"Give me liberty or give me death" By Pepe Escobar

I have announced I will stay with this post
and that I will continue to shoulder my responsibilities.
- President Hosni Mubarak

We'll go to the palace and tear him out.
- Chant in Tahrir Square

What's a revolution to do when it expected a decrepit dictator to pack up and go, live on al-Jazeera? Especially when a few hours earlier the expectation was of a military coup?

"Go back home"? Forget it.

Eerie Pharaoh Mubarak is indeed an immovable ancient statue buried in the desert sands. "I have laid down a clear vision"? Reforms will be "implemented by our armed forces"? Article 179 - the basis for emergency law - will be amended, maybe one day? Vague powers granted to Vice President Omar "Sheikh al-Torture" Suleiman?

(Octogenarian President Hosni Mubarak's deliberate vague language meant anything from "delegating power" - not all power - to "delegating the authorities" of the president, to the point that the Egyptian ambassador to the United States had to call CNN to explain that he is now a "de jure" president, Suleiman being "de facto". Translation: he's become an official ghost. A figurehead. Or maybe not.)

Compared to what the military dictatorship (Suleiman, Defense Minister Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi and army chief Lieutenant General Sami Annan) had been spinning all along this Thursday, none of that made sense.

Then came "Sheikh al-Torture", as sinister as a B-actor playing Nosferatu. It's as if Sheikh al-Torture was announcing that from now on all the excruciating practices under his supervision would be orderly transitioned towards a more democratic approach. We have "opened the door to dialogue"? "Don't listen" to the "sedition" of "satellite television stations"? "Go back home"? The same it's-us-or-chaos rant? Sheikh al-Torture at least remained in character. After all he had already threatened to unleash "dark bats of the night ... to terrorize the people". The street knows he's itching to go Medieval.

The regime as a whole had threatened the army could crack down big time by imposing martial law. Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit had told al-Arabiyya if "we want the armed forces to assume the responsibility of stabilizing the nation through imposing martial law, and army in the streets".

The Muslim Brotherhood's Essam al-Erian feared the army was about to stage a coup. The New York Times, in another characteristic amnesia attack, stressed, "The military intends to take a leading role" (modern Egypt has always been a military dictatorship).

For all the Nile of expectations, the street was not exactly sure whether they should prepare for a big party or a bloodbath. In the end, none happened.

The Egyptian High Command - crucially without Mubarak and Suleiman - had issued a bayan raqm wahad ("statement number one", in Arabic), which in the Arab world is standard code language for a military coup. The statement took pains to advertise its "support of the legitimate demands of the people". That's their idea for a new bright future for Egypt (median age: 24 years old); a lousy communique.

Yet part of the street even considered an "interim coup" better than having an interim Sheikh-al-Torture. They had already made it plain they will not tolerate a Sheikh al-Torture-led interim government - aka face-lifted Mubakarism.

In the end Mubarak himself announced that Sheikh al-Torture was taking over - or maybe not. So for the street there's no turning back. The stage is set for a regime-directed framework of "negotiations". The street knows Suleiman will manipulate this as the perfect cover to force his facelift and perpetuate the regime. Bye bye democracy. After all, Sheikh al-Torture himself has said Egypt is not ready for democracy.

Is the army cracking up?
Before the Mubarak/Suleiman state TV double bill, the hottest rumor in Cairo was that Washington was pulling no punches to have Mubarak transfer his powers - all of them - to Suleiman. Annan and a majority of senior officers were against it, but air force commanders and the top of the Republican Guard were in favor. Tantawi was sitting on the fence. The inside dope was that Annan would win.

He didn't. Will the army secede? Immediately after Mubarak's speech, people in Cairo started receiving text messages from the Egyptian High Command, saying that it is "monitoring" everything and will "decide how to act" - that's as ambiguous as it gets. Takes time to come up with communique number two.

All evidence seems to point to a serious palace civil war going on in Cairo. Perhaps a double split; inside the military dictatorship (the army against military intelligence), plus the army against Mubarak. That may turn bloody at any moment. The army simply cannot go on playing a double game and sitting on the fence. The street is left with the strategy of applying overwhelming pressure on army commanders and conscripts alike to force them to align with democracy.

Meanwhile, the top narrative in Washington is that the White House was once more horribly humiliated by a satrap; precedents, as we have already pointed out, exist, from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Pakistani leadership. But considering the ultra high stakes, Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh more or less are getting what they want, as in their horse in charge of an "orderly transition".

They get Sheikh al-Torture as the new de facto rais; Mubarak as a ghost, or figurehead, or invisible master-puppeteer; and the army theoretically backing the new strongman. The only thing missing is the people. It's interesting that al-Arabiyya - which is essentially a House of Saud mouthpiece - was absolutely spot on about Mubarak's speech, at least one hour before the broadcast, while everyone else, White House and the US Central Intelligence Agency included, was sure he would step down.

On a parallel level, the closest US President Barack Obama has gone so far to unequivocally endorse people power, sort of, is this meek line in his statement post-Mubarak/Suleiman fiasco, which reads, "those who have exercised their right to peaceful assembly ... are broadly representative of Egyptian society". Mr President, the Egyptian street is watching you.

The larger-than-life ball is now in the Egyptian street's court. The fight now is to force the complete dismantling of the Egyptian police state. In the words of many a Tahrir Square protester; "Give me liberty or give me death." Egypt may burn because the regime is betting on it. So what's a revolution to do? Storm the Bastille or go on with endless passive resistance? Either way, the time for freedom or death is now.

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

He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.

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

• 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.

A shameful injustice by Philip Agee

Cuba's 50-year defiance of US attempts to isolate it is an inspiration to Latin America's people

Philip Agee
Saturday March 10, 2007
The Guardian

There is a wave of progressive change sweeping Latin America and the Caribbean after the many lonely years in which Cuba held high the torch, with free universal healthcare and education, and world-class cultural, sports and scientific achievements. Although you won't find a Cuban today who says things are perfect - far from it - probably all would agree that compared with pre-revolutionary Cuba, there is a world of improvement.

George Bush, the antithesis of this process, is now in Brazil at the start of a mission to lure five countries away from regional economic integration. However, the many thousands in the streets demonstrate the region's vast repudiation of Bush and what he stands for, something polls reflect unanimously.

All Cuba's achievements have been in defiance of US efforts to isolate Cuba; every dirty method has been used, including infiltration, sabotage, terrorism, assassination, economic and biological warfare and incessant lies in the media of many countries. I know these methods too well, having been a CIA officer in Latin America in the 1960s. Altogether nearly 3,500 Cubans have died from terrorist acts, and more than 2,000 are permanently disabled. No country has suffered terrorism as long and consistently as Cuba.

The Cuban revolution has always needed intelligence capabilities in the US for defence purposes, even before it took power in 1959. Such was the fully justified mission of the Cuban Five, who have been in jail since 1998 after being convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage in Miami, where they had no chance of a fair trial. Their sights were set exclusively on terrorist operations against Cuba - activities ignored by the FBI - and they neither sought nor received any classified government information. Their cases are still on appeal, and will be for years, but their biased convictions rank with the legal lynching in the 1920s of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, the anarchist immigrants, among the most shameful injustices in US history.

Current US policy can be found in the 2004 report of the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (updated last year with a secret annexe). A fundamental goal - the same, I remember, as in 1959 - is the isolation of Cuba to stop this bad example spreading. If successful, this would mean no less than annexation by, and complete dependence on, the US, in fact if not in law. Other goals still intact are to foment an internal political opposition and economic hardship, leading to hunger and despair.

Yet nearly 50 years of US economic warfare hasn't worked, even though Cubans estimate the cost to them at more than $80bn. After the freefall in the early 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economy began to recover in 1995. By 2005 growth was 11.8% and in 2006 12.5%, the highest in Latin America. Exports of services, nickel and pharmaceutical and other products are booming, and the US has not been able to stop this.

In the end efforts to isolate Cuba have failed. Last September Cuba was elected, for the second time, to lead the Non-Aligned Movement of 118 countries, and two months later the UN voted for the 15th consecutive year to condemn the US embargo, by 183 to 4. In 2007 Cuba has diplomatic or consular relations with 182 countries, and Havana hosts seemingly endless international conferences. In recent years Cuba's resorts have been attracting more than 2 million tourists annually. Far from isolating Cuba, the US has isolated itself.

More than 30,000 Cuban doctors and health workers are saving lives in 69 countries, many in difficult areas. Meanwhile 30,000 young people from dozens of countries are studying medicine in Cuba on full scholarships. All come from areas lacking doctors.

Cuba's literacy programme, known as "Yes I can", has been adopted in nearly 30 countries, with thousands of Cuban volunteers teaching. The scheme, conducted in Spanish, Portuguese, English, Creole, Quechua and Aymara, has helped some 2 million people to read and write, most of whom continue their education afterwards.

Thanks to this international assistance, Cuban prestige and influence - and international solidarity with Cuba, - have never been greater. It was to defend these worthy programmes that the Cuban Five, unjustly convicted, went to Miami in the 1990s. Freedom for them should be the cause of everyone for whom human rights and justice are important, both in the US and around the world; and that cause can be supported in 300 Free the Five solidarity committees in 90 countries. Philip Agee, a former CIA secret operations officer, is author of Inside the Company: CIA Diary. He travels in Cuba and Latin America as a campaigner, and manages an online travel service to Cuba.
philipagee@yahoo.com


"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