Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts

Friday, October 18, 2013

THE ROVING EYE - 'Our' weaponized Wahhabi bastards By Pepe Escobar

So, once again; this is my Asia Times piece on further weaponizing of "our" Wahhabi bastards by the industrial-military complex, written and uploaded BEFORE they "declined" a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council. What a shame; we will be spared batshit crazy Samantha I Got the Power confronting a Bedouin everyday in Manhattan about women's rights in Saudi. Still NOTHING changes; they take "our" weapons and say "our" infidel system sucks - and will keep weaponizing fanatics across the spectrum at will. by Pepe Escobar

THE ROVING EYE
'Our' weaponized Wahhabi bastards
By Pepe Escobar

Life is good if you're a member of the Gulf Counter-revolution Club, officially known as Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). You can crush the Arab Spring at will. You can hire goons all across dar-al-Islam to advance a sectarian Sunni-Shi'ite divide. You can be deeply implicated in the destruction of Syria. You can treat a significant part of your own population as third-class citizens.

Not only you get away with it; you get rewarded with expensive toys. And in one particular case - Saudi Arabia - even with a two-year seat at the UN Security Council.

Not to mention that the House of Saud expertly gets away with manipulating Islam as the pillar of its "legitimacy". The House of Saud controls the Hajj - which took place this week; an enormous logistical operation that "legitimizes" its role as leader of Sunni
Islam, and automatically, the whole Islamic world. Well-informed Muslims though are very much aware of the fallacy - as much as they're aware of how the House of Saud is fast transforming Mecca into a Vegas-style pay-per-prayer luxury resort. Who's profiting? Certainly not the pilgrims.

This week, the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced it had notified congress about selling more state-of-the-art heavy metal for Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). That breaks down into "various munitions and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support" to Riyadh for US$6.8 billion and to Abu Dhabi for $4 billion.

Weaponizing "our" Wahhabi bastards is the sweetest deal for the industrial-military-Orwellian Panopticon complex. Sequestration? Tight budgets? Who cares? There's a never-ending contractor bonanza in the Gulf - inbuilt in the narrative of the benign superpower "benefactor" of those helpless oil and gas monarchic monopolies defending them against assorted evildoers; one day the evildoer is Iraq, the next day Iran, the next day could be their own people, so one's gotta be prepared.

Once in a while Israel exhibits the requisite raised eyebrow, but that's just for show. Israel and the GCC have a de facto alliance against the bloc regionally known as the axis of resistance - Iran, Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah. Israel would not prevent the GCC from gorging on F-15 Eagles, F-16 Desert Falcons, assorted air-launched cruise missiles, satellite-guided bombs and plenty of high-tech communication gear. Just your average, innocent "military and defense cooperation".

There are glitches in this cozy relationship, of course. Currently, the House of Saud is livid facing the possibility of a negotiated solution for the Iran nuclear dossier - immediately after the Russian-US deal on Syria's chemical weapons. Yet now the House of Saud has even managed to find a pulpit to voice its anger; Saudi Arabia has just won a two-year, rotating UN Security Council seat for the first time - taking over from Pakistan as an Asia-Pacific representative.

The House of Saud has always refrained from competing for a Security Council seat in the past. But now - facing its fabricated version of an "existential threat", which is not only Iran but also Assad in Syria - it's time to act.

So get ready to watch an angry, fearful, medievalist oil kingdom notorious for its spectacular record on human rights and women's rights, and so fond of lashings and beheadings, pontificating on the global stage about…human rights. This is what US Think Tankland describes as "seeking a more active role in key international bodies". When that applies to "our" bastards, of course; otherwise it's about "terror states" trying to subvert the international order.

A number of House of Saud princes are now engulfed in a lethal battle for the Saudi succession - as King Abdullah is about to meet his maker. Are these princes worthy of Machiavelli? Don't hold your breath.

Machiavelli taught us that individual will is as crucial as international power play in determining foreign policy decisions. The Florentine stressed how fortuna (fortune) can be capricious, and how history can be contingent. So how does a great Prince steer his state? By deploying virtu (virtue).

Oh no, this has nothing to do with the guilt-ridden Christian mish-mash, which also happens to be a crucial pillar of the "American exceptionalism" concept. It's all got to do with classical values predominant in the Ancient World - from Greece to Persia. Virtue as in knowledge, strength, courage, and cunning.

So under this gold standard, Vladimir Putin certainly qualifies as a worthy Prince. Deng Xiaoping certainly did. Hassan Rouhani in Iran may reveal himself to be of the same caliber. But what about those angry, fearful, intolerant, yet heavily weaponized Arab princes? You don't need to be a pilgrim to Mecca-as-Disneyland to find your answer.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
 

Friday, September 27, 2013

Obama can invade any country for US energy needs


Morales: Obama can invade any country for US energy needs

Published time: September 27, 2013 17:40
Bolivia's President Evo Morales (Reuters//David Mercado)
Download video (8.3 MB)
In his dramatic speech in New York, Bolivian President Evo Morales called for the UN to be moved out of the US and for Barack Obama to be tried for crimes against humanity. Speaking to RT, Morales explained his controversial proposals.
In his most controversial demand, Morales said that Obama should face an international trial with human rights watchdogs among the judges. The Bolivian president accused his US counterpart of instigating conflicts in the Middle East to make the region more volatile and to increase the US’s grip on the natural resources it abounds in. He gave Libya as an example of a country where “they arranged for the president to be killed, and they usurped Libya’s oil.” 
“Now they are funding the rebels that fight against presidents who don’t support capitalism or imperialism,” Morales told Eva Golinger of RT’s Spanish sister channel, Actualidad. “And where a coup d’état is impossible, they seek to divide the people in order to weaken the nation – a provocation designed to trigger an intervention by peacekeeping forces, NATO, the UN Security Council. But the intervention itself is meant to get hold of oil resources and gain geopolitical control, rather than enforce respect for human rights.”
The US also operates in the same imperialist way outside the Middle East, Morales argued. At the General Assembly Obama said that the US “is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure these core interests” in the Middle East. Among the core interests, he mentioned “the free flow of energy from the region to the world.” Morales said that Obama’s statement should make any country possessing natural resources worried. 
“I think that statement poses a threat to all countries that have energy sources, especially gas and oil,”Morales said. “But mostly those countries that sell gas and oil to the US. It is a direct threat. I am planning to meet with President Maduro and analyze the issue. I understand that this is a direct threat to Venezuela, because in order to secure his country’s energy needs, Obama can invade any country.”
Washington’s relations with Latin America deteriorated this summer, following the grounding of Evo Morales’s plane in Vienna. President Morales was on his way home from Moscow when several EU countries closed their airspace to his jet, on the suspicion that former NSA contractor Edward Snowden – wanted in the US on espionage charges – was on board. Bolivia laid the blame for the plane’s grounding on the US. 
Relations with the US were further aggravated after Latin American countries learned they were being extensively spied upon by the NSA.  
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff devoted her UN General Assembly speech to condemning the US surveillance, calling NSA practices a “breach of international law.” 
And Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro skipped his appearance at the UN altogether, citing plans for“provocations” against him.
Maduro’s decision to break his UN General Assembly appointment came after Venezuela’s foreign minister, Elias Jaua, told the media that the US had denied a plane carrying President Maduro entrance into its airspace. The plane was on the way to China and Washington later allowed it to pass, arguing that the delay was caused by an improperly-filed overflight request from Venezuela. 
Morales said he did not believe the incident was coincidental, but was indicative of the US’s discrimination against Latin American diplomats.  
“I talked about this with the media before, after Bolivian Vice President Álvaro García Linera was not allowed on board an American Airlines flight to the US. Other Bolivian ministers had to go through a similar ordeal; they were also asked to take off their jackets and shoes. This is what happened to ministers, the official representatives of their country. I got a US visa allowing me to stay for six to seven days, which is the short period of time absolutely necessary for me to participate in the General Assembly session. Blackmail over visas, violations of the ministers’ rights, air piracy – all of that raises security concerns.”
What could prevent all this, according to Morales, is moving the UN headquarters out from the US to a politically neutral country. Or if that is unachievable, the Bolivian president wants at least the venue for the annual meeting to rotate among various countries. 
“The venue could be different every year, in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and so on. As for European countries, the UN headquarters could be moved, for example, to Switzerland – a neutral state that can guarantee security.  I’ve visited it a number of times to attend events related to human rights and indigenous population rights. In Switzerland, the president can just go outside and take a stroll with his wife, unconcerned about security threats. I found it surprising. Another option could be Austria, also a neutral country, according to its Constitution. The UN has several offices there. Brazil and Argentina are viable options as well. I believe that if it’s impossible to move the UN headquarters to a different country, the summit should be held in a different venue every year, but not in the United States, where we don’t feel safe.”

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Rouhani surfs the new WAVE


 
THE ROVING EYE
Rouhani surfs the new WAVE
By Pepe Escobar

He came. He listened. And he surfed.

"I listened carefully to the statement made by President Obama today at the General Assembly... [I'm] hoping that they will refrain from following the short-sighted interests of warmongering pressure groups and we can arrive at a framework to managing our differences."

Then he outlined what has always been the official Iranian position: "Talks can happen; equal footing and mutual respect
should govern the talks."

Then he addressed the expectation (actually, the world's): "Of course, we expect to hear a consistent voice from Washington. The dominant voice in recent years has been for a military option."

But now he had another idea. So he sets the stage for the punch line: It's WAVE time. WAVE as in World Against Violence and Extremism. Not in Farsi, lost in translation; in English.

"I propose as a starting step... I invite all states... to undertake a new effort to guide the world in this direction ... we should start thinking about a coalition for peace all across the globe instead of the ineffective coalitions for war."

So the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has just invited the whole planet to join the WAVE. How come no "coalition of the willing" leader ever thought about that?

Talk about a rockin' entrance on the world stage (Here's the full Rouhani speech, in English, which deserves careful reading). Rouhani was measured and composed - but forceful enough to debunk the "imaginary Iranian threat propaganda", stress the horrible effects of sanctions, and still remain hopeful that the 34-year Wall of Mistrust between Washington and Tehran can be torn down.

Obama, to his credit, had tried hard not to be upstaged. It took no less than 60 years for an American president to finally admit Washington had a hand in overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1953 (although the ghost-written formulation in his speech was extremely sloppy).

Obama officially recognized the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons (imagine the George W Bush administration doing it). And he said on the record that Washington is not seeking regime change in Tehran - thus speeding up former vice president Dick Cheney's next heart attack. Obama even mentioned the key words "mutual respect".

As for the cinematic coup de grace - the "casual" meeting or handshake in the corridors of the UN - it could never have happened so soon. Both Rouhani and Obama are under enormous pressure from hawks on both sides, and so far there's nothing substantial on the table.

Yet even while trying to send all the right signals to Tehran, Obama simply could not resist the urge: "I believe America is exceptional, in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all."

The corollary: he kept plugging for a UN Security Council resolution authorizing the bombing of Damascus if anything goes wrong with the Syrian chemical weapons disarmament. And this for the "interests of all" - as in Israel and the House of Saud.

The overwhelming majority of the real world, though, is busy reminding the US president that America is not exceptional at all, from Russian President Vladimir Putin's actions in the case of secrets whistle-blower Edward Snowden and the Syria tragedy to Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who in a stinging speechqualified NSA spying as an "affront". It's not by accident that all the original four BRICS, Brazil, Russia, India and China, have been spied to kingdom come.

Will WAVE drown the hawks?
After the UN catharsis, the stage is now set for the real heavy work to start this Thursday, when US Secretary of State John "Assad is like Hitler" Kerry meets with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in the cadre of the multilateral P-5+1 (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany).

The key points of the road map ahead are clear. Total clarification of details regarding Iran's rightful peaceful nuclear program should proceed with dismantling of sanctions. Washington's nasty financial blockade of Iran's oil sales is not working; no one, from China to India and beyond, will stop buying Iranian energy because the US says so. And Iran should also be reinstated in the global bank exchange mechanism.

Here, Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, makes an extremely important point. Timing - by a series of circumstances - may be perfect, but the window of opportunity is not going to last very long.

It all comes back to the same drama; will Obama and his team have enough balls to stare down the Israel lobby, the House of Saud, the neo-cons and assorted armchair warmongers across the Beltway? If not, the War Party victory will mirror the anti-Rouhani hardline victory in Tehran - with devastating consequences.

So yes, the stakes could not have been higher. What the world needs now, is WAVE after WAVE after WAVE.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
 

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Ahmadinejad's unedited remarks to United Nations General Assembly





From the UN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech to the UN General Assembly minus the commentary and spin from Israel's propaganda machine of AIPAC, ADL, MEMRI, and CAMERA.


Click here for original transcript from the Iranian Mission to the UN.

Monday, August 16, 2010

The UN, Impunity and War

Reflections of Fidel
The UN, Impunity and War

RESOLUTION 1929 of the United Nations Security Council on June 9, 2010 sealed the fate of imperialism.

I don’t know how many people noticed that, among other absurdities, the secretary general of that institution, Ban Ki-moon, fulfilling orders from above, made the blunder of appointing Alvaro Uribe – when the latter was on the verge of concluding his mandate –vice president of the commission responsible for investigating the Israeli attack on the humanitarian flotilla that was transporting essential foodstuffs to the besieged population in the Gaza Strip. The attack occurred in international waters at some considerable distance from the coast.

That decision gave Uribe – accused of war crimes – total impunity, as if a country full of mass graves containing the corpses of murdered people, some with as many as 2,000 victims, and seven yanki military bases, plus the rest of the Colombian military bases at its service, had nothing to do with terrorism and genocide.

On the other hand, on June 10, 2010, Cuban journalist Randy Alonso, who hosts the "Roundtable" national television program, wrote an article for the CubaDebate website, entitled: "The so-called World Government meets in Barcelona." The article states:

"They arrived at the pleasant Dolce Hotel in luxury cars with darkened windows or by helicopter."

"They were the 100-plus economic, financial, political and media leaders from North America and Europe who came to this place for the annual meeting of the Bilderberg Club, a sort of shadow world government."

Other honest writers like him were likewise following the news that somehow was leaked from that strange meeting. Somebody much more informed than them has been on the trail of these events for many years.

"The exclusive Club, which met in Sitges, was founded in 1954. It was the idea of Joseph Retinger, a political advisor and analyst. Its original promoters were U.S. tycoon David Rockefeller, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands and Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland. Its founding purpose was to combat the growing "anti-Americanism" existing in Europe at that time and to confront the Soviet Union and communism that was gaining in strength on the European continent."

"The first meeting took place at the Bilderberg Hotel in Osterbeck, Holland, on May 29 and 30, 1954, hence the name of the group which, with the exception of 1976, has since met on an annual basis.

"There is a core group of permanent members who are the 39 members of the steering committee, the rest are guests.

"…the organization insists that no one ‘gives interviews’ or reveals anything that ‘any individual participant has said.’ The essential requisite is an excellent command of the English language […] there are no translators present."

"Nobody knows for sure the current reaches of the group. Those who have studied the body say that it is not by chance that it always meets shortly before the G-8 (previously, the G-7) and that it seeks a new world order with one sole government, military, economy and ideology."

David Rockefeller said, in a Newsweek magazine article: "Somebody has to take governments’ place, and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it.

"…banker James P. Warburg confirmed: ‘we shall have a world government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."

"Ten months beforehand, they knew the exact date of the invasion of Iraq; they also knew what was going to happen with the real estate bubble. With information like that, you can make a lot of money in all kinds of markets. What we are talking about are clubs of power and information.’

"According to analysts, one of the issues that most concerns the Club is ‘economic threat’ represented by China and its repercussions on North American and European societies.

"Some people have demonstrated the Club’s influence on the elite with the fact that Margaret Thatcher, William Clinton, Anthony Blair and Barack Obama were among those invited to the Club before being elected to the highest position of government in Britain and the United States. In June 2008 Obama attended the meeting in Virginia, U.S.A, five months before his electoral victory and that victory had already been predicted at the 2007 meeting."

"Amid such secrecy, the press has revealed certain names here and there. Among those who attended the meeting in Sitges were important businesspeople such as the presidents of FIAT, Coca Cola, France Telecom, Telefónica de España, Suez, Siemens, Shell, Novartis and Airbus.

"Financial and economic gurus have also attended meetings, such as the famous speculator George Soros; Paul Volcker and Larry Summers, economic advisors to Obama; George Osborne, the new British chancellor of the exchequer; Peter Shilton, former president of Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum, […]; World Bank President Robert Zoellic; IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn; Pascal Lamy, director general of the World Trade Organization; Jean Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank; and Philippe Maystad, president of the European Investment Bank."

Did our readers know that? Has any major organ of the spoken or written media mentioned it? Is this the freedom of the press that they extol so much in the West? Can any one of them deny that that these systematic meetings of the world’s most powerful financiers take place every year, with the exception of the year mentioned?

"The military power sent some of their hawks," Randy continues. "Donald Rumsfeld, former defense secretary to Bush; his subordinate, Paul Wolfowitz; NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and his predecessor Jaap de Hoop Scheffer."

"Bill Gates, magnate of the digital age, was the only attendee who spoke to the press before the meeting. ‘I am one of those who will be present,’ he said and announced, ‘There will be a lot of financial debates on the table.’

"News speculators are saying that the shadow powers analyzed the future of the euro and strategies to save it, the current state of the European economy, and the trajectory of the crisis. Using the religion of the market and with the aid of drastic social cuts, they are hoping to prolong the patient’s life.

"Cayo Lara, coordinator of United Left, clearly defined the world imposed on us by the Bilderberg Club: ‘We are in an upside down world; democracies are controlled, guided and pressured by the dictatorships of financial powers.’"

"The most dangerous thing to have come to light in the Spanish daily Público is the consensus on the part of Club members in favor of a U.S. attack on Iran […] Remember that members of the Club knew the exact date of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, 10 months before it happened."

When added to all the evidence presented in my latest Reflections, is the idea such a capricious one? The war on Iran has already been decided in the upper echelons of the empire and only an extraordinary effort on the part of world opinion could prevent it breaking out in the near future. Who is concealing the truth? Who is being deceptive? Who is telling lies? Can anything affirmed her be refuted?

Fidel Castro Ruz

August 15, 2010

8:25 a.m.

Translated by Granma International

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

U.N. Official Calls for Study Of Neocons' Role in 9/11 BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun

WASHINGTON — A new U.N. Human Rights Council official assigned to monitor Israel is calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

On March 26, Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, was named by unanimous vote to a newly created position to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. While Mr. Falk's specialty is human rights and international law, since the attacks in 2001, he has devoted some of his time to challenging what he calls the "9-11 official version."

On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."

Mr. Barrett, who is the co-founder of the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, said in an interview yesterday of Mr. Falk, "I would put him on a list of scholars who are sympathetic to the 9/11 truth movement."

He added, "Unlike most public intellectuals today, he is both honest and very, very knowledgeable in that he understands the probable reality of 9/11. He understands that the evidence that it was a false flag operation is very strong."

The narrative that the attacks from 2001 were a "false flag" operation is a recurring theme in the literature challenging the consensus that 19 Al Qaeda hijackers flew commercial jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. False flag refers to espionage or covert actions taken by one government made to seem like the work of another. The false flag thesis has it that the Bush administration is somehow responsible for the September 11 attacks as a pretext for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Mr. Falk yesterday did not return e-mails and phone calls asking for a comment. But in 2004 he wrote the foreword to the book "The New Pearl Harbor," by David Ray Griffin. Mr. Griffin has posited that such an inside job is the likely explanation for the attacks.

In the preface, Mr. Falk writes, "There have been questions raised here and there and allegations of official complicity made almost from the day of the attacks, especially in Europe, but no one until Griffin has had the patience, the fortitude, the courage, and the intelligence to put the pieces together in a single coherent account."

When asked for a comment about the appointment of Mr. Falk, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton said, "This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council." A spokesman for the American embassy at the United Nations offered no comment yesterday when asked.

A spokeswoman at the United Nations, Nancy Groves, yesterday also declined to comment. "I would not make a comment on how the member states vote on appointments. It is their council, they make their decisions," she said.

Mr. Falk's selection to the post as rapporteur has already prompted the government of Israel formally to request that Mr. Falk not be sent to their country. The Israeli press has reported that he may even be barred from entering the country.

The deputy permanent representative of Israel to the United Nations in New York, Daniel Carmon said, "We are asking the U.N. not to send him. We cannot agree to Mr. Falk's entrance into Israel in his capacity as the rapporteur."

One reason the Israelis are concerned about his appointment is that Mr. Falk has compared Israel's treatment of Palestinian Arabs to the Nazi treatment of Jews in the holocaust. In an April 8 BBC interview, Mr. Falk said he stood by the Israel-Nazi comparison.

The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, issued a statement yesterday saying, "This was clearly a singularly inappropriate choice for this position. Falk's startling record of anti-Israel prejudice should have been enough to preclude him from a position where an unbiased observer is needed to report on the status of human rights in the territories."

In a February 16, 1979, op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Falk praised Ayatollah Khomeini and bemoaned his ill treatment in the American press. He wrote, "The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false."Nearly nine months later, student followers of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 diplomats hostage for the following 444 days.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

"In order to live better sometimes you have to exploit, steal, discriminate, and plunder, but to live the good life is to live communally"

Central speech by the President of the Republic of Bolivia, Evo Morales Ayma, at the 62nd Session of the United Nations (UN), addressing the environment. United Nations, 26 September, 2007

I would like to take this opportunity to express my extreme satisfaction over the election of the new General Secretary of the United Nations who will be leading this international organization for the good of humanity, and above all for the good of the abandoned and dispossessed.

That is why I wish to briefly comment about my country. For the first time in Bolivia’s history the most abandoned sectors, the most despised, scorned, and vilified in Bolivian history, the indigenous people, have assumed leadership of the country in order to transform our beloved Bolivia.

Political changes, economic changes and a commitment to recreate our country. We seek unity, respect for our diversity, and respect for our identity so that together we can solve our economic and social problems.

In this short time I have found that it will be difficult and we will have to struggle for equality and justice for all those living in the country.

But at the same time when the popular movement, the indigenous movement, intellectuals, even businessmen and professionals commit themselves with a great deal of effort to the earth and to their people, one is encouraged to continue working and transforming, democratically and peacefully to guarantee a cultural revolution in my country.

But recovering our natural resources has been the most important step. It pains me to say that in my country during the neo-liberal governments, natural resources and state companies were privatized. Under the pretext of capitalization they de-capitalized the country. They claimed that privatization was the solution for unemployment and corruption, but instead we have seen unemployment and corruption increase.

Just a few years ago Bolivia was considered the world’s champion of corruption, and now I am very pleased that international organizations have noted that corruption in Bolivia has dropped significantly. We would like to eradicate it.

I want you all to know that in 2005, before I became president of the Republic and the hydrocarbons, petroleum, and natural gas were in the hands of trans-nationals, Bolivia only received $300 million from hydrocarbons.

After modifying the hydrocarbon law, after recovering and nationalizing this extremely important natural resource, Bolivia received more than $2,000 million this year.

Therefore I would like to say from experience, to all presidents or nations where the natural resources have been privatized, it is important to recover these natural resources with the support of the people, for the benefit of the people and the nation.

I understand perfectly that the companies have the right to recover their investments and they have the right to profit. But not so much like before which amounted to the outright plunder of our natural resources.

What is most important about this short period is that we have begun to de-colonize Bolivia internally and externally. I say internally because in the past masters ruled our country. If we review our history we find that viceroy masters, religious groups, and the oligarchy have ruled. The people have never had any power.

Now we are establishing the people’s power, so that sovereignty belongs to the people instead of to a group of families and so that the people have the right to decide their own destiny. That is the best democracy we can implement.

It is not just a matter of simply opting for certain policies. When I say that we have begun to de-colonize externally I am not only talking about being subjugated to landlords o bosses in my country. I want you all to know right now that no ambassadors will change our ministers or name ministers in my country.

Regrettably in the past, the U.S. ambassadors changed and named our ministers. That is over. That is why we have begun to de-colonize our country.

In the past the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund imposed policies. That has also ended. I remember perfectly and I want you all to know a little bit of my country’s history.

In 2003, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund told the president of that time that either a spike in gas prices or a high tax had to be imposed in order to avoid a fiscal deficit. The government chose the tax. They taxed workers wages and in two days there were more than 15 Bolivians dead from internal clashes.

I want to inform you all that Bolivia enjoyed a fiscal surplus this year without taxes and without gasoline price spikes thanks to the recovery of our hydrocarbons, which are so important to my country. I want you all to know that we have already begun the external de-colonization.

Because we are interested in how to better gather the proposals and initiatives of our people, of organized people. These social forces, be they civic or labor, especially those with serious economic problems, they have the wisdom to propose initiatives and solutions from their communities, from their trade unions. That is my experience.

So I think it is important to develop the power of the people, thus giving social forces the power to make the decisions. I, as president, only rule in compliance with the people. In this way we will be able to solve our problems.

Yesterday, over the past few days and hours I have heard some very encouraging speeches, but also others that really disappointed me. For example global warming and climate change were addressed. I feel that many of our countries are victims of these phenomenon.

I still cannot understand why there are so many lives lost in floods, invasions, or wars. So many lives lost to hunger. I feel that there are economic models that cannot solve the problems of humanity. After having heard many of the statements made here and the experiences expressed by other presidents, I am even more convinced that the concentration of capital in a few hands is not the solution for humanity. Models that accumulate wealth in a few hands are not the solution for humankind, for life, and even less for the poor that inhabit this planet earth.

Global warming and melting icecaps were addressed but without mention of their cause. I am convinced that the cause is what is wrongly termed globalization, or selective globalization, a globalization that does not respect plurality or differences.

When talking about globalization we must first globalize the human being. Well, I don’t know how you all managed to make it to New York, United States, but my delegation had difficulties getting visas. Our parliamentarians, our congresspersons could not obtain visas to come to the U.S.

When I arrived here, my ministers, indigenous brothers, were held up in the airport and subjected to hours and hours of processing. Some from other countries arrived here only to be threatened by the head of the house, President Bush. If it is like that, if it is going to continue to be like that, I think we presidents, we nations, should think about changing the headquarters of the United Nations. I personally do not agree with being subjected to such investigations when coming here.

I feel that it is also time to de-colonize the United Nations. We should all be respected whether we are small or large, with problems or without.

The speeches I heard about polar melting did not reflect on the cause of this melting, this global warming. It is capitalism and the exaggerated and unlimited industrialization of some countries that generates these problems on the continent and around the globe.

But when we align ourselves with social movements in order to protest, to condemn these unsustainable policies, these economic models that do not solve our economic problems, then comes the interventions, military bases, and wars, the demonizing and accusations of terrorism, as if the people have no right to appeal for their needs, to claim their rights and to demand new approaches to rescuing life and humankind.

Therefore I believe it is important that we as presidents, as nations, as delegates sincerely speak the truth about these economic problems that are being faced not only by Bolivia, America, or South America. But when democratic changes take place in South America, liberating democracies not democracies subjugated to the empire, we hear more accusations and distortions, charges of cruelty and of dictators like those I heard President Bush directing towards the president and commander Cuba yesterday.

A salute to all revolutionaries. Especially to President Fidel for whom I have much respect, because Fidel has also sent troops to many countries. But these troops save lives, unlike those deployed by the U.S. president to take lives.

Therefore here, as presidents we should think of life, of humanity, about how to save the planet earth. The issue of global climate change is an ongoing debate.

Esteemed members, I am convinced that is not possible for basic services to continue being in the hands of private business. Fortunately, thanks to the foreign ministers of the Americas, water has been recognized as a human right. If water is a human right then it's now important that it become a public service and not a private business.

Is vital now, right here, to recognize energy as a human right also. Hopefully we can all agree that energy is a human right; and if it is a human right it should never be controlled by private business. Instead it must be a public service in order to meet the needs of the people.

I cannot understand their pretext of hegemony or the accumulation of capital in a few hands, which will only continue harming humanity, affecting the poor, marginalizing the needy.

I believe that that we are talking in order to change these economic policies that have caused and go on causing so much damage. These economic policies have caused genocide; and the genocide continues. I cannot understand why there are still countries involved in an arms race, I don’t agree with war. We are exploring how a large social, political movement, via a new constitution, can reject war.

I'm convinced that war is the industry of death, thus the arms race is just another industry that complements the industry and death. In this new millennium, how can countries and presidents still go on dealing with the interventions, arrogance, and authoritarianism of some countries towards other countries, without even considering humanity.

Esteemed presidents, I believe, that together we can work toward rescuing planet earth, which is the most important issue at the moment if we want to save life and humanity.

But yesterday I heard some speeches about Biofuel. I tried to understand what biofuel, or agrofuel is. I don't understand how we can give up our food to automobiles; I can't understand how the land can be given over to heaps of metal.

I think that food should be for human beings, the land for life. Because we lack gasoline, because we lack diesel we're going to divert land and food to automobiles?

For this reason I said two days ago that if we are really interested in life we would abandon luxury. It's imperative to abandon luxury. We cannot continue accumulating garbage, we cannot continue thinking only about a few families instead of thinking about humanity. I think that we have profound differences if we talk about these issues of life, especially the lives of our national majorities.

I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank you all for your support, with the exception of four governments, their presidents and their delegates, in approving the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the world. I'm very satisfied. The people of America have waited more than 500 years for their rights to be recognized. We are the culture of patience.

And I want to make clear that just because we have a declaration now doesn’t mean that the indigenous movement is going to become vengeful towards other sectors. The indigenous people do not have a vengeful character. The indigenous people are a culture of dialogue and we are fundamentally a culture of life.

I ask the United Nations to convene a world indigenous forum soon so that we can share our experiences. In Bolivia we are gathering and drawing from our experiences with a program called the good life. In order to live better sometimes you have to exploit, to live better sometimes you have to steal, to live better sometimes you have to discriminate, to live better sometimes you have to plunder, but to live the good life is to live communally, to live collectively.

And not only among human beings, but also to live the good life in harmony with mother earth. The earth for the indigenous movement is sacred; mother earth is our life. The Pachamama, as we say in our language, cannot be converted into merchandise. If we're talking about and protesting against global warming, well, first we must understand what mother earth is. If the earth gives us life we are obligated to change our policies and to also recognize the indigenous movement.

We have lived collectively, communally; those with experience are here debating. We argue for collectivity, communitarianism and against capitalism. Let us draw from those experiences in order to defend life and rescue humankind.

I also want to quickly take this moment to say that this new millennium must be the millennium of life, the millennium of equality, of justice that respects our identity and is committed to human dignity.

Therefore we're talking about changing the economic models that harm humanity. But if we want to change things from here, we must first change ourselves. We mustn’t be egoistic, individualistic, greedy, ambitious, or sectarian. We mustn’t place the interests of a few families above those of the great family of planet earth.

So, we're talking here about first changing ourselves as presidents, as representatives of our respective nations in order to change economic models and seek equality and justice.

And I tell you that in these past 20 months as president working with the people, listening to their needs, I have found that there are still some groups that don’t want to lose their privileges, ill-gotten privileges. Above all they are accustom to the State doing business for the benefit of just a few families instead of for the [Bolivian] family.

I learned in these 20 months as president how beautiful it is to work for the homeland and not for money, how wonderful it is to work for these abandoned people, and how much better it has been to work together with some people who are economically well off but who also love their homeland and are committed to solidarity.

I would like to mention, you all know that we have a historical problem with the sister Republic of Chile: the issue of the ocean. I want to say that so far we have felt a real sense of amity, people to people amity, government to government amity, president to president amity, under the diplomacy of the people.

And we want to pledge to resolve the historic issue but within the framework of complementarity. Because neighboring countries, Latin American countries, countries of the world need to complement one another if we want to solve the problems of our people and the problems of our nations.

The concept of complimentarity is so important and we continue working towards this for humankind. In closing I'd like to say (...sometimes the red light makes one nervous, but never mind...) I would like to say that these kinds of participatory event where we all learn and continue learning, are the best universities available. But we must speak with clarity, with sincerity and not falsify the truth by only speaking of the effects and not the causes or of humanity’s problems.

In this case I wish to tell you all that I believe it is vital to change those economic models and eradicate capitalism.

Thank you very much.

Translated from ABI by Dawn Gable


Posted by Bolivia Rising on Thursday, October 04, 2007


"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

Saturday, May 19, 2007

Cuba asks UN to circulate official protest on Posada’s release

CUBA has asked the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council to circulate, as an official document among their members, a statement protesting the release in the United States of international terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

In a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, Cuban Ambassador Rodrigo Malmierca affirms that “an authority of the United States justice system dismissed, on May 8, all charges brought against that terrorist and freed him.”

Cuba holds the U.S. government responsible for that ruling, which is further evidence of the double standard applied by that country in its so-called “war on terrorism,” states the letter, summed up by Prensa Latina.

It adds that the decision to not classify this individual as a terrorist is not only a violation of U.S. law by the U.S. government itself, it also clearly fails to comply with commitments made via international agreements and treaties.

Malmierca reiterated that freeing Posada Carriles is a violation of pertinent resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

The Cuban ambassador issued his most energetic condemnation of this latest maneuver, which he described as an insult to the Cuban people, and the victims and family members of the detestable terrorist act against a Cuban civilian airliner, which killed 73 innocent people.

He expressly requested the secretary-general to circulate that letter and its appendix with the statement by the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Cuba, dated May 9, 2007, as an official document of the General Assembly’s 61st Session.

The circulation of the document is in accordance with items 66, 80 and 100 of the current session period.

Those items deal with, respectively, the right of nations to self-determination, the rule of law nationally and internationally and measures to eliminate international terrorism.

Malmierca also requested for Havana’s statement to be circulated as an official document.

Translated by Granma International