sell the product at less than half the price charged by private businesses.
With billions of dollars invested over the last three years in the training and support of the Vuelvan Caras cooperatives alone, and with the first Vuelvan Caras cooperatives only now beginning to pay off their loans, it is difficult to say what the future holds. Nevertheless, Venezuela is banking heavily on these democratic businesses, which already account for 6 percent of Venezuela’s workforce. There is no doubt that the cooperatives are changing the lives of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans, who, only a few years ago, didn’t believe they could find a job—not to mention run their own business.
Estrella Ramirez would surely agree, as would her partners at Manos Amigas who have an economic future in a world which, until recently, shut them out.
Michael Fox is a freelance journalist based in South America. In 2006, he was a staff writer with Venezuelanalysis (www.venezuelanalysis.com) and a correspondent with Free Speech Radio News.
Venezuela: Democracy or Dictatorship? Free elections; elections; transparency. How would you rate Venezuela?
by Michael Fox
Free elections; elections; transparency. How would you rate Venezuela?
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said, “I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and I believe that there are significant human rights issues.” She did not, however, say what she meant by “democracy.” We’ve selected essential characteristics of democracy and supplied key facts about them from the Chávez era. Is Secretary Rice correct? You be the judge.
Participation
75% of registered voters participated in the December 2006 election. More than 15,000 Communal Councils formed in 2006 that give neighborhoods power to make local decisions. Massive community participation in government social missions.
Free and Fair Elections
Eleven internationally observed national elections in last eight years. Government promotes voter registration. Independent National Electoral Council oversees elections. Standardized voting machines nationwide produce paper trail. Opposition claims of fraud exhaustively investigated. Constitution provides for recall of any elected official.
Freedom of Press
Hundreds of new independent community media outlets. 2005 reform increased state control of airwaves. Media highly polarized. Private media strongly critical of Chávez, supported coup in 2002 and oil lockout in 2002-2003. Public media strongly supportive. Non-renewal of RCTV license widely criticized; decision is constitutional.
Varied Political Parties
77 parties participated in December 2006 election. Chávez wants to consolidate support in one “United Socialist Party,” says parties that don’t join “can leave.”
Freedom of Assembly, Expression, Speech
No extralegal retaliation by Chávez after 2002 coup. Political repression much decreased. Freedom to demonstrate highly respected. PROVEA, Venezuelan NGO, reports 4.5% of 1300 demonstrations in 2006 were “repressed, blocked, or obstructed,” a 70% decrease from 1997–98.
Private Property
Constitutional requirement of payment for nationalization honored. Opposition fears of unpaid expropriation not borne out. 2001 Land Law calls for unused state land and large, unproductive latifundio holdings to be redistributed to campesinos. Government promises to compensate at market rate for land.
Equality
Constitution covers gender, rights for the poor, campesinos, and indigenous, but omits race. Tremendous improvements for poor. Society still machista, individualist, and discriminatory. Treatment of non-Chávez supporters questionable: some government institutions do not employ people who supported 2004 Recall Referendum.
Checks and Balances
Five independent, autonomous branches of government. Grant of temporary “rule by decree” power criticized by opposition and U.S., but is constitutional; used by at least three other presidents. Chávez criticized for reform of Supreme Court; critics claim court stacking.
Transparency
Chávez fairly transparent, but many government officials are not. Little progress curing government and police corruption inherited from past. One of highest crime rates in the world; no improvement under Chávez. Prison conditions still abusive.
Constitution
1999 Constitution written with massive popular participation; passed with 72% support in referendum. Protects human rights and democracy; promotes social justice. Chávez has explicitly followed the Constitution. Constitutional Reform can start in National Assembly or at request of 15% of registered voters.
Economic Human Rights
Poverty and unemployment down, minimum wage and social spending up. Venezuela declared itself free of illiteracy in October 2005. Free universal education, including university. Free universal health care and drug rehabilitation. More than 180,000 cooperatives registered since 1998.
Community and Workplace Democracy
Chávez requires communities to organize to receive government aid. Co-ops, community councils, and co-managed factories promoted with state incentives. Government encourages endogenous development based on democracy and collective production.
Free elections; elections; transparency. How would you rate Venezuela?
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently said, “I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela and I believe that there are significant human rights issues.” She did not, however, say what she meant by “democracy.” We’ve selected essential characteristics of democracy and supplied key facts about them from the Chávez era. Is Secretary Rice correct? You be the judge.
Participation
75% of registered voters participated in the December 2006 election. More than 15,000 Communal Councils formed in 2006 that give neighborhoods power to make local decisions. Massive community participation in government social missions.
Free and Fair Elections
Eleven internationally observed national elections in last eight years. Government promotes voter registration. Independent National Electoral Council oversees elections. Standardized voting machines nationwide produce paper trail. Opposition claims of fraud exhaustively investigated. Constitution provides for recall of any elected official.
Freedom of Press
Hundreds of new independent community media outlets. 2005 reform increased state control of airwaves. Media highly polarized. Private media strongly critical of Chávez, supported coup in 2002 and oil lockout in 2002-2003. Public media strongly supportive. Non-renewal of RCTV license widely criticized; decision is constitutional.
Varied Political Parties
77 parties participated in December 2006 election. Chávez wants to consolidate support in one “United Socialist Party,” says parties that don’t join “can leave.”
Freedom of Assembly, Expression, Speech
No extralegal retaliation by Chávez after 2002 coup. Political repression much decreased. Freedom to demonstrate highly respected. PROVEA, Venezuelan NGO, reports 4.5% of 1300 demonstrations in 2006 were “repressed, blocked, or obstructed,” a 70% decrease from 1997–98.
Private Property
Constitutional requirement of payment for nationalization honored. Opposition fears of unpaid expropriation not borne out. 2001 Land Law calls for unused state land and large, unproductive latifundio holdings to be redistributed to campesinos. Government promises to compensate at market rate for land.
Equality
Constitution covers gender, rights for the poor, campesinos, and indigenous, but omits race. Tremendous improvements for poor. Society still machista, individualist, and discriminatory. Treatment of non-Chávez supporters questionable: some government institutions do not employ people who supported 2004 Recall Referendum.
Checks and Balances
Five independent, autonomous branches of government. Grant of temporary “rule by decree” power criticized by opposition and U.S., but is constitutional; used by at least three other presidents. Chávez criticized for reform of Supreme Court; critics claim court stacking.
Transparency
Chávez fairly transparent, but many government officials are not. Little progress curing government and police corruption inherited from past. One of highest crime rates in the world; no improvement under Chávez. Prison conditions still abusive.
Constitution
1999 Constitution written with massive popular participation; passed with 72% support in referendum. Protects human rights and democracy; promotes social justice. Chávez has explicitly followed the Constitution. Constitutional Reform can start in National Assembly or at request of 15% of registered voters.
Economic Human Rights
Poverty and unemployment down, minimum wage and social spending up. Venezuela declared itself free of illiteracy in October 2005. Free universal education, including university. Free universal health care and drug rehabilitation. More than 180,000 cooperatives registered since 1998.
Community and Workplace Democracy
Chávez requires communities to organize to receive government aid. Co-ops, community councils, and co-managed factories promoted with state incentives. Government encourages endogenous development based on democracy and collective production.
Bush expects everything to be solved with a bang by Fidel Castro Ruz
Havana. May 26, 2007
A word popped up in my mind. I looked it up in the dictionary and there it was; it’s an onomatopoeic word and its connotation is tragic: bang. I’ve probably never used it in my life.
Bush is an apocalyptic person. I observe his eyes, his face and his obsessive preoccupation with pretending that everything he sees on the "invisible screens" are spontaneous thoughts. I heard his voice quaver when he answered criticism from his own father about his Iraq policy. He only expresses emotions and constantly feigns rationality. Of course he is aware of the impact of every phrase and every word on the public he addresses.
What’s dramatic is that what he expects to happen may cost the American people many lives.
One can never agree, in any kind of war, with events that take the lives of innocent civilians. Nobody could justify the attacks of the German Air Force on British cities during World War II, nor the thousands of bombers that systematically destroyed German cities in the decisive moments of the war, nor the two atomic bombs which the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an act of pure terrorism against old people, women and children.
Bush expressed his hatred of the poor world when he spoke on June 1, 2002 at West Point, of the pre-emptive attacks on "60 or more dark corners of the world".
Whom are they going to convince now that the thousands of nuclear weapons in their possession, the missiles and the precise and exact delivery systems they have developed are just to combat terrorism? Could it be perhaps that the sophisticated submarines being constructed by their British allies, capable of circumnavigating the globe without surfacing and reprogramming their nuclear missiles in mid-flight, will be used for that as well? I would never have imagined that one day such justifications would be used. Imperialism intends to institutionalize world tyranny with these weapons. It aims them at other great nations which arise not as military adversaries capable of surpassing their technology with weapons of mass destruction, but as economic powers that would rival the United States whose chaotic and wasteful consumerist economic and social system is absolutely vulnerable.
What’s worse about the bang upon which Bush is hanging his hopes is the antecedent of his actions during the September 11th events, when, knowing full well that bloody attack on the American people was imminent, and having the capacity to foresee it and even to prevent it, he took off on a vacation with his entire administrative apparatus.
From the day of his appointment as President –thanks to the fraud orchestrated by his friends from the Miami mafia, in the manner of a "banana republic" –and prior to his inauguration, W. Bush was informed in detail of the same facts and in the same way as the president of the United States, who directed that he be informed. At that moment, the tragic events symbolized by the fall of the Twin Towers were still more than 9 months away.
If something similar were to happen with any kind of explosives or nuclear material, given that enriched uranium flows like water throughout the world since the days of the Cold War, what would be the probable fate of humanity? I try to remember and analyze many moments of humanity’s march through the millennia, and I wonder: could my views be subjective?
Just yesterday Bush was bragging about having won the battle over his adversaries in Congress. He has a hundred billion dollars, all the money he needs to double, as he wishes, the number of American troops sent to Iraq, and to carry on with the slaughter. The problems in the region are increasingly aggravated.
Any opinion about the president of the United State's latest feats grows old in a matter of hours. Is it perhaps that the American people can’t take this little moral fighting bull by the horns?
Fidel Castro Ruz
May 25, 2007.
7:15 p.m.
REFLECTIONS BY THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF
A word popped up in my mind. I looked it up in the dictionary and there it was; it’s an onomatopoeic word and its connotation is tragic: bang. I’ve probably never used it in my life.
Bush is an apocalyptic person. I observe his eyes, his face and his obsessive preoccupation with pretending that everything he sees on the "invisible screens" are spontaneous thoughts. I heard his voice quaver when he answered criticism from his own father about his Iraq policy. He only expresses emotions and constantly feigns rationality. Of course he is aware of the impact of every phrase and every word on the public he addresses.
What’s dramatic is that what he expects to happen may cost the American people many lives.
One can never agree, in any kind of war, with events that take the lives of innocent civilians. Nobody could justify the attacks of the German Air Force on British cities during World War II, nor the thousands of bombers that systematically destroyed German cities in the decisive moments of the war, nor the two atomic bombs which the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in an act of pure terrorism against old people, women and children.
Bush expressed his hatred of the poor world when he spoke on June 1, 2002 at West Point, of the pre-emptive attacks on "60 or more dark corners of the world".
Whom are they going to convince now that the thousands of nuclear weapons in their possession, the missiles and the precise and exact delivery systems they have developed are just to combat terrorism? Could it be perhaps that the sophisticated submarines being constructed by their British allies, capable of circumnavigating the globe without surfacing and reprogramming their nuclear missiles in mid-flight, will be used for that as well? I would never have imagined that one day such justifications would be used. Imperialism intends to institutionalize world tyranny with these weapons. It aims them at other great nations which arise not as military adversaries capable of surpassing their technology with weapons of mass destruction, but as economic powers that would rival the United States whose chaotic and wasteful consumerist economic and social system is absolutely vulnerable.
What’s worse about the bang upon which Bush is hanging his hopes is the antecedent of his actions during the September 11th events, when, knowing full well that bloody attack on the American people was imminent, and having the capacity to foresee it and even to prevent it, he took off on a vacation with his entire administrative apparatus.
From the day of his appointment as President –thanks to the fraud orchestrated by his friends from the Miami mafia, in the manner of a "banana republic" –and prior to his inauguration, W. Bush was informed in detail of the same facts and in the same way as the president of the United States, who directed that he be informed. At that moment, the tragic events symbolized by the fall of the Twin Towers were still more than 9 months away.
If something similar were to happen with any kind of explosives or nuclear material, given that enriched uranium flows like water throughout the world since the days of the Cold War, what would be the probable fate of humanity? I try to remember and analyze many moments of humanity’s march through the millennia, and I wonder: could my views be subjective?
Just yesterday Bush was bragging about having won the battle over his adversaries in Congress. He has a hundred billion dollars, all the money he needs to double, as he wishes, the number of American troops sent to Iraq, and to carry on with the slaughter. The problems in the region are increasingly aggravated.
Any opinion about the president of the United State's latest feats grows old in a matter of hours. Is it perhaps that the American people can’t take this little moral fighting bull by the horns?
Fidel Castro Ruz
May 25, 2007.
7:15 p.m.
Documents Reveal U.S. Effort to Influence Venezuelan Journalists
By: Chris Carlson - Venezuelanalysis.com
Caracas, May 26, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Several major Venezuelan journalists have received all-expenses paid trips to the U.S. for courses in an apparent effort of the U.S. State Department to influence the media in Venezuela, according to recently released documents. The Venezuelan-American attorney Eva Golinger, who released the information yesterday in a press conference in Caracas, also revealed evidence of a destabilization plan against the Chavez government to take place this weekend.
Golinger is the author of The Chavez Code, which documents U.S. funding of opposition groups and U.S. involvement in the 2002 coup attempt.
Under a program named International Business Leadership Program, many Venezuelan journalists, mostly from the opposition media, but also some from the Venezuelan government, have received "scholarships" from the U.S. government to attend training courses during the years 2001-2005.
Some of the most recognized opposition journalists of the country have participated according to the documents, including Miguel Angel Rodriguez of RCTV, who received more than six thousand dollars for his participation in 2003, and Maria Fernanda Flores of Globovision among others, according to the documents obtained by Eva Golinger through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
With the supposed intention of teaching journalists about the media and journalism in the United States, the program also has the purpose of influencing how Venezuelan journalists cover events related to the U.S. foreign policy. According to the documents released, the programs denominated "Journalism IV" seek to "influence the approach and ultimately the coverage given to issues of importance to U.S. foreign policy and to strengthen the Venezuelan democratic process."
The State Department gave special attention to the Venezuelan news channel Globovisión, which they believe to be "the most influential channel" and to have the most positive coverage of the United States. The State Department sought a special relationship with this particular news network, and especially with one important journalist Maria Fernanda Flores.
According to an unclassified State Department memo, “A program that gives Flores a better understanding of and closer ties with U.S. media executive decision-making policies and practices can help Globovision, already the country’s news leader, an even more professional responsible force in Venezuela’s media environment, with profound implications not only for more positive coverage of U.S. policies but for Venezuela’s evolving political situation as well.”
Golinger emphasized, though, that the journalists involved in these programs were chosen by the U.S. embassy and could very well be unaware of the program’s efforts to influence their coverage of U.S. foreign policy.
Golinger also spoke about other State Department programs including one to increase U.S. access to the Venezuelan Armed Forces through various training programs, whose objectives she said are similar to the program for journalists.
The Press Attaché of the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela, Bryan Penn, responded on Globovisión to Golinger’s press conference yesterday by saying that the programs she presented were common with governments around the world and that the U.S. is “proud of them.”
Destabilization Plan
Golinger also presented evidence of a destabilization plan for this Saturday, showing a flyer calling for people to come into the streets and march in the morning hours of Saturday, May 26th. According to the attorney, the campaign is designed by Freedom House, a U.S. organization dedicated to non-violent resistance.
Freedom House, headed by Peter Ackerman, has been involved in other countries and other campaigns to overthrow regimes such as Serbia and the Ukraine. According to Golinger, the flyers circulating in Caracas have the logo of a clenched fist, the same logo used in the campaigns in other countries such as Serbia, Georgia, and the Ukraine.
Golinger also made reference to the fact that leaders from the Serbian campaign, and people from the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (Canvas) have been involved with the Venezuelan opposition and have given trainings about nonviolent resistance inside Venezuela. According to the webpage of Canvas, Venezuela is one of three nations in which the resistance strategies are being used.
Golinger said that she found the presence of these programs to be "worrying" in light of the tense relations between the United States and Venezuela, as well as the aggressive media atmosphere in Venezuela in recent years.
Caracas, May 26, 2007 (venezuelanalysis.com)— Several major Venezuelan journalists have received all-expenses paid trips to the U.S. for courses in an apparent effort of the U.S. State Department to influence the media in Venezuela, according to recently released documents. The Venezuelan-American attorney Eva Golinger, who released the information yesterday in a press conference in Caracas, also revealed evidence of a destabilization plan against the Chavez government to take place this weekend.
Golinger is the author of The Chavez Code, which documents U.S. funding of opposition groups and U.S. involvement in the 2002 coup attempt.
Under a program named International Business Leadership Program, many Venezuelan journalists, mostly from the opposition media, but also some from the Venezuelan government, have received "scholarships" from the U.S. government to attend training courses during the years 2001-2005.
Some of the most recognized opposition journalists of the country have participated according to the documents, including Miguel Angel Rodriguez of RCTV, who received more than six thousand dollars for his participation in 2003, and Maria Fernanda Flores of Globovision among others, according to the documents obtained by Eva Golinger through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.
With the supposed intention of teaching journalists about the media and journalism in the United States, the program also has the purpose of influencing how Venezuelan journalists cover events related to the U.S. foreign policy. According to the documents released, the programs denominated "Journalism IV" seek to "influence the approach and ultimately the coverage given to issues of importance to U.S. foreign policy and to strengthen the Venezuelan democratic process."
The State Department gave special attention to the Venezuelan news channel Globovisión, which they believe to be "the most influential channel" and to have the most positive coverage of the United States. The State Department sought a special relationship with this particular news network, and especially with one important journalist Maria Fernanda Flores.
According to an unclassified State Department memo, “A program that gives Flores a better understanding of and closer ties with U.S. media executive decision-making policies and practices can help Globovision, already the country’s news leader, an even more professional responsible force in Venezuela’s media environment, with profound implications not only for more positive coverage of U.S. policies but for Venezuela’s evolving political situation as well.”
Golinger emphasized, though, that the journalists involved in these programs were chosen by the U.S. embassy and could very well be unaware of the program’s efforts to influence their coverage of U.S. foreign policy.
Golinger also spoke about other State Department programs including one to increase U.S. access to the Venezuelan Armed Forces through various training programs, whose objectives she said are similar to the program for journalists.
The Press Attaché of the U.S. Embassy in Venezuela, Bryan Penn, responded on Globovisión to Golinger’s press conference yesterday by saying that the programs she presented were common with governments around the world and that the U.S. is “proud of them.”
Destabilization Plan
Golinger also presented evidence of a destabilization plan for this Saturday, showing a flyer calling for people to come into the streets and march in the morning hours of Saturday, May 26th. According to the attorney, the campaign is designed by Freedom House, a U.S. organization dedicated to non-violent resistance.
Freedom House, headed by Peter Ackerman, has been involved in other countries and other campaigns to overthrow regimes such as Serbia and the Ukraine. According to Golinger, the flyers circulating in Caracas have the logo of a clenched fist, the same logo used in the campaigns in other countries such as Serbia, Georgia, and the Ukraine.
Golinger also made reference to the fact that leaders from the Serbian campaign, and people from the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (Canvas) have been involved with the Venezuelan opposition and have given trainings about nonviolent resistance inside Venezuela. According to the webpage of Canvas, Venezuela is one of three nations in which the resistance strategies are being used.
Golinger said that she found the presence of these programs to be "worrying" in light of the tense relations between the United States and Venezuela, as well as the aggressive media atmosphere in Venezuela in recent years.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Is the venezuelan TV channel RCTV being closed?
[VIDEO] Is the venezuelan TV channel RCTV being closed?
By Hands Off Venezuela
Friday, 04 May 2007
The non-renewal of the licence to RCTV on the part of the Venezuelan government on May 27, has unleashed a campaign in the international media alleging that there is no freedom of expression in Venezuela. This 25 minute documentary explains the background to this decission. See also the Venezuela Information Office Fact-Sheet on RCTV
Press Freedoms in Venezuela: The Case of RCTV
Overview
In late 2006, the Venezuelan government announced its decision not to renew the 20-year broadcasting license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Though the television station will no longer operate on the open-access airwaves, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be permitted. Though the decision has faced criticism by those who claim it is a move to restrict press freedoms, most governments worldwide enjoy the constitutional right to regulate media licensing, including that of the U.S. RCTV’s non-renewal does not violate legal norms in Venezuela, nor does it significantly alter the balance of power in Venezuela's vociferous, opposition-affiliated and privately-owned media. The decision forms part of a larger policy program for democratizing Venezuela's airwaves.
The Grounds for Non-Renewal
Historically, RCTV has demonstrated extremely poor business conduct and its frequent legal infringements comprise the most important reasons for the non-renewal decision. An op-ed by Bart Jones of Newsday appearing in the Houston Chronicle asserts that "it's doubtful [RCTV's] actions would last more than a few minutes with the FCC [in the U.S.]."[i] In fact, RCTV has often faced legal sanctions for its poor practices, and indeed has been closed or fined numerous times by various administrations, including President Chavez's most recent predecessors. The television station is also in default for tax payments spanning a three year period.[ii] This most recent decision is not an isolated case, but is the first opportunity the government has had to reconsider its licensing since the 20-year contract began.
RCTV's Legal Offenses
Most importantly, in 2002, RCTV ran ads encouraging the public to take to the streets and overthrow the democratically elected president. Once Chavez was forcefully removed from office, the station continued to collude with the coup government by conducting a news blackout. In fact, one of the managing producers of Venezuela's highest-rated newscast, the RCTV program El Observador, testified that he was instructed by RCTV's owner, Marcel Granier, on the day of the coup to show "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him."[iii] RCTV falsely reported that President Chavez had resigned, and, when Venezuelans took to the streets demanding his return two days later, the station aired cartoons. [iv]
The Legal Right not to Renew
The Venezuelan government, like most others worldwide, has the constitutional right to make decisions regarding all public broadcasting. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) makes decisions regarding the licensing of broadcasters. As in Venezuela, that agency has the power to grant broadcasting rights to any outlet, and to deny those rights to broadcasters that do not comply with legal guidelines. Surprisingly absent from debates around RCTV is the fact that our own FCC has closed three TV stations due to legal infractions since 1969: WLBT-TV in Mississippi, CBS affiliate WLNS-TV in Michigan, and Trinity Broadcasting in Miami. In Venezuela, access to the broadcast spectrum is granted and regulated in accordance with the Organic Law of Telecommunications contained in constitutional Article 156.
Democratization of the Airwaves
The decision not to renew RCTV's broadcasting license will allow for a broader democratization of Venezuela's airwaves, offering access to the broadcast spectrum. RCTV has long had a disproportionate influence in the Venezuelan media by maintaining the most powerful broadcasting signal in the country for more than 50 years and is currently one of two private channels that together claim 70% of all TV revenues each year. RCTV's non-renewal will allow for a redistribution of the airwaves, and may be used to provide community programming and public television, allowing new voices and views to be heard in Venezuela.
Revenue shares of television companies in 2006
The Opposition and Freedom of Expression
With President Chavez's landslide electoral victory as an alternative to the two major political parties in 1998, the privately-owned media in Venezuela assumed the role of the traditional political parties, and became an outlet for them to challenge and derail the actions of the newly elected President.[v] The fact that the media – which is majority privately owned – is closely associated with the opposition is undisputed and may shed light on why the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s license is currently being criticized.
In 2002, Human Rights Watch found that, "Far from providing fair and accurate reporting, the media by and large seek to provoke popular discontent and outrage in support of the hard-line opposition." [vi] Several journalists have even noted, "the five main privately owned channels—Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión, Televen and CMT—and nine out of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority…Their investigations, interviews and commentaries all pursue the same objective: to undermine the legitimacy of the government and to destroy the president’s popular support…the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president – if necessary by force…”[vii]
The Venezuelan private media plays a controversial role in the political life of the country, but not all human rights organizations cite a deterioration of freedom of expression.[viii] The Venezuelan government has respected and defended civil liberties, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and the RCTV non-renewal does not constitute an infringement on press freedoms.
Media Ownership in Venezuela
Television Of 81 stations … 79 (97%) are privately owned
Radio Of 709 stations … 706 (99%) are privately owned
Newspapers Of 118 companies … 118 (100%) are privately owned
[i] "Chavez as Castro? It's not that simple in Venezuela," Houston Chronicle, February 7, 2007.
[ii] "RCTV ha sido el canal más sancionado en Venezuela," Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, March 29, 2007.
[iii] “Venezuela’s Media Coup” by Naomi Klein, The Nation, February 13, 2003.
[iv] Eva Golinger, "The Media War Against the People: A Case Study of Media Concentration and Power in Venezuela," in Olivia Burlingame Goumbri, ed., The Venezuela Reader: The Building of a People's Democracy (EPICA, 2005).
[v] Golinger, p. 91.
[vi] "Venezuela's Political Crisis," Human Rights News, Human Rights Watch, October 9, 2002.
[vii] Maurice Lemonine, Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2002.
[viii] Maurice Lemonine, "How Hate Media Incited the Coup Against the President," in Gregory Wilpert, ed., Coup Against Chavez in Venezuela (Fondación Venezolana para la Justicia Global, 2003), p. 158.
In late 2006, the Venezuelan government announced its decision not to renew the 20-year broadcasting license of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV). Though the television station will no longer operate on the open-access airwaves, cable and satellite broadcasts will still be permitted. Though the decision has faced criticism by those who claim it is a move to restrict press freedoms, most governments worldwide enjoy the constitutional right to regulate media licensing, including that of the U.S. RCTV’s non-renewal does not violate legal norms in Venezuela, nor does it significantly alter the balance of power in Venezuela's vociferous, opposition-affiliated and privately-owned media. The decision forms part of a larger policy program for democratizing Venezuela's airwaves.
The Grounds for Non-Renewal
Historically, RCTV has demonstrated extremely poor business conduct and its frequent legal infringements comprise the most important reasons for the non-renewal decision. An op-ed by Bart Jones of Newsday appearing in the Houston Chronicle asserts that "it's doubtful [RCTV's] actions would last more than a few minutes with the FCC [in the U.S.]."[i] In fact, RCTV has often faced legal sanctions for its poor practices, and indeed has been closed or fined numerous times by various administrations, including President Chavez's most recent predecessors. The television station is also in default for tax payments spanning a three year period.[ii] This most recent decision is not an isolated case, but is the first opportunity the government has had to reconsider its licensing since the 20-year contract began.
RCTV's Legal Offenses
- 1976 - Closed for 3 days Tendentious news coverage
- 1980 - Closed for 36 hours Sensationalist programming
- 1981 - Closed for 24 hours Airing pornographic scenes
- 1989 Closed for 24 hours Airing advertisements for cigarettes
- 1991 - Programming suspended Program "La Escuelita" suspended
Most importantly, in 2002, RCTV ran ads encouraging the public to take to the streets and overthrow the democratically elected president. Once Chavez was forcefully removed from office, the station continued to collude with the coup government by conducting a news blackout. In fact, one of the managing producers of Venezuela's highest-rated newscast, the RCTV program El Observador, testified that he was instructed by RCTV's owner, Marcel Granier, on the day of the coup to show "No information on Chávez, his followers, his ministers, and all others that could in any way be related to him."[iii] RCTV falsely reported that President Chavez had resigned, and, when Venezuelans took to the streets demanding his return two days later, the station aired cartoons. [iv]
The Legal Right not to Renew
The Venezuelan government, like most others worldwide, has the constitutional right to make decisions regarding all public broadcasting. In the U.S., the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) makes decisions regarding the licensing of broadcasters. As in Venezuela, that agency has the power to grant broadcasting rights to any outlet, and to deny those rights to broadcasters that do not comply with legal guidelines. Surprisingly absent from debates around RCTV is the fact that our own FCC has closed three TV stations due to legal infractions since 1969: WLBT-TV in Mississippi, CBS affiliate WLNS-TV in Michigan, and Trinity Broadcasting in Miami. In Venezuela, access to the broadcast spectrum is granted and regulated in accordance with the Organic Law of Telecommunications contained in constitutional Article 156.
Democratization of the Airwaves
The decision not to renew RCTV's broadcasting license will allow for a broader democratization of Venezuela's airwaves, offering access to the broadcast spectrum. RCTV has long had a disproportionate influence in the Venezuelan media by maintaining the most powerful broadcasting signal in the country for more than 50 years and is currently one of two private channels that together claim 70% of all TV revenues each year. RCTV's non-renewal will allow for a redistribution of the airwaves, and may be used to provide community programming and public television, allowing new voices and views to be heard in Venezuela.
Revenue shares of television companies in 2006
The Opposition and Freedom of Expression
With President Chavez's landslide electoral victory as an alternative to the two major political parties in 1998, the privately-owned media in Venezuela assumed the role of the traditional political parties, and became an outlet for them to challenge and derail the actions of the newly elected President.[v] The fact that the media – which is majority privately owned – is closely associated with the opposition is undisputed and may shed light on why the government’s decision not to renew RCTV’s license is currently being criticized.
In 2002, Human Rights Watch found that, "Far from providing fair and accurate reporting, the media by and large seek to provoke popular discontent and outrage in support of the hard-line opposition." [vi] Several journalists have even noted, "the five main privately owned channels—Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión, Televen and CMT—and nine out of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority…Their investigations, interviews and commentaries all pursue the same objective: to undermine the legitimacy of the government and to destroy the president’s popular support…the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president – if necessary by force…”[vii]
The Venezuelan private media plays a controversial role in the political life of the country, but not all human rights organizations cite a deterioration of freedom of expression.[viii] The Venezuelan government has respected and defended civil liberties, including freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and the RCTV non-renewal does not constitute an infringement on press freedoms.
Media Ownership in Venezuela
Television Of 81 stations … 79 (97%) are privately owned
Radio Of 709 stations … 706 (99%) are privately owned
Newspapers Of 118 companies … 118 (100%) are privately owned
[i] "Chavez as Castro? It's not that simple in Venezuela," Houston Chronicle, February 7, 2007.
[ii] "RCTV ha sido el canal más sancionado en Venezuela," Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias, March 29, 2007.
[iii] “Venezuela’s Media Coup” by Naomi Klein, The Nation, February 13, 2003.
[iv] Eva Golinger, "The Media War Against the People: A Case Study of Media Concentration and Power in Venezuela," in Olivia Burlingame Goumbri, ed., The Venezuela Reader: The Building of a People's Democracy (EPICA, 2005).
[v] Golinger, p. 91.
[vi] "Venezuela's Political Crisis," Human Rights News, Human Rights Watch, October 9, 2002.
[vii] Maurice Lemonine, Le Monde Diplomatique, August 2002.
[viii] Maurice Lemonine, "How Hate Media Incited the Coup Against the President," in Gregory Wilpert, ed., Coup Against Chavez in Venezuela (Fondación Venezolana para la Justicia Global, 2003), p. 158.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Venezuela: The Times They Are A-Changin’
Written by Gabriel Ash
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Venezuela is changing. Fast. No other word captures the speed and magnitude of change as well as that weighty word--‘revolution.’ This is indeed the word used by many of the Venezuelans I had the privilege of meeting and interviewing during ten days in March. Venezuela is undergoing a ‘Bolivarian’ revolution. But what does 'Bolivarianism' entail?
Contrary to the image often portrayed in the foreign media, Chavez has gone overboard in seeking to include as many as possible in the Bolivarian state. He has time and again extended an olive branch to his enemies.
To be honest, Zhou Enlai’s quip about the results of the French Revolution—that it is ‘too early to tell’—is doubly applicable to Venezuela. Radically different constituencies, political visions and potential futures are today co-existing more or less harmoniously within the dramatic process of change. This is perhaps inevitable. But some of the wide ranging ambiguity about the future direction of Bolivarianism has to do with Chavez’s crucial strategic choice in favour of peaceful social change. Contrary to the image often portrayed in the foreign media, Chavez has gone overboard in seeking to include as many as possible in the Bolivarian state. He has time and again extended an olive branch to his enemies.
For example, immediately after the failed coup against him, his first act was to guarantee the constitutional rights of the coup leaders, none of whom have been harmed. Likewise, he has consistently avoided using military and police forces under his command to repress the opposition, and had been exceedingly cautious towards foreign companies and investors. Some of his strongest supporters therefore consider Chavez excessively soft. The ideological message of Bolivarianism is straddling this society -- deeply divided by class -- with a strong Venezuelan and pan-latinoamerican nationalism. The ambiguity is patently visible in the street iconography of Caracas, which combines the faces of the aristocratic liberal Simon Bolivar and the radical communist Che Guevara, both sharing the landscape with huge billboards of fashionable young women advertising beer.
Yet if the future is foggy, the present is dramatically clear. Under pressure from Venezuela’s poor, on whose support Chavez’s political survival depends, the government moved decidedly leftwards over the course of the last few years. This leftward move consists in two processes: democratization and redistribution.
First, redistribution. Having wrestled control of the national oil company from the old oligarchy, Chavez redirected a portion of Venezuela’s significant oil revenues to new social projects, called missions, each targeting a specific social privation. The bulk of the resources were earmarked for non-cash benefits such as education and health. But government policies have also helped more people to move out of the informal economy and take formal jobs, affecting a significant rise in cash wages for the poorest workers. An international chorus of snickers erupts whenever these social spending programs are mentioned. Most completely miss the point. Is there corruption? Inefficiency? Probably. But by relying on the army, the national oil company, and ad hoc communal organizing rather than on the traditional state bureaucracy, the social missions manage a level of efficiency that is quite stunning.
As a small example, take the latest mission, ‘energy revolution,’ announced in November 2006. Its first project was to change all the light bulbs in Venezuela (52 million of them) to energy efficient ones by the end of 2007. The goal is to reduce the consumption of oil in electricity generation by about 25 million barrels a year, and cut a typical family’s monthly expenses by $4.6 (a non-trivial sum in the poor neighborhoods). The distribution of free bulbs is carried out by different means: youth organizations, community councils, and reserve units. By mid February 2007, over 30 million bulbs have been distributed, 10% faster than planned. The white glow that rises at night from both the poor neighborhoods and the houses of the better-off confirms the statistics.
More complex missions, such as mission Robinson and Riba, which provide adult primary and secondary education with Cuban help, have been no less spectacular. "Proofs" that these missions are bogus are a dime a dozen in the Western media. Yet in Venezuela, even fierce Chavez’s critics I spoke with conceded that the missions were having a strongly positive effect on the life of the poor. The change is fast and visible. In a peasant community’s primary school in western Venezuela, I saw the preparation for an internet room for both the pupils and the larger community. In the nearby high school—a school that only a few years ago did not exist—students who divided their time between the classroom and their families’ coffee fields talked of going to university.
Another common criticism is that the missions are not sustainable because they depend on oil prices remaining high. No doubt a drop in oil prices would force the government to cut spending (leaving aside the unresolved question as to whether high oil prices are themselves sustainable or not.) However, the thousands of people who learned to read during the oil boom would remain literate even if oil prices dropped. Nor would such a drop deprive the beneficiaries of an oil-financed cataract removal. A more enlightened view would note that access to such basic services as dental and eye care is valuable in itself.
But even if one were to look at Venezuela from the most narrow-minded economic perspective, one that only values economic growth, it would be impossible to find an oil-producing country that uses its oil bonanza in a better way. Improving health, education, housing and infrastructure contributes more to prosperity and overall economic growth than the preferred choice of conventional wisdom—hoarding a large portfolio of U.S. bonds.
The proof is in the pudding. Caracas is booming. Fancy consumer malls are mushrooming, trendy shops and restaurants ring the cash register. In one mall, strongly anti-Chavez store managers expressed gloom and resignation about the government’s economic policies while conceding that business was excellent. But in a restaurant off the airport highway, the owner, a man of humble background, took us with pride through the private orchard from whose fruits he serves fresh juice to his customers, and explained the situation thus:
"Chavez is good for people who want to work….they dislike Chavez because the government now collects taxes from businesses."
The opposition to Chavez is surely more than just about reinvigorated tax collection; a recent (and perhaps not fully trustworthy) survey shows a loss of income over 20% at the high end of the extremely skewed income pyramid. But there is little doubt that the boost to the income of poor households (80% of the population) is driving Venezuela’s impressive economic expansion (9.4% in 2006) and also trickling up significantly to the better-off, especially those in the fast expanding retail sector—the delivery period for a new imported car, including luxury models, can be longer than six months.
The democratization focus of the Bolivarian revolution involves structural changes to both politics and economics. Politically, those measures that help the foreign media paint Chavez as an autocrat are precisely those perceived in Venezuela as means of political decentralization and democratization—
· the rule by decree,
· the formation of a unified party, and
· the direct executive control of funds.
To understand the paradox, it is necessary to grasp the historical context: the political parties, the parliament and the governmental bureaucracy have been, and still are, bastions of corruption, clientelism, providing the main interface between political power and economic wealth. It is quite possible in theory that the creation of alternative political mechanisms under Chavez’s personal rule will lead to a new centralization of autocratic power. But mitigating that danger is the new sense of political entitlement of commoners, a deep cognizance of their own rights, and foremost the right to organize and take control over decisions that affect their lives. Encountering the strength of this democratic consciousness, fostered by education, public awareness campaigns, Chavez’s speeches, and the recurrence of popular mobilizations, is one of the most intense experiences one has as a visitor to Venezuela today. While Chavez is the undisputable hero of this popular awakening, the latter is anything but a docile body of followers. On the contrary. Visiting a community center in Barquisimeto, we saw a local TV and radio station run by locals. The organizers were supposed to be trained by a professional government manager. Relations with the official boss however soured quickly and the community expelled the imposed manager, locking her out of the building. It took a month of struggle, but the new locally chosen administration was eventually recognized as legitimate. He would be a strange autocrat who encouraged small communities to run their own TV and radio station, free of government control. But this is exactly what the current government’s policy is. Finally, the most important political development following the last elections is the plan to constitutionally empower local councils (of 200-400 households each) to take control of budgetary priorities and local services. This institutionalization of participatory democracy would irreversibly transform Venezuelan politics.
The linchpin of the change is economic structure is the fast growth in co-operatives—worker managed businesses with a variety of internal democratic structures. The co-operative movement in Venezuela predates Chavez. However, with government support, this form of economic organization changed from a radical but marginal element to a significant component of the economy. Already in 2004 4.6% of jobs in Venezuela depended on co-operatives. By extrapolation, the over 100,000 co-operatives operating today in Venezuela probably account for 15% of jobs.
Government help consists in technical support, managerial training, loans on preferential terms and often the rent-free provision of facilities. There are co-operatives everywhere, from street vendors to textile manufacturing, from organic agriculture and up to the hotel we stayed in, which used to belong to the ministry of tourism and became a co-operative in 2001. The hotel’s kitchen workers explained that most decisions were taken by general consultation but an executive committee elected for three year terms was in charge of salaries. Building successful cooperatives in Venezuela is not easier—indeed is probably more difficult—than starting a viable business anywhere. There is bureaucracy, corruption, competition, personal frictions, lack of capital, lack of know-how, etc. Time will tell how many of these co-operatives survive. It is too early to declare that Venezuela has found a cure to the endemic poverty of the urban slums that weighs so heavily on the Third World. But the Venezuelan experiment is not only real, serious and popular, but also quite uniquely so in the world.
One thing the many co-operative members we met had in common was that they were all glowing with pride about their work. Finally, it is worth mentioning that co-operatives are not the only form of entrepreneurship blossoming in Venezuela. The government is pushing banks to make more small business loans to the poor, and a general sense of optimism is both palpable and reflected in surveys. We visited the home of a woman who had recently turned the front of her slum house into a general shop and ran into a young man who was planning to start a tourist business in the mountains. How unwelcome multinationals like Verizon are in Venezuela is an open question, but there is clearly a new feeling of opportunity for regular people to work and to improve their lives.
There is a lot to be fearful about in Venezuela—the high level of crime, the dead weight of entrenched corruption, the unresolved tension between consumerist and socialist values, the danger inherent in Chavez’s outsized shadow, and not the least the certain intensification of U.S. destabilization efforts. But outside the small pockets of privilege and affluent ressentiment, the Venezuela I saw is not in the grip of fear. On the contrary, it is in the grip of hope, pride and an infectious sense of self-confidence and ownership.
Reproduced with permission from Sanders Research Associates www.sandersresearch.com.
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Venezuela is changing. Fast. No other word captures the speed and magnitude of change as well as that weighty word--‘revolution.’ This is indeed the word used by many of the Venezuelans I had the privilege of meeting and interviewing during ten days in March. Venezuela is undergoing a ‘Bolivarian’ revolution. But what does 'Bolivarianism' entail?
Contrary to the image often portrayed in the foreign media, Chavez has gone overboard in seeking to include as many as possible in the Bolivarian state. He has time and again extended an olive branch to his enemies.
To be honest, Zhou Enlai’s quip about the results of the French Revolution—that it is ‘too early to tell’—is doubly applicable to Venezuela. Radically different constituencies, political visions and potential futures are today co-existing more or less harmoniously within the dramatic process of change. This is perhaps inevitable. But some of the wide ranging ambiguity about the future direction of Bolivarianism has to do with Chavez’s crucial strategic choice in favour of peaceful social change. Contrary to the image often portrayed in the foreign media, Chavez has gone overboard in seeking to include as many as possible in the Bolivarian state. He has time and again extended an olive branch to his enemies.
For example, immediately after the failed coup against him, his first act was to guarantee the constitutional rights of the coup leaders, none of whom have been harmed. Likewise, he has consistently avoided using military and police forces under his command to repress the opposition, and had been exceedingly cautious towards foreign companies and investors. Some of his strongest supporters therefore consider Chavez excessively soft. The ideological message of Bolivarianism is straddling this society -- deeply divided by class -- with a strong Venezuelan and pan-latinoamerican nationalism. The ambiguity is patently visible in the street iconography of Caracas, which combines the faces of the aristocratic liberal Simon Bolivar and the radical communist Che Guevara, both sharing the landscape with huge billboards of fashionable young women advertising beer.
Yet if the future is foggy, the present is dramatically clear. Under pressure from Venezuela’s poor, on whose support Chavez’s political survival depends, the government moved decidedly leftwards over the course of the last few years. This leftward move consists in two processes: democratization and redistribution.
First, redistribution. Having wrestled control of the national oil company from the old oligarchy, Chavez redirected a portion of Venezuela’s significant oil revenues to new social projects, called missions, each targeting a specific social privation. The bulk of the resources were earmarked for non-cash benefits such as education and health. But government policies have also helped more people to move out of the informal economy and take formal jobs, affecting a significant rise in cash wages for the poorest workers. An international chorus of snickers erupts whenever these social spending programs are mentioned. Most completely miss the point. Is there corruption? Inefficiency? Probably. But by relying on the army, the national oil company, and ad hoc communal organizing rather than on the traditional state bureaucracy, the social missions manage a level of efficiency that is quite stunning.
As a small example, take the latest mission, ‘energy revolution,’ announced in November 2006. Its first project was to change all the light bulbs in Venezuela (52 million of them) to energy efficient ones by the end of 2007. The goal is to reduce the consumption of oil in electricity generation by about 25 million barrels a year, and cut a typical family’s monthly expenses by $4.6 (a non-trivial sum in the poor neighborhoods). The distribution of free bulbs is carried out by different means: youth organizations, community councils, and reserve units. By mid February 2007, over 30 million bulbs have been distributed, 10% faster than planned. The white glow that rises at night from both the poor neighborhoods and the houses of the better-off confirms the statistics.
More complex missions, such as mission Robinson and Riba, which provide adult primary and secondary education with Cuban help, have been no less spectacular. "Proofs" that these missions are bogus are a dime a dozen in the Western media. Yet in Venezuela, even fierce Chavez’s critics I spoke with conceded that the missions were having a strongly positive effect on the life of the poor. The change is fast and visible. In a peasant community’s primary school in western Venezuela, I saw the preparation for an internet room for both the pupils and the larger community. In the nearby high school—a school that only a few years ago did not exist—students who divided their time between the classroom and their families’ coffee fields talked of going to university.
Another common criticism is that the missions are not sustainable because they depend on oil prices remaining high. No doubt a drop in oil prices would force the government to cut spending (leaving aside the unresolved question as to whether high oil prices are themselves sustainable or not.) However, the thousands of people who learned to read during the oil boom would remain literate even if oil prices dropped. Nor would such a drop deprive the beneficiaries of an oil-financed cataract removal. A more enlightened view would note that access to such basic services as dental and eye care is valuable in itself.
But even if one were to look at Venezuela from the most narrow-minded economic perspective, one that only values economic growth, it would be impossible to find an oil-producing country that uses its oil bonanza in a better way. Improving health, education, housing and infrastructure contributes more to prosperity and overall economic growth than the preferred choice of conventional wisdom—hoarding a large portfolio of U.S. bonds.
The proof is in the pudding. Caracas is booming. Fancy consumer malls are mushrooming, trendy shops and restaurants ring the cash register. In one mall, strongly anti-Chavez store managers expressed gloom and resignation about the government’s economic policies while conceding that business was excellent. But in a restaurant off the airport highway, the owner, a man of humble background, took us with pride through the private orchard from whose fruits he serves fresh juice to his customers, and explained the situation thus:
"Chavez is good for people who want to work….they dislike Chavez because the government now collects taxes from businesses."
The opposition to Chavez is surely more than just about reinvigorated tax collection; a recent (and perhaps not fully trustworthy) survey shows a loss of income over 20% at the high end of the extremely skewed income pyramid. But there is little doubt that the boost to the income of poor households (80% of the population) is driving Venezuela’s impressive economic expansion (9.4% in 2006) and also trickling up significantly to the better-off, especially those in the fast expanding retail sector—the delivery period for a new imported car, including luxury models, can be longer than six months.
The democratization focus of the Bolivarian revolution involves structural changes to both politics and economics. Politically, those measures that help the foreign media paint Chavez as an autocrat are precisely those perceived in Venezuela as means of political decentralization and democratization—
· the rule by decree,
· the formation of a unified party, and
· the direct executive control of funds.
To understand the paradox, it is necessary to grasp the historical context: the political parties, the parliament and the governmental bureaucracy have been, and still are, bastions of corruption, clientelism, providing the main interface between political power and economic wealth. It is quite possible in theory that the creation of alternative political mechanisms under Chavez’s personal rule will lead to a new centralization of autocratic power. But mitigating that danger is the new sense of political entitlement of commoners, a deep cognizance of their own rights, and foremost the right to organize and take control over decisions that affect their lives. Encountering the strength of this democratic consciousness, fostered by education, public awareness campaigns, Chavez’s speeches, and the recurrence of popular mobilizations, is one of the most intense experiences one has as a visitor to Venezuela today. While Chavez is the undisputable hero of this popular awakening, the latter is anything but a docile body of followers. On the contrary. Visiting a community center in Barquisimeto, we saw a local TV and radio station run by locals. The organizers were supposed to be trained by a professional government manager. Relations with the official boss however soured quickly and the community expelled the imposed manager, locking her out of the building. It took a month of struggle, but the new locally chosen administration was eventually recognized as legitimate. He would be a strange autocrat who encouraged small communities to run their own TV and radio station, free of government control. But this is exactly what the current government’s policy is. Finally, the most important political development following the last elections is the plan to constitutionally empower local councils (of 200-400 households each) to take control of budgetary priorities and local services. This institutionalization of participatory democracy would irreversibly transform Venezuelan politics.
The linchpin of the change is economic structure is the fast growth in co-operatives—worker managed businesses with a variety of internal democratic structures. The co-operative movement in Venezuela predates Chavez. However, with government support, this form of economic organization changed from a radical but marginal element to a significant component of the economy. Already in 2004 4.6% of jobs in Venezuela depended on co-operatives. By extrapolation, the over 100,000 co-operatives operating today in Venezuela probably account for 15% of jobs.
Government help consists in technical support, managerial training, loans on preferential terms and often the rent-free provision of facilities. There are co-operatives everywhere, from street vendors to textile manufacturing, from organic agriculture and up to the hotel we stayed in, which used to belong to the ministry of tourism and became a co-operative in 2001. The hotel’s kitchen workers explained that most decisions were taken by general consultation but an executive committee elected for three year terms was in charge of salaries. Building successful cooperatives in Venezuela is not easier—indeed is probably more difficult—than starting a viable business anywhere. There is bureaucracy, corruption, competition, personal frictions, lack of capital, lack of know-how, etc. Time will tell how many of these co-operatives survive. It is too early to declare that Venezuela has found a cure to the endemic poverty of the urban slums that weighs so heavily on the Third World. But the Venezuelan experiment is not only real, serious and popular, but also quite uniquely so in the world.
One thing the many co-operative members we met had in common was that they were all glowing with pride about their work. Finally, it is worth mentioning that co-operatives are not the only form of entrepreneurship blossoming in Venezuela. The government is pushing banks to make more small business loans to the poor, and a general sense of optimism is both palpable and reflected in surveys. We visited the home of a woman who had recently turned the front of her slum house into a general shop and ran into a young man who was planning to start a tourist business in the mountains. How unwelcome multinationals like Verizon are in Venezuela is an open question, but there is clearly a new feeling of opportunity for regular people to work and to improve their lives.
There is a lot to be fearful about in Venezuela—the high level of crime, the dead weight of entrenched corruption, the unresolved tension between consumerist and socialist values, the danger inherent in Chavez’s outsized shadow, and not the least the certain intensification of U.S. destabilization efforts. But outside the small pockets of privilege and affluent ressentiment, the Venezuela I saw is not in the grip of fear. On the contrary, it is in the grip of hope, pride and an infectious sense of self-confidence and ownership.
Reproduced with permission from Sanders Research Associates www.sandersresearch.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)