On February 10th, 2007, Speaking before the Munich Conference on Security Policy, Vladimir V. Putin denounced explicitly the United States’ fantasy of the world one-sided governance as lacking any legal and moral basis. He also criticized deeply the OSCE and the subversive usage by certain States of organizations which have of non-governmental but the name. We publish below the complete text of this very important speech which marks a swing in the Russian foreign policy.
Thank you very much
Dear Madam Federal Chancellor,
Mr Teltschik,
Ladies and gentlemen!
I am truly grateful to be invited to such a representative conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.
This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference. And I hope that after the first two or three minutes of my speech Mr Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there.
Therefore. It is well known that international security comprises much more than issues relating to military and political stability. It involves the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilisations.
This universal, indivisible character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was breaking out: “When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
These words remain topical today. Incidentally, the theme of our conference – global crises, global responsibility – exemplifies this.
Only two decades ago the world was ideologically and economically divided and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.
This global stand-off pushed the sharpest economic and social problems to the margins of the international community’s and the world’s agenda. And, just like any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other typical aspects of Cold War bloc thinking.
The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy. And what hasn’t happened in world history?
However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s – and precisely in today’s – world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.
Along with this, what is happening in today’s world – and we just started to discuss this – is a tentative to introduce precisely this concept into international affairs, the concept of a unipolar world.
And with which results?
Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centres of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr Teltschik mentioned this very gently. And no less people perish in these conflicts – even more are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate.
And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.
The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
And we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly – changes in light of the dynamic development in a whole number of countries and regions.
Madam Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure, comparable to using the death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.
However, today we are witnessing the opposite tendency, namely a situation in which countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other, dangerous criminals are airily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. And as a matter of fact, these conflicts are killing people – hundreds and thousands of civilians!
But at the same time the question arises of whether we should be indifferent and aloof to various internal conflicts inside countries, to authoritarian regimes, to tyrants, and to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? As a matter of fact, this was also at the centre of the question that our dear colleague Mr Lieberman asked the Federal Chancellor. If I correctly understood your question (addressing Mr Lieberman), then of course it is a serious one! Can we be indifferent observers in view of what is happening? I will try to answer your question as well: of course not.
But do we have the means to counter these threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?
I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in connection with this, either I did not understand what our colleague, the Italian Defence Minister, just said or what he said was inexact. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimate when the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different points of view. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is sanctioned by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN will truly unite the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disdain for international law, then the situation will be able to change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. Along with this, it is necessary to make sure that international law have a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.
And one must not forget that democratic political actions necessarily go along with discussion and a laborious decision-making process.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
The potential danger of the destabilisation of international relations is connected with obvious stagnation in the disarmament issue.
Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.
It is important to conserve the international legal framework relating to weapons destruction and therefore ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.
Together with the United States of America we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to strictly fulfil the obligations it has taken on. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and will refrain from laying aside a couple of hundred superfluous nuclear warheads for a rainy day. And if today the new American Defence Minister declares that the United States will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow or under the blanket, then I suggest that we all rise and greet this declaration standing. It would be a very important declaration.
Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in these documents are universal ones.
In connection with this I would like to recall that in the 1980s the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on destroying a whole range of small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.
Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and plan to incorporate them as part of their weapons arsenals. And only the United States and Russia bear the responsibility to not create such weapons systems.
It is obvious that in these conditions we must think about ensuring our own security.
At the same time, it is impossible to sanction the appearance of new, destabilising high-tech weapons. Needless to say it refers to measures to prevent a new area of confrontation, especially in outer space. Star wars is no longer a fantasy – it is a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellite.
In Russia’s opinion, the militarisation of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have come forward more than once with initiatives designed to prevent the use of weapons in outer space.
Today I would like to tell you that we have prepared a project for an agreement on the prevention of deploying weapons in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official proposal. Let’s work on this together.
Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defence system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step of what would be, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.
Missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometres that really pose a threat to Europe do not exist in any of the so-called problem countries. And in the near future and prospects, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through western Europe obviously contradicts the laws of ballistics. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.
And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed and only four states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.
NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank restrictions (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia removed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia, even according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems we had with our Georgian colleagues, as everybody knows. There are still 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet times. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.
But what is happening at the same time? Simultaneously the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each. It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfil the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.
I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?
The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice – one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia – a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.
And now they are trying to impose new dividing lines and walls on us – these walls may be virtual but they are nevertheless dividing, ones that cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again require many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We are unequivocally in favour of strengthening the regime of non-proliferation. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries with all good reasons want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. But we also understand that these technologies can be quickly transformed into nuclear weapons.
This creates serious international tensions. The situation surrounding the Iranian nuclear programme acts as a clear example. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this conflict of interests, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilising crises because there are more threshold countries than simply Iran. We both know this. We are going to constantly fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Last year Russia put forward the initiative to establish international centres for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centres not only be created in Russia, but also in other countries where there is a legitimate basis for using civil nuclear energy. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy could guarantee that they will receive fuel through direct participation in these centres. And the centres would, of course, operate under strict IAEA supervision.
The latest initiatives put forward by American President George W. Bush are in conformity with the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities, that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.
In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political incentives and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.
In connection with this I shall talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Madam Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly – she mentioned, touched on this theme. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.
We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to different estimates, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia – and please think about this figure – up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia is done by foreign capital. Try, try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. Such examples do not exist! There are no such examples.
I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifteen to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.
Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.
For that reason more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are objectively evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.
Furthermore. As you know, the process of Russia joining the WTO has reached its final stages. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.
And there is still one more important theme that directly affects global security. Today many talk about the struggle against poverty. What is actually happening in this sphere? On the one hand, financial resources are allocated for programmes to help the world’s poorest countries – and at times substantial financial resources. But to be honest — and many here also know this – linked with the development of that same donor country’s companies. And on the other hand, developed countries simultaneously keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.
And let’s say things as they are – one hand distributes charitable help and the other hand not only preserves economic backwardness but also reaps the profits thereof. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in the growth of radicalism, extremism, feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens in, shall we say, a region such as the Middle East where there is increasingly the sense that the world at large is unfair, then there is the risk of global destabilisation.
It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And that they should therefore build a more democratic, fairer system of global economic relations, a system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop.
Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As is well-known, this organisation was created to examine all – I shall emphasise this – all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, especially, the relations between these spheres.
What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a vulgar instrument designed to promote the foreign policy interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also being accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic apparatus which is absolutely not connected with the state founders in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of so-called non-governmental organisations are tailored for this task. These organisations are formally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore under control.
According to the founding documents, in the humanitarian sphere the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights norms at their request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and especially not imposing a regime that determines how these states should live and develop.
It is obvious that such interference does not promote the development of democratic states at all. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a consequence, politically and economically unstable.
We expect that the OSCE be guided by its primary tasks and build relations with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.
In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.
We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.
Thank you for your attention.
Vladimir V. Putin
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of the Russian Federation.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Barak Obama: Trojan Horse and A Great White Hope???
by Larry Pinkney
In a span of less than one week, US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, has managed to simultaneously both deeply insult and negate Black America, while courting what appears to be an increasing amount of white Americans.Many of these white Americans are in flagrant denial of their own color privilege and racism, and clearly grasp that Mr. Obama represents no substantive challenge to the continuation of their aforementioned privilege and/or racism.
Launching his US Presidential campaign from Springfield, Illinois, the home of former US President and cynical racist Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Obama apparently wishes us to believe that Abraham Lincoln was an emancipator of Black people in America. In fact, Mr. Lincoln was a Republican Party opportunist who did not emancipate Black slaves, but callously manipulated them. Indeed, as noted historian, Lerone Bennett, Jr., wrote concerning Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln says slavery is wrong, but he also says he is opposed to giving Negroes social and political equality". Thus, it becomes increasingly clear as to perhaps why some white Americans seemingly have such a cuddly comfort level with Mr. Obama's candidacy.
Further adding insult to injury, Mr. Obama apparently somehow did not find it important enough for him to be in attendance at 'The State of the Black Union 2007' nationally televised conference, recently held at Hampton University in Virginia. It would appear that at all costs, Mr. Obama must keep a "safe distance" from forthrightly, substantively, and undeniably identifying himself directly with Black people who are seriously committed to real versus superficial "social and political equality" in America. At that nationally televised day-long event, Mr. Obama could have shared with Black America, and the nation as a whole, his substantive thoughts, plans, and ideas as to how he intends to address Black America's pressing concerns, which ultimately affect the entire nation. Moreover, Barack Obama's astounding absence from 'The State of the Black Union 2007' conference speaks volumes as to his defacto lack of commitment to Black America, something in which, no doubt, many white Americans find enormous comfort while being able hypocritically to embrace a "Black" person's candidacy for US President.
There are many in Black America who legitimately question Mr. Obama's commitment to Black Americans, and who wonder if white America has at last attained its trojan horse, Black U.S. Presidential candidate in the person of Barack Obama. As Conrad Worrill, director of inner-city studies at Northeastern Illinois University, is quoted as saying in the Los Angeles Times, "The question is: Will this generation of new, college-trained beneficiaries of the Black political power movement in America fight for Black political interests?"
One of the "beneficiaries of the Black political power movement in America" is the Harvard University trained, now US Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Had it not been for the ongoing collective struggle of Black Americans and indeed had there been no Frederick Douglass, no Harriet Tubman, no Mary McLeod Bethune, or no Rosa Parks and certain allies, it is doubtful that America's racist, so-called anti-miscegnation laws would ever have allowed Barack Obama's Kenyan father to marry the white American woman who became Barack Obama's mother. Many Black Americans have paid and are still paying a terribly high price for the benefits enjoyed by a relatively few "beneficiaries." Mr. Obama could and should have learned some valuable lessons from the examples set by Black American US Presidential candidates who were his forerunners. Unlike Barack Obama; Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton never sought to distance themselves from Black America, as did Mr. Obama, as demonstrated by his absence from the recent 'State of the Black Union 2007' conference.
What is Mr. Obama's position on the issue of perpetual unequal justice, racial profiling, and the massively disproportionate rate of incarceration affecting the vast majority of Black and other people of color in this nation? Where does he stand even in his home state of Illinois, on the issue of the admitted horrible and brutal torture by members of the Chicago Police Department of Black people in Chicago, that special prosecutors finally now say occurred, but for which the police will not be prosecuted? [Reference July 19, 2006, Associated Press article entitled, 'Chicago Police Tortured Black Suspects In '70s And 80's: Report' Chicago police tortured Black suspects in '70s and '80s: report ] Why did US Senator Barack Obama oppose a "Senate reform banning the practice by legislators of hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls?" [Reference THE HILL newspaper dated January 17, 2007, article entitled, 'Obama's First Blunder'] What is Mr. Obama's stance on the issue of affirmative action, and regarding reparations to Black America for the brutality and ill-gotten gain as a result of slavery and Jim Crow repression? These questions and many more deserve substantive answers and clarifications from Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama might well be reminded that Black America has, for at least four hundred years and against all odds, maintained "hope", and now in the 21st century does not need nor relish empty, insulting, and nonsubstantive rhetoric calling for "a more hopeful America" that offers nothing substantive to Black Americans. Black America wants to know Mr. Obama's action plan and nothing less will do. Sweeping, pious pronouncements, which lack a well thought out and developed action plan, are utterly meaningless and ultimately insulting to Black Americans and, in reality, to all Americans. As Fannie Lou Haimer so poignantly stated, Black Americans are truly "sick and tired of being sick and tired" and will not tolerate being sacrificed yet again on the alter of political expediency by any candidate, irrespective of gender or color.
Barack Obama would do well not to take the vote of Black America (or indeed any American) for granted, and be substantive--not superficial and mediocre. Black people in America rightfully expect more of candidates, so very much more, as should all Americans. To quote the extremely relevant words of Lerone Bennett, Jr., "Everything has changed in Black-white America; and yet nothing has changed". The question is: Does Barack Obama understand and respect this reality, especially as it pertains to those Black people who are the descendants not only of the kings, queens, and scholars of Africa but also of those who were brought by force in a most brutal, unspeakable, inhuman bondage to this place called the United States of America, where to this very day, real "social and political equality" have yet to be obtained?
Being biologically Black and on the cover of Ebony magazine, is no substitute for a well thought out, clearly defined, substantive plan of action, coupled with a serious commitment to Black America.
Larry Pinkney is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.
In a span of less than one week, US Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, has managed to simultaneously both deeply insult and negate Black America, while courting what appears to be an increasing amount of white Americans.Many of these white Americans are in flagrant denial of their own color privilege and racism, and clearly grasp that Mr. Obama represents no substantive challenge to the continuation of their aforementioned privilege and/or racism.
Launching his US Presidential campaign from Springfield, Illinois, the home of former US President and cynical racist Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Obama apparently wishes us to believe that Abraham Lincoln was an emancipator of Black people in America. In fact, Mr. Lincoln was a Republican Party opportunist who did not emancipate Black slaves, but callously manipulated them. Indeed, as noted historian, Lerone Bennett, Jr., wrote concerning Abraham Lincoln, "Lincoln says slavery is wrong, but he also says he is opposed to giving Negroes social and political equality". Thus, it becomes increasingly clear as to perhaps why some white Americans seemingly have such a cuddly comfort level with Mr. Obama's candidacy.
Further adding insult to injury, Mr. Obama apparently somehow did not find it important enough for him to be in attendance at 'The State of the Black Union 2007' nationally televised conference, recently held at Hampton University in Virginia. It would appear that at all costs, Mr. Obama must keep a "safe distance" from forthrightly, substantively, and undeniably identifying himself directly with Black people who are seriously committed to real versus superficial "social and political equality" in America. At that nationally televised day-long event, Mr. Obama could have shared with Black America, and the nation as a whole, his substantive thoughts, plans, and ideas as to how he intends to address Black America's pressing concerns, which ultimately affect the entire nation. Moreover, Barack Obama's astounding absence from 'The State of the Black Union 2007' conference speaks volumes as to his defacto lack of commitment to Black America, something in which, no doubt, many white Americans find enormous comfort while being able hypocritically to embrace a "Black" person's candidacy for US President.
There are many in Black America who legitimately question Mr. Obama's commitment to Black Americans, and who wonder if white America has at last attained its trojan horse, Black U.S. Presidential candidate in the person of Barack Obama. As Conrad Worrill, director of inner-city studies at Northeastern Illinois University, is quoted as saying in the Los Angeles Times, "The question is: Will this generation of new, college-trained beneficiaries of the Black political power movement in America fight for Black political interests?"
One of the "beneficiaries of the Black political power movement in America" is the Harvard University trained, now US Presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Had it not been for the ongoing collective struggle of Black Americans and indeed had there been no Frederick Douglass, no Harriet Tubman, no Mary McLeod Bethune, or no Rosa Parks and certain allies, it is doubtful that America's racist, so-called anti-miscegnation laws would ever have allowed Barack Obama's Kenyan father to marry the white American woman who became Barack Obama's mother. Many Black Americans have paid and are still paying a terribly high price for the benefits enjoyed by a relatively few "beneficiaries." Mr. Obama could and should have learned some valuable lessons from the examples set by Black American US Presidential candidates who were his forerunners. Unlike Barack Obama; Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton never sought to distance themselves from Black America, as did Mr. Obama, as demonstrated by his absence from the recent 'State of the Black Union 2007' conference.
What is Mr. Obama's position on the issue of perpetual unequal justice, racial profiling, and the massively disproportionate rate of incarceration affecting the vast majority of Black and other people of color in this nation? Where does he stand even in his home state of Illinois, on the issue of the admitted horrible and brutal torture by members of the Chicago Police Department of Black people in Chicago, that special prosecutors finally now say occurred, but for which the police will not be prosecuted? [Reference July 19, 2006, Associated Press article entitled, 'Chicago Police Tortured Black Suspects In '70s And 80's: Report' Chicago police tortured Black suspects in '70s and '80s: report ] Why did US Senator Barack Obama oppose a "Senate reform banning the practice by legislators of hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls?" [Reference THE HILL newspaper dated January 17, 2007, article entitled, 'Obama's First Blunder'] What is Mr. Obama's stance on the issue of affirmative action, and regarding reparations to Black America for the brutality and ill-gotten gain as a result of slavery and Jim Crow repression? These questions and many more deserve substantive answers and clarifications from Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama might well be reminded that Black America has, for at least four hundred years and against all odds, maintained "hope", and now in the 21st century does not need nor relish empty, insulting, and nonsubstantive rhetoric calling for "a more hopeful America" that offers nothing substantive to Black Americans. Black America wants to know Mr. Obama's action plan and nothing less will do. Sweeping, pious pronouncements, which lack a well thought out and developed action plan, are utterly meaningless and ultimately insulting to Black Americans and, in reality, to all Americans. As Fannie Lou Haimer so poignantly stated, Black Americans are truly "sick and tired of being sick and tired" and will not tolerate being sacrificed yet again on the alter of political expediency by any candidate, irrespective of gender or color.
Barack Obama would do well not to take the vote of Black America (or indeed any American) for granted, and be substantive--not superficial and mediocre. Black people in America rightfully expect more of candidates, so very much more, as should all Americans. To quote the extremely relevant words of Lerone Bennett, Jr., "Everything has changed in Black-white America; and yet nothing has changed". The question is: Does Barack Obama understand and respect this reality, especially as it pertains to those Black people who are the descendants not only of the kings, queens, and scholars of Africa but also of those who were brought by force in a most brutal, unspeakable, inhuman bondage to this place called the United States of America, where to this very day, real "social and political equality" have yet to be obtained?
Being biologically Black and on the cover of Ebony magazine, is no substitute for a well thought out, clearly defined, substantive plan of action, coupled with a serious commitment to Black America.
Larry Pinkney is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Bush and Cheney Playing Role of Dr. Jack Kevorkian for Israel
By Ray McGovern
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are unwittingly playing Dr. Jack Kevorkian in helping the state of Israel commit suicide. For this is the inevitable consequence of the planned air and missile attack on Iran. The pockmarked, littered landscape in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and the endless applicant queues at al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruiting stations, testify eloquently to the unintended consequences of myopic policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv.
Mesmerized. Sadly, this is the best word to describe those of us awake to the inexorable march of folly to war with Iran and the growing danger to Israel' s security, especially over the medium and long term. An American and/or Israeli attack on Iran will let slip the dogs of war. Those dogs never went to obedience school. They will not be denied their chance to bite, and Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons will be powerless to muzzle them.
In my view, not since 1948 has the very existence of Israel hung so much in the balance. Can Bush/Cheney and the Israeli leaders not see it? Pity that no one seems to have read our first president's warning on the noxious effects of entangling alliances. The supreme irony is that, in their fervor to help, as well as to use, Israel, Bush and Cheney seem blissfully unaware that they are leading it down a garden path and off a cliff.
Provoke and Pre-empt
Whether it is putting the kibosh on direct talks with Iran or between Israel and Syria, the influence and motives of the vice president are more transparent than those of Bush. Sure, Cheney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer recently that the administration's Iraq policy would be "an enormous success story," but do not believe those who dismiss Cheney as "delusional." He and his "neo-conservative" friends are crazy like a fox. They have been pushing for confrontation with Iran for many years, and they saw the invasion of Iraq in that context. Alluding to recent US military moves, author Robert Dreyfuss rightly describes the neo-cons as "crossing their fingers in the hope that Iran will respond provocatively, making what is now a low-grade cold war inexorably heat up."
But what about the president? How to explain his fixation with fixing Iran's wagon? Cheney's influence over Bush has been shown to be considerable ever since the one-man search committee for the 2000 vice-presidential candidate picked Cheney. The vice president can play Bush like a violin. But what strings is he using here? Where is the resonance?
Experience has shown the president to be an impressionable sort with a roulette penchant for putting great premium on initial impressions and latching onto people believed to be kindred souls - be it Russian president Vladimir Putin (trust at first sight), hail-fellow-well-met CIA director George Tenet, or oozing-testosterone-from-every-pore former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Of particular concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London's Financial Times two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized" and " wrapped around his little finger."
As chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know - and to draw comparisons. He was summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon, and is now persona non grata at the White House.
Compassion Deficit Disorder
George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli-occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006, McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:
"If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it's the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace.' He was very emotional. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved."
Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing that he would abandon the decades-long role of honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit. At that point, he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of Palestinians. In "A Pretext for War," James Bamford quotes Bush: "Looked real bad down there," he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. "I don't see much we can do over there at this point," he said.
So much for the Sermon on the Mount. The version I read puts a premium on actively working for justice. There is no suggestion that tears suffice.
Paul O'Neill, then treasury secretary, who was at the NSC meeting, reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of long-standing policy. Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and "the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians." But according to O'Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things." O'Neill says that Powell seemed "startled." It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.
A similar account reflecting Bush's compassion deficit disorder leaps from the pages of Ron Susskind's "The One Percent Doctrine." Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, was in high dudgeon in April 2002 when he arrived in Crawford to take issue with Bush's decision to tilt toward Israel and jettison the long-standing American role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With Bush's freshly bestowed "man-of-peace" epithet for Sharon still ringing in Abdullah's ear, he began by insisting that, before a word was spoken, the president and his aides watch a 15-minute video the prince had brought of mayhem on the West Bank, of American-made tanks, bloodied and dead children, and screaming mothers. Then, still wordless, they all filed into another room where the Saudis proceeded to make specific demands, but Bush appeared distracted and was non-responsive. After a few minutes, the president turned to Abdullah and said, "Let's go for a drive. Just you and me. I'll show you the ranch."
Bush was so obviously unprepared to discuss substance with his Saudi guests that some of the president's aides checked into what had happened. The briefing packet for the president had been diverted to Cheney's office. Bush never got it, so he was totally unaware of what the Saudis hoped to accomplish in making the hajj to Crawford. (There is little doubt that this has been a common experience over the past six years and that there are, in effect, two " deciders" in the White House, one of them controlling the paper flow.)
Not that Bush was starved for background briefings. Indeed, he showed a preference to get them from Prime Minister Sharon, who, with his senior military aide, Gen. Yoav Galant, briefed the president both in Crawford (in 2005) and the Oval Office (in 2003) on Iran's "nuclear weapons program." Sorry if I find that odd. That used to be our job at CIA. I'll bet Sharon and Galant packed a bigger punch.
There is, no doubt, more at play here regarding Bush's attitude and behavior regarding Israel and Palestine. One need not be a psychologist to see ample evidence of oedipal tendencies. It is no secret that the president has been privately critical of what he perceives to be his father's mistakes. Susskind notes, for example, that Bush defended his tilt toward Israel by telling an old foreign policy hand, "I'm not going to be supportive of my father and all his Arab buddies!" And it seems certain that Ariel Sharon gave the young Bush an earful about the efforts of James Baker, his father's secretary of state, to do the unthinkable; i.e., crank Arab grievances into deals he tried to broker between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems clear that this is one reason the Baker-Hamilton report was dead on arrival.
With Friends Like These ...
George W. Bush may have the best of intentions in his zeal to defend Israel, but he and Cheney have the most myopic of policies. Israeli leaders risk much if they take reassurance from the president's rhetoric, particularly vis-à-vis Iran. I am constantly amazed to find, as I speak around the country, that the vast majority of educated Americans believe we have a defense treaty with Israel. We don't, but one can readily see how it is they are misled. Listen to the president exactly two years ago:
"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And, in that Israel is our ally (sic) - and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel - we will support Israel if her security is threatened."
We do no favors for Israeli leaders in giving them the impression they have carte blanche in their neighborhood - and especially vis-à-vis Iran, and that we will bail them out, no matter what. Have they learned nothing from the recent past? Far from enhancing Israel's security, the US invasion of Iraq and Washington's encouragement of Israel's feckless attack on Lebanon last summer resulted in more breeding ground for terrorist activity against Israel. This will seem child's play compared to what would be in store, should the US and/or Israel bomb Iran.
--------
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). The original version of this article appeared on TomPaine.com.
President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are unwittingly playing Dr. Jack Kevorkian in helping the state of Israel commit suicide. For this is the inevitable consequence of the planned air and missile attack on Iran. The pockmarked, littered landscape in Iraq, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and the endless applicant queues at al-Qaeda and other terrorist recruiting stations, testify eloquently to the unintended consequences of myopic policymakers in Washington and Tel Aviv.
Mesmerized. Sadly, this is the best word to describe those of us awake to the inexorable march of folly to war with Iran and the growing danger to Israel' s security, especially over the medium and long term. An American and/or Israeli attack on Iran will let slip the dogs of war. Those dogs never went to obedience school. They will not be denied their chance to bite, and Israel's arsenal of nuclear weapons will be powerless to muzzle them.
In my view, not since 1948 has the very existence of Israel hung so much in the balance. Can Bush/Cheney and the Israeli leaders not see it? Pity that no one seems to have read our first president's warning on the noxious effects of entangling alliances. The supreme irony is that, in their fervor to help, as well as to use, Israel, Bush and Cheney seem blissfully unaware that they are leading it down a garden path and off a cliff.
Provoke and Pre-empt
Whether it is putting the kibosh on direct talks with Iran or between Israel and Syria, the influence and motives of the vice president are more transparent than those of Bush. Sure, Cheney told CNN's Wolf Blitzer recently that the administration's Iraq policy would be "an enormous success story," but do not believe those who dismiss Cheney as "delusional." He and his "neo-conservative" friends are crazy like a fox. They have been pushing for confrontation with Iran for many years, and they saw the invasion of Iraq in that context. Alluding to recent US military moves, author Robert Dreyfuss rightly describes the neo-cons as "crossing their fingers in the hope that Iran will respond provocatively, making what is now a low-grade cold war inexorably heat up."
But what about the president? How to explain his fixation with fixing Iran's wagon? Cheney's influence over Bush has been shown to be considerable ever since the one-man search committee for the 2000 vice-presidential candidate picked Cheney. The vice president can play Bush like a violin. But what strings is he using here? Where is the resonance?
Experience has shown the president to be an impressionable sort with a roulette penchant for putting great premium on initial impressions and latching onto people believed to be kindred souls - be it Russian president Vladimir Putin (trust at first sight), hail-fellow-well-met CIA director George Tenet, or oozing-testosterone-from-every-pore former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Of particular concern was his relationship with Sharon. Retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a master of discretion with the media, saw fit to tell London's Financial Times two and a half years ago that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized" and " wrapped around his little finger."
As chair of the prestigious President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board under George W. Bush and national security adviser to his father, Scowcroft was uniquely positioned to know - and to draw comparisons. He was summarily fired after making the comments about Sharon, and is now persona non grata at the White House.
Compassion Deficit Disorder
George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli-occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006, McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks:
"If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it's the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace.' He was very emotional. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved."
Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council (NSC) on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing that he would abandon the decades-long role of honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit. At that point, he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of Palestinians. In "A Pretext for War," James Bamford quotes Bush: "Looked real bad down there," he said with a frown. Then he said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. "I don't see much we can do over there at this point," he said.
So much for the Sermon on the Mount. The version I read puts a premium on actively working for justice. There is no suggestion that tears suffice.
Paul O'Neill, then treasury secretary, who was at the NSC meeting, reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of long-standing policy. Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and "the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians." But according to O'Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things." O'Neill says that Powell seemed "startled." It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.
A similar account reflecting Bush's compassion deficit disorder leaps from the pages of Ron Susskind's "The One Percent Doctrine." Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia's de facto leader, was in high dudgeon in April 2002 when he arrived in Crawford to take issue with Bush's decision to tilt toward Israel and jettison the long-standing American role of honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With Bush's freshly bestowed "man-of-peace" epithet for Sharon still ringing in Abdullah's ear, he began by insisting that, before a word was spoken, the president and his aides watch a 15-minute video the prince had brought of mayhem on the West Bank, of American-made tanks, bloodied and dead children, and screaming mothers. Then, still wordless, they all filed into another room where the Saudis proceeded to make specific demands, but Bush appeared distracted and was non-responsive. After a few minutes, the president turned to Abdullah and said, "Let's go for a drive. Just you and me. I'll show you the ranch."
Bush was so obviously unprepared to discuss substance with his Saudi guests that some of the president's aides checked into what had happened. The briefing packet for the president had been diverted to Cheney's office. Bush never got it, so he was totally unaware of what the Saudis hoped to accomplish in making the hajj to Crawford. (There is little doubt that this has been a common experience over the past six years and that there are, in effect, two " deciders" in the White House, one of them controlling the paper flow.)
Not that Bush was starved for background briefings. Indeed, he showed a preference to get them from Prime Minister Sharon, who, with his senior military aide, Gen. Yoav Galant, briefed the president both in Crawford (in 2005) and the Oval Office (in 2003) on Iran's "nuclear weapons program." Sorry if I find that odd. That used to be our job at CIA. I'll bet Sharon and Galant packed a bigger punch.
There is, no doubt, more at play here regarding Bush's attitude and behavior regarding Israel and Palestine. One need not be a psychologist to see ample evidence of oedipal tendencies. It is no secret that the president has been privately critical of what he perceives to be his father's mistakes. Susskind notes, for example, that Bush defended his tilt toward Israel by telling an old foreign policy hand, "I'm not going to be supportive of my father and all his Arab buddies!" And it seems certain that Ariel Sharon gave the young Bush an earful about the efforts of James Baker, his father's secretary of state, to do the unthinkable; i.e., crank Arab grievances into deals he tried to broker between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems clear that this is one reason the Baker-Hamilton report was dead on arrival.
With Friends Like These ...
George W. Bush may have the best of intentions in his zeal to defend Israel, but he and Cheney have the most myopic of policies. Israeli leaders risk much if they take reassurance from the president's rhetoric, particularly vis-à-vis Iran. I am constantly amazed to find, as I speak around the country, that the vast majority of educated Americans believe we have a defense treaty with Israel. We don't, but one can readily see how it is they are misled. Listen to the president exactly two years ago:
"Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And, in that Israel is our ally (sic) - and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel - we will support Israel if her security is threatened."
We do no favors for Israeli leaders in giving them the impression they have carte blanche in their neighborhood - and especially vis-à-vis Iran, and that we will bail them out, no matter what. Have they learned nothing from the recent past? Far from enhancing Israel's security, the US invasion of Iraq and Washington's encouragement of Israel's feckless attack on Lebanon last summer resulted in more breeding ground for terrorist activity against Israel. This will seem child's play compared to what would be in store, should the US and/or Israel bomb Iran.
Bottom line: there is a growing threat to Israel from suicide bombers. The most dangerous two work in the White House.
--------
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). The original version of this article appeared on TomPaine.com.
La guerra desatada a través de los medios de comunicación social se encamina a querer recuperar el terreno perdido en América del Sur
Estados Unidos en contra de la unión sudamericana
por Tribunal Dignidad, Soberanía y Paz Contra la Guerra*
“Los Presidentes de los países de América del Sur reunidos en la ciudad del Cuzco en ocasión de la celebración de las gestas libertarias de Junín y Ayacucho y de la Convocatoria del Congreso Anfictiónico de Panamá, siguiendo el ejemplo del Libertador Simón Bolívar, del Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho Antonio José de Sucre, del Libertador José de San Martín, de nuestros pueblos y héroes independentistas que construyeron, sin fronteras, la Gran Patria Americana e interpretando las aspiraciones y anhelos de sus pueblos a favor de la integración, la unidad y la construcción de un futuro común, hemos decidido conformar la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones.”
EXISTE UN NUEVO EQUILIBRIO POLÍTICO EN AMÉRICA DEL SUR
El sueño de nuestros Libertadores comenzó a concretarse el 8 de diciembre de 2004 en la ciudad peruana de Cuzco, la que fuera capital del Incario y Tahuantinsuyo. Fueron ocho los Presidentes y cuatro representantes de Gobiernos los que suscribieron la partida de nacimiento de la Unión Sudamericana.
Hace 180 años, en 1826, se reunió en Panamá el Congreso Anfictiónico, convocado por el Libertador Simón Bolívar.
La intencionalidad fue la unión de la Gran Patria Latinoamericana; pero ese primer intento fue boicoteado por Estados Unidos, por intermedio de sus agentes diplomáticos, económicos y políticos que supieron aprovecharse de todas las debilidades de los concurrentes y de los jefes militares de las guerras de la Independencia que querían cobrar sus servicios patrióticos satisfaciendo sus ambiciones económicas y políticas.
El Congreso Anfictiónico de Panamá fue un fracaso histórico que produjo funestas consecuencias.
El Libertador Simón Bolívar, en una carta fechada el 31 de mayo de 1830, dirigida a José Fernández Madrid, decía: “Seguramente la Unión es la que nos falta para completar la obra de nuestra generación. Sin embargo, nuestra división no es extraña, porque tal es el distintivo de las guerras civiles formadas generalmente entre dos partidos: conservadores y reformadores. Yo aconsejo la unión; pero temo que no se logre”.
Hoy como ayer, Estados Unidos se aprovecha de las debilidades del Subcontinente, para impedir que se alcance el sueño de la Unión Sudamericana primero y de la construcción de la Gran Patria Latinoamericana después, aunque desde diferentes ópticas se considera que los dos proyectos deben marchar juntos o paralelos, a pesar de todas dificultades internas de cada país y externas provenientes de Estados Unidos, al que no le interesa la unidad de nuestros pueblos y que aplica a la perfección el viejo axioma: «divide y reinarás».
No cabe duda alguna: Estados Unidos presiente que sus años de dominación e ingerencia en América Latina están en peligro de concluir abruptamente.
En América Latina en el año 2006 se efectuaron diez elecciones presidenciales que enfrentaron a candidatos de las izquierdas socialistas o socialdemócratas con los de las derechas. Las derechas sólo ganaron en México, Honduras y Colombia y quizá Alan García en el Perú haya ganado con el apoyo de las derechas oligárquicas; pero, al parecer, sigue en la línea centroizquierdista.
Sin duda existe un nuevo equilibrio político en América Latina que le causa malestar y preocupación a la Casa Blanca.
La reelección de Hugo Chávez Frías en Venezuela, le causó profundo dolor a Washington, porque considera que el Proyecto de Revolución Bolivariana que inicia una nueva era para “los pueblos hermanos de Latinoamérica” en palabras del líder venezolano, acabará por alcanzar una indetenible influencia; pero dialécticamente se debe entender que los procesos integradores pueden ser extensos y más demorados de lo que aspiran algunos líderes y la totalidad de los pueblos de nuestra Patria Grande.
Se habla ya de un nuevo «eje del mal» que, según Washington, estaría conformado por Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia.
Para satanizar a esos gobiernos, Estados Unidos, a través de sus agencias, usa de la propaganda política, religiosa y de la presión económica que inserta en los medios de comunicación social en noticias, reportajes y crónicas e, inclusive, en las páginas editoriales.
Para ello cuenta con millones de dólares y con las armas de la guerra sicológica ejecutada por expertos de la CIA, Pentágono y Departamento de Estado. Paga a periodistas, compra medios de comunicación social o grandes espacios en periódicos, revistas, radiodifusoras, canales de televisión, a más de utilizar técnica, científicamente y con profusión el ciber espacio y las nuevas tecnologías de comunicación.
A más de Chávez y Evo Morales, el nuevo Presidente del Ecuador, Rafael Correa, ha sido identificado como uno de los líderes antisistema y antiimperialista.
Sin embargo, la analista internacional de la Agencia de Noticias EFE de España, Pilar Valero, afirma que Correa siendo un “populista de izquierda”, puede unirse a la senda de la Revolución Bolivariana “u optar por el pragmatismo político para mejorar las relaciones con Estados Unidos”.
Como se constata, es evidente la intencionalidad de esa «analista» para desconocer los claros pronunciamientos de Correa que se declara, sin ambages, bolivariano y alfarista, que desecha totalmente los Tratados de Libre Comercio, que radicalmente se opone a la concesión de la Base Aérea de Manta para uso de tropas estadounidenses, que se niega a participar en el Plan Colombia, que condena la erradicación de la coca en la frontera colombo-ecuatoriana con glifosato y que sostiene que la Revolución Bolivariana debe extenderse, profundizarse y realizarse sin demoras.
La «lista negra» que le provoca insomnio a la Administración Bush se completa con la Presidenta de Chile Michelle Bachelet, de Argentina Néstor Kirchner, de Uruguay Tabaré Vásquez, de Brasil Inacio Lula da Silva; pero cuenta en América del Sur con dos aliados importantes: los presidentes Álvaro Uribe de Colombia y Alan García del Perú. Cabe destacar que en la Cumbre de Cochabamba, la Presidenta de Chile Bachelet, aplaudió frenéticamente el apretón de manos entre Chávez, Morales y García. Chávez y García superaron las diferencias surgidas en los discursos electorales del peruano.
PLANES PÚBLICOS Y CLANDESTINOS DE EU CONTRA LOS INTERESES DE SUDAMÉRICA
Ante esta nueva realidad, Estados Unidos no se ha cruzado de brazos.
Los expertos de Washington, la CIA y otras «agencias de seguridad», el Pentágono y el Departamento de Estado, han planificado y ya ejecutan una serie de acciones públicas y clandestinas tendentes a neutralizar a los gobiernos que los considera peligrosos y enemigos de los intereses estadounidenses.
El «enemigo número dos», después del Comandante Fidel Castro, es el Presidente de Venezuela, Coronel Hugo Chávez y, dentro de esa escala, están Evo Morales de Bolivia, Rafael Correa de Ecuador, Néstor Krichner de Argentina e Inacio Lula da Silva de Brasil.
Estados Unidos trata de neutralizar, al costo que sea necesario, los planes integracionistas, los procesos de unidad, los acuerdos económicos, comerciales y políticos entre los pueblos y gobiernos de América del Sur.
Según Estados Unidos y sus objetivos de dominación, ningún país de su patio trasero, puede alejarse de los dictados de la Casa Blanca, so pena de castigo o como diría Noam Chomsqui: “El Padrino no toma a la ligera cuando se lo pone en vereda, inclusive cuando quien lo hace es un comerciante por menor. Intentos previos de independencia han sido aplastados, en parte a raíz de la falta de cooperación regional. Sin eso, las amenazas pueden ser manejadas una a una”.
El pensador estadounidense agregaba: “Para Estados Unidos, el enemigo real siempre ha sido el nacionalismo independiente, particularmente cuando amenaza convertirse en un “ejemplo contagioso”, según la declaración de Henry Kissinger sobre el socialismo en Chile”.
Naturalmente que hay que liquidar al virus del nacionalismo revolucionario y, además bolivariano. Para ello, Estados Unidos decidió encargar a sus principales agencias militares, civiles y paramilitares como la CIA, la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional y otros órganos como la USAID, AID, el diseño de un vasto programa de desestabilización que acabe con los gobiernos de izquierda y, en especial, aquellos proclives a seguir los pasos de la Revolución Bolivariana propuesta por Hugo Chávez de la que Rafael Correa, se ha declarado admirador, al afirmar como Chávez y Evo Morales que “los latinoamericanos, todos somos bolivarianos,” puesto que uno de los objetivos de Correa es la “unidad sudamericana”.
Esos planes incluyen proyectos de golpes de Estado, financiamiento a la oposición, intensificación de la dominación económica y política, la ejecución de actividades encubiertas mediáticas y de otra naturaleza, sin excluir ninguna de las opciones militares y planes ciertos para cometer magnicidios. Las intenciones de asesinar a Hugo Chávez han sido expresadas públicamente por líderes religiosos y políticos de Estados Unidos.
La Casa Blanca se propone priorizar en su política exterior para América Latina, no sólo la desestabilización de los gobiernos considerados enemigos, sino que, mediante campañas sistemáticas y científicamente planificadas, pretende sembrar la desconfianza entre países históricamente distantes a pesar de la vecindad, azuzar las diferencias socio-económicas-étnicas y culturales, incrementar las sospechas entre vecinos, impulsar las competencias desleales en busca de hegemonía y el liderazgo, como quieren hacerlo entre Chávez y Lula o entre Lula y Kirchner.
La meta es obstaculizar e impedir que la Unión Sudamericana sea una realidad próxima en la historia de nuestros pueblos.
Estados Unidos no quiere saber nada de la integración de nuestras patrias, libre de las influencias del capitalismo imperial. Para eso se propone, además, incrementar los conflictos existentes para separar a los países en lugar de unirlos, para aislarlos en lugar de integrarlos.
Estados Unidos no es ajeno a los procesos desintegradores de los últimos tiempos. Abraham F. Lowenthal, en la Revista América Economía, Edición No. 325, sostenía:
Después de altos y bajos en el progreso y de intermitente retórica sobre la integración en Sudamérica, las últimas semanas han mostrado un galopante proceso de fragmentación. Ejemplos abundan:
º Argentina y Uruguay se enfrentan a raíz de la fábrica de celulosa y papel que se construye en Uruguay, en la frontera con Argentina. (El caso fue a parar en la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya).
º Chile se queja de que Argentina no está cumpliendo su compromiso de suministro de gas.
º El Presidente de Uruguay Tabaré Vásquez ha llamado al MERCOSUR “más un problema que una solución”.
º Bolivia ha nacionalizado sus reservas de hidrocarburos y anunciado nuevas reglas para los inversionistas extranjeros, poniendo en peligro la participación de la compañía estatal energética de Brasil, Petrobrás, y poniendo en problemas al presidente Lula.
º Más dramáticamente, el Presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, ha defendido una visión bolivariana de la unidad sudamericana en contra del orden internacional ’neoliberal’ liderado por Estados Unidos y resumido, desde su punto de vista, en el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA)
Rebosante de reservas obtenidas con el alto precio del petróleo, dice Lowenthal, Chávez anunció la decisión de Venezuela de retirarse de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones y acusó a Colombia y Perú de haberla socavado firmando acuerdos bilaterales con Estados Unidos.
Chávez ha adoptado el ALBA, la Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas, un «eje del bien» regional que involucra a Bolivia y Cuba, hasta ahora; una alternativa explícita al ALCA y a la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones, de inspiración brasileña.
º Chávez y Evo Morales, de Bolivia, se han involucrado abiertamente en las elecciones presidenciales de Perú, al haber apoyado al candidato Ollanta Humala. Atacaron duramente al candidato Alan García y a Toledo, el presidente que acababa su período.
Lo expresado por Lowenthal es una parte importante de la problemática de América del Sur que, de una u otra forma, impide que se acelere el proceso de unión.
De estos conflictos reales y aparentes toma provecho Estados Unidos para mantener la división económica y social entre nuestros pueblos; pero aún hay otros puntos de conflicto que deben superarse con la decisión altiva, militante y participativa de la sociedad civil y de los movimientos y organizaciones populares, estudiantiles, de trabajadores e intelectuales del Subcontinente.
Que trascendente sería que los presidentes Lula y Chávez superen la rivalidad por la hegemonía y liderazgo de la Unión Sudamericana, si los dos se encaminan hacia el mismo objetivo. También Argentina de Kirchner debería sumarse con entusiasmo a la integración y unidad de América del Sur y dejar de sentir ciertos recelos y celos por el liderazgo de Brasil. Si así lo hicieran, Estados Unidos tendría mayores dificultades y graves problemas para provocar la división y evitar la unión de nuestras patrias.
Estados Unidos tiene socios menores en América del Sur, pero no menos peligrosos para nuestros pueblos, y que consciente o inconscientemente colaboran con Washington, la CIA, el Pentágono y el Departamento de Estado, para el logro de los objetivos de neocolonización, dominación y consolidación del status quo en el Subcontinente.
Entre esos socios menores sobresalen las oligarquías criollas, dueñas indiscutidas del poder económico, y que propugnan las autonomías o la franca disolución de las Repúblicas como ocurre con las oligarquías santacruceñas en Bolivia o las oligarquías guayaquileñas en el Ecuador.
Estados Unidos conoce perfectamente a sus «socios cipayos» y usa de ellos para debilitar las propuestas nacionales y la efectiva Unión Sudamericana. De hecho, la Casa Blanca estaría feliz con la «balcanización» de nuestros países.
Otro de los grandes problemas de nuestros países es el ocasionado por las posiciones racistas y violentas que surgen entre algunos pueblos indígenas de Bolivia, Perú y Ecuador. Los movimientos indígenas de la Región Andina merecen el mejor de los apoyos y respetos; pero este es otro de los factores utilizados por Estados Unidos, no sólo para denigrar a los indígenas sino para dividirlos con el uso de la religión y para oponerlos a los blanco-mestizos, en ocasiones en forma violenta azuzando reclamos y reivindicaciones ancestrales. Los medios de comunicación social, en poder de los grupos dominantes y al servicio de la Casa Blanca, se muestran encantados con este tipo de problemas a los que explotan para atemorizar a poblaciones enteras y para incrementar odios raciales que escapan a la razón.
Lowenthal, a pesar de sus reticencias ideológicas, llega a afirmar:
“Con todo, puede que haya menos fragmentación regional de lo que parece a primera vista. Hay mucha más cooperación e integración funcional que la que había antes, o de lo que es generalmente reconocida:
Las subyacentes rivalidades bilaterales, algunas de las que llevaron o amenazaron con hostilidades militares, han sido reemplazadas por sólidas pautas de cooperación. Es el caso de Argentina y Brasil, Chile y Argentina, y Perú y Ecuador. Estos cambios significan mucho más que las disputas sobre plantas papeleras, el precio del gas o las preferencias comerciales. En vez de eso, algunas de las tensiones son de hecho el resultado de la creciente integración.
Brasil y Chile, las dos naciones más exitosas e influyentes de Sudamérica siguen comprometidas con la cooperación regional y responden a las provocaciones de Venezuela y Bolivia de un modo paciente y flexible, en vez de aumentar la exuberancia nacionalista. Es poco probable que Perú, Argentina, Uruguay o Paraguay caigan en el eje de Chávez. (Como se comprueba, el autor se ubica ideológicamente en contra de Chávez y de esta manera, de alguna forma apoya los planes mediáticos de Washington. Nota del Tribunal Dignidad, Paz y Soberanía contra la Guerra).
El comercio interregional de Sudamérica, continúa Lowenthal, se ha expandido mucho en los últimos 15 años, alcanzando niveles sin precedentes y sigue creciendo.
Similar ha sido el aumento de las inversiones y operaciones a través de la región por parte de varias multinacionales de América Latina. Nunca había habido tanta migración intrarregional, tantos proyectos de infraestructura regionales y redes profesionales tan extensas a través de las fronteras.
“Hay una desconexión entre la aceleración de la integración funcional en Sudamérica y las instituciones formales de la integración. Las existentes no responden efectivamente a esta realidad. Se necesitan nuevos objetivos para reflejar el intenso intercambio que está ocurriendo, para reforzar la cooperación regional y reservar la reciente tendencia a denigrar y dividir”, concluye Lowenthal, en su análisis.
’DENIGRAR Y DIVIDIR’ MADE IN USA
Denigrar y dividir son dos elementos profusamente utilizados por Estados Unidos, para impedir la Unión Sudamericana; es decir la integración efectiva en lo social, cultural, política y económica.
La CIA y otras agencias estadounidenses cuentan con expertos profesionales en propaganda negra y en cuestiones de guerra sicológica. Ahora, dedican grandes esfuerzos para persuadir a los pueblos y alienarlos en contra de Bolivia y, especialmente, de Venezuela. Los medios de comunicación social de Estados Unidos, sistemáticamente mienten, engañan, tergiversan realidades y hechos económicos, sociales, políticos y culturales para denigrar a las naciones latinoamericanas.
Suelen propagar rumores y exacerbadas fantasías en contra de los líderes revolucionarios y nacionalistas de nuestra América Latina y los medios de comunicación latinoamericanos se convierten en ecos y parlantes de los mass media estadounidenses.
Para ello tienen a la Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa –SIP- que es una asociación de dueños de periódicos creada y formada por la CIA, según órdenes de la Casa Blanca. Para eso los diarios, revistas, radiodifusoras y canales de televisión son generosamente pagados por las millonarias cuentas de la CIA, del Departamento de Estado y similares o por intermedio de las grandes agencias de publicidad que, también, son de propiedad estadounidense.
Nunca hay que olvidar que el comportamiento de los medios de comunicación social de América Latina responde a los intereses de los grupos dominantes que son dominantes hacia adentro y dominados desde afuera, conforme con el lúcido pensamiento del uruguayo Eduardo Galeano.
Es más, ese comportamiento antiunitario y antinacional, responde, también, a la política estadounidense que consiste en invitar a los directores, jefes de redacción e información, editorialistas y reporteros a giras por Estados Unidos con todos los gatos pagados. Algunos se convierten en informantes y agentes de la CIA.
La Casa Blanca y el Departamento de Estado por intermedio de la CIA, la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, la Agencia para el Desarrollo Internacional –USID-, la Agencia para el Desarrollo de la Democracia (NED), las agencias de «cooperación» y de organizaciones privadas de Estados Unidos (ONGs) e inclusive a través de organizaciones religiosas, distribuyen enormes cantidades de dólares a lo largo y ancho de América Latina que, anualmente, suman muchos millones, entre la oposición política de los gobiernos progresistas y democráticos, para causar graves problemas y francos intentos de golpes de Estado y programas desestabilizadores como ocurrió en Venezuela, Bolivia y últimamente en Ecuador, o los escándalos de corrupción en el Partido de los Trabajadores de Brasil, curiosamente en plena campaña electoral, tratando de impedir la reelección de Lula.
La política exterior de Estados Unidos con respecto a América Latina está diseñada para aumentar las ingerencias, los intervencionismos que buscan la desestabilización de los partidos políticos, el desprestigio o aniquilación de los líderes de la izquierda nacionalista y unionista, de los políticos democráticos, progresistas y revolucionarios.
Siempre habrá que recordar a uno de los fundadores de la NED, Allen Weinstein que, en declaraciones dadas al The Washington Post, dijo: “Mucho de lo que hacemos hoy, se hacía encubiertamente hace 25 años por la CIA” . En otras palabras, el intervencionismo yanqui en nuestra América es más abierto, más descarado y más prepotente.
Otra organización estadounidense sobre la que se debe investigar es la denominada Oficina de Iniciativas para la Transición , seguramente a cargo de la CIA y de las mafias de la Fundación Cubano Americana, con sede en Miami. Tiene un presupuesto de millones de dólares y «trabaja» en muchos países de América Latina para desestabilizar a los gobiernos considerados peligrosos para los intereses norteamericanos.
Desestabilizar, desacreditar, dividir, estrangular económicamente, manipular políticamente a través del engaño y la mentira, es la estrategia permanente de Estados Unidos para América Latina.
J. C. Alfaro, un periodista de la Prensa de MERCOSUR informaba que la Agencia AFP “difundió una entrevista con un alto funcionario estadounidense el cual pidió el anonimato, quien sostuvo que según el gobierno de George W. Bush, ’la verdadera lucha está teniendo lugar primero dentro de la izquierda’, entre la presidenta chilena Michelle Bachelet, Lula da Silva, Vásquez y quizá el argentino Kirchner contra el mandatario cubano Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez y quizá el boliviano Evo Morales”.
Ese pensamiento demuestra que la directriz principal de la Casa Blanca para América del Sur es atizar las situaciones conflictivas, crearlas y desarrollarlas para torpedear los procesos integradores, para destruir el MERCOSUR y poner en duda los ideales de unión pensados por nuestros libertadores y que comenzaron a concretarse en el Cuzco y que tienen la posibilidad cierta de consolidarse después de la Cumbre de Cochabamba, efectuada en el pasado mes de diciembre.
Por todos los medios. Estados Unidos se propone crear o aumentar problemas.
Michael Shifter, un experto del Centro de Análisis Diálogo Interamericano, para Washington lo ideal es que Brasil y otros países como Perú, “den la pelea contra Venezuela”, según reseña Alfaro quien agrega que otra herramienta funcional al discurso de Washington es el reciente informe de la Oxford Analytica-centro de análisis vinculado a la universidad británica- que circula en organismos multilaterales de Washington, estimó que Brasil “no aceptará fácilmente la competencia de Venezuela” en su liderazgo.
Hace mucho que Brasil se siente el líder natural de la Región y ha estado en el centro de los esfuerzos por extender la integración regional, que las recientes acciones de Chávez parecen socavar.
Añade que en este marco, un dato muy importante a tener en cuenta es la visita del ex agente de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia -CIA- y embajador de Washington en la Organización de Estados Americanos -OEA-, John Maisto quien recorrió las oficinas del poder en Brasil y Argentina para pedir que disparen contra Chávez a fin de congelar la influencia de la Revolución Bolivariana en los procesos integradores de América del Sur.
Politólogos y expertos analistas de América Latina coinciden en destacar que Washington apuesta al fracaso del MERCOSUR y de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones –CAN- razones por las que ha desarrollado un acercamiento económico de Uruguay a los Estados Unidos, ha acelerado los Tratados de Libre Comercio en América Central y ha divido a la Zona Andina al firmar los TLC con Perú y Colombia que si bien demuestran el fracaso del ALCA han sido eficaces para desintegrar a nuestros pueblos.
Según el politólogo brasileño Luis Moniz Bandeira “era inevitable el surgimiento de gobiernos más a la izquierda o progresistas, después del fracaso del Consenso de Washington y de las medidas neoliberales que ha recomendado. Pero la región no es uniforme, tiene intereses, en larga medida diferentes y así mismo contradictorios. Y muchos de esos dirigentes no tienen una visión estratégica y hacen política volcados a sus intereses inmediatos, de política interna, para atender a los grupos nacionales de presión…”
Moniz Bandeiras sostiene que los líderes de América del Sur deberían entender que las tendencias de la economía mundial capitalista evolucionan hacia un sistema multipolar, en el que solamente jugarán algún papel las grandes masas territoriales, demográficas y económicas.
LA COMUNIDAD SUDAMERICANA DE NACIONES ES UNA OPCIÓN NECESARIA
Por lo tanto hay que desarrollar una clara conciencia de que es necesario formar una Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones que ya fue lanzada por 12 países sudamericanos el 8 de diciembre de 204.
Las aspiraciones de la Unión Sudamericana de Naciones son resaltadas en la enciclopedia Wikipedia de esta manera:
1.- Concertación y coordinación política y diplomática de la Región.
2.- Convergencia entre MERCOSUR, Comunidad Andina de Naciones y Chile en una zona de libre comercio. Surinam y Guyana se podrán asociar a este proceso sin perjuicio de sus obligaciones con el CARICOM.
3.- Integración física, energética y de comunicaciones en América del Sur, impulsado por la Iniciativa de Integración Regional Sudamericana (IIRSA)
4.- Armonización de políticas de desarrollo rural y agroalimento.
5.- Transferencia de tecnología y de cooperación horizontal en todos los ámbitos de la ciencia, educación y cultura.
6.- Creciente interacción entre las empresas y la sociedad civil en la integración.
Con la integración, América del Sur, representa una población de 361 millones de habitantes.
Además están las siguientes cifras:
Superficie: 17 millones de kilómetros cuadrados.
Producto Interno Bruto: 973.613 millones de dólares.
Exportaciones: 181.856 millones de dólares.
Países miembros: 12 Estados nacionales.
Según el «libro de datos mundiales» preparado por la CIA (The World Factbook), las repúblicas sudamericanas tienen un PIB por habitante que es entre dos y diez veces menor al de la Unión Europea.
Para superar las deficiencias, es indispensable acelerar los procesos de integración y derrotar los objetivos de dominación y neocolonización de Estados Unidos.
El Presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, tiene una visión optimista sobre el futuro de la Unión Sudamericana y no suele caer en las provocaciones divisionistas.
Cuando asistió a la IV Cumbre Unión Europea-América, dijo tajantemente: “En Brasil pretenden enemistar a Venezuela con ese país; pero yo les puedo decir que Lula y yo, somos hermanos. Brasil está con nosotros en el proyecto del Gasoducto del Sur y pareciera que a algunos brasileños, esto se les olvida”.
ATRÁS ESTÁ EL PODER CADUCO DE EEUU
Pero atrás de esas intenciones divisionistas está el poder económico, político y militar de Estados Unidos.
Washington exacerba las tensiones en América Latina. No cesa en su empeño de denigrar a la Revolución Cubana y de satanizar al Comandante Fidel Castro. Las agresiones son permanentes y ahora las extiende a Chávez y al proceso de la Revolución Bolivariana.
Estados Unidos, bajo la Administración Bush, usa y abusa de la guerra mediática desatada en contra de América del Sur y de los gobernantes democráticos y progresistas a los que acusa de querer acabar con las democracias al estilo norteamericano, de implementar modelos “socialistas totalitarios”, y niega los logros evidentes alcanzados por Chávez, para lo que recurre a las técnicas de la guerra sicológica a fin de atemorizar a los pueblos y volverlos en contra de Hugo Chávez, de Lula, de Correa, de Kirchner, de Evo Morales.
La guerra desatada a través de los medios de comunicación social se encamina a querer recuperar el terreno perdido en América del Sur gracias al surgimiento de líderes de la nueva izquierda que, básicamente, se muestran antiimperialistas y que decidieron impulsar y promover la Comunidad de Naciones de América del Sur.
La Casa Blanca recurre a menudo a las tácticas y estrategias de la Guerra Fría.
Descalifica y denigra a nuestros pueblos, impone condiciones a los gobiernos, crea nuevos fantasmas como la lucha contra el narcotráfico, el crimen organizado internacional, en tanto penaliza la migración ilegal, construye un muro gigantesco a lo largo de la frontera con México y siembra de miseria a América Latina en nombre de la libertad, como predijera el Libertador Simón Bolívar, en su célebre Carta de Guayaquil.
Tribunal Dignidad, Soberanía y Paz Contra la Guerra
Agrupa a intelectuales y representantes de organizaciones sociales del Ecuador y se formó en el teatro Universitario de Quito al inicio de la última invasión estadounidense e inglesa a Iraq.
IMPORTANTE: Para el Tribunal Dignidad, Soberanía y Paz contra la Guerra, serán muy valiosos sus comentarios y opiniones sobre este documento. Mail: tribunalpazecuador@yahoo.com
por Tribunal Dignidad, Soberanía y Paz Contra la Guerra*
«Estados Unidos ha dominado por mucho tiempo la región con dos métodos principales: la violencia y estrangulamiento económico. De manera general, los asuntos internacionales muestran más que un ligero parecido con la mafia.» Noam Chomsky.
“Los Presidentes de los países de América del Sur reunidos en la ciudad del Cuzco en ocasión de la celebración de las gestas libertarias de Junín y Ayacucho y de la Convocatoria del Congreso Anfictiónico de Panamá, siguiendo el ejemplo del Libertador Simón Bolívar, del Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho Antonio José de Sucre, del Libertador José de San Martín, de nuestros pueblos y héroes independentistas que construyeron, sin fronteras, la Gran Patria Americana e interpretando las aspiraciones y anhelos de sus pueblos a favor de la integración, la unidad y la construcción de un futuro común, hemos decidido conformar la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones.”
EXISTE UN NUEVO EQUILIBRIO POLÍTICO EN AMÉRICA DEL SUR
El sueño de nuestros Libertadores comenzó a concretarse el 8 de diciembre de 2004 en la ciudad peruana de Cuzco, la que fuera capital del Incario y Tahuantinsuyo. Fueron ocho los Presidentes y cuatro representantes de Gobiernos los que suscribieron la partida de nacimiento de la Unión Sudamericana.
Hace 180 años, en 1826, se reunió en Panamá el Congreso Anfictiónico, convocado por el Libertador Simón Bolívar.
La intencionalidad fue la unión de la Gran Patria Latinoamericana; pero ese primer intento fue boicoteado por Estados Unidos, por intermedio de sus agentes diplomáticos, económicos y políticos que supieron aprovecharse de todas las debilidades de los concurrentes y de los jefes militares de las guerras de la Independencia que querían cobrar sus servicios patrióticos satisfaciendo sus ambiciones económicas y políticas.
El Congreso Anfictiónico de Panamá fue un fracaso histórico que produjo funestas consecuencias.
El Libertador Simón Bolívar, en una carta fechada el 31 de mayo de 1830, dirigida a José Fernández Madrid, decía: “Seguramente la Unión es la que nos falta para completar la obra de nuestra generación. Sin embargo, nuestra división no es extraña, porque tal es el distintivo de las guerras civiles formadas generalmente entre dos partidos: conservadores y reformadores. Yo aconsejo la unión; pero temo que no se logre”.
Hoy como ayer, Estados Unidos se aprovecha de las debilidades del Subcontinente, para impedir que se alcance el sueño de la Unión Sudamericana primero y de la construcción de la Gran Patria Latinoamericana después, aunque desde diferentes ópticas se considera que los dos proyectos deben marchar juntos o paralelos, a pesar de todas dificultades internas de cada país y externas provenientes de Estados Unidos, al que no le interesa la unidad de nuestros pueblos y que aplica a la perfección el viejo axioma: «divide y reinarás».
No cabe duda alguna: Estados Unidos presiente que sus años de dominación e ingerencia en América Latina están en peligro de concluir abruptamente.
En América Latina en el año 2006 se efectuaron diez elecciones presidenciales que enfrentaron a candidatos de las izquierdas socialistas o socialdemócratas con los de las derechas. Las derechas sólo ganaron en México, Honduras y Colombia y quizá Alan García en el Perú haya ganado con el apoyo de las derechas oligárquicas; pero, al parecer, sigue en la línea centroizquierdista.
Sin duda existe un nuevo equilibrio político en América Latina que le causa malestar y preocupación a la Casa Blanca.
La reelección de Hugo Chávez Frías en Venezuela, le causó profundo dolor a Washington, porque considera que el Proyecto de Revolución Bolivariana que inicia una nueva era para “los pueblos hermanos de Latinoamérica” en palabras del líder venezolano, acabará por alcanzar una indetenible influencia; pero dialécticamente se debe entender que los procesos integradores pueden ser extensos y más demorados de lo que aspiran algunos líderes y la totalidad de los pueblos de nuestra Patria Grande.
Se habla ya de un nuevo «eje del mal» que, según Washington, estaría conformado por Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador y Bolivia.
Para satanizar a esos gobiernos, Estados Unidos, a través de sus agencias, usa de la propaganda política, religiosa y de la presión económica que inserta en los medios de comunicación social en noticias, reportajes y crónicas e, inclusive, en las páginas editoriales.
Para ello cuenta con millones de dólares y con las armas de la guerra sicológica ejecutada por expertos de la CIA, Pentágono y Departamento de Estado. Paga a periodistas, compra medios de comunicación social o grandes espacios en periódicos, revistas, radiodifusoras, canales de televisión, a más de utilizar técnica, científicamente y con profusión el ciber espacio y las nuevas tecnologías de comunicación.
A más de Chávez y Evo Morales, el nuevo Presidente del Ecuador, Rafael Correa, ha sido identificado como uno de los líderes antisistema y antiimperialista.
Sin embargo, la analista internacional de la Agencia de Noticias EFE de España, Pilar Valero, afirma que Correa siendo un “populista de izquierda”, puede unirse a la senda de la Revolución Bolivariana “u optar por el pragmatismo político para mejorar las relaciones con Estados Unidos”.
Como se constata, es evidente la intencionalidad de esa «analista» para desconocer los claros pronunciamientos de Correa que se declara, sin ambages, bolivariano y alfarista, que desecha totalmente los Tratados de Libre Comercio, que radicalmente se opone a la concesión de la Base Aérea de Manta para uso de tropas estadounidenses, que se niega a participar en el Plan Colombia, que condena la erradicación de la coca en la frontera colombo-ecuatoriana con glifosato y que sostiene que la Revolución Bolivariana debe extenderse, profundizarse y realizarse sin demoras.
La «lista negra» que le provoca insomnio a la Administración Bush se completa con la Presidenta de Chile Michelle Bachelet, de Argentina Néstor Kirchner, de Uruguay Tabaré Vásquez, de Brasil Inacio Lula da Silva; pero cuenta en América del Sur con dos aliados importantes: los presidentes Álvaro Uribe de Colombia y Alan García del Perú. Cabe destacar que en la Cumbre de Cochabamba, la Presidenta de Chile Bachelet, aplaudió frenéticamente el apretón de manos entre Chávez, Morales y García. Chávez y García superaron las diferencias surgidas en los discursos electorales del peruano.
PLANES PÚBLICOS Y CLANDESTINOS DE EU CONTRA LOS INTERESES DE SUDAMÉRICA
Ante esta nueva realidad, Estados Unidos no se ha cruzado de brazos.
Los expertos de Washington, la CIA y otras «agencias de seguridad», el Pentágono y el Departamento de Estado, han planificado y ya ejecutan una serie de acciones públicas y clandestinas tendentes a neutralizar a los gobiernos que los considera peligrosos y enemigos de los intereses estadounidenses.
El «enemigo número dos», después del Comandante Fidel Castro, es el Presidente de Venezuela, Coronel Hugo Chávez y, dentro de esa escala, están Evo Morales de Bolivia, Rafael Correa de Ecuador, Néstor Krichner de Argentina e Inacio Lula da Silva de Brasil.
Estados Unidos trata de neutralizar, al costo que sea necesario, los planes integracionistas, los procesos de unidad, los acuerdos económicos, comerciales y políticos entre los pueblos y gobiernos de América del Sur.
Según Estados Unidos y sus objetivos de dominación, ningún país de su patio trasero, puede alejarse de los dictados de la Casa Blanca, so pena de castigo o como diría Noam Chomsqui: “El Padrino no toma a la ligera cuando se lo pone en vereda, inclusive cuando quien lo hace es un comerciante por menor. Intentos previos de independencia han sido aplastados, en parte a raíz de la falta de cooperación regional. Sin eso, las amenazas pueden ser manejadas una a una”.
El pensador estadounidense agregaba: “Para Estados Unidos, el enemigo real siempre ha sido el nacionalismo independiente, particularmente cuando amenaza convertirse en un “ejemplo contagioso”, según la declaración de Henry Kissinger sobre el socialismo en Chile”.
Naturalmente que hay que liquidar al virus del nacionalismo revolucionario y, además bolivariano. Para ello, Estados Unidos decidió encargar a sus principales agencias militares, civiles y paramilitares como la CIA, la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional y otros órganos como la USAID, AID, el diseño de un vasto programa de desestabilización que acabe con los gobiernos de izquierda y, en especial, aquellos proclives a seguir los pasos de la Revolución Bolivariana propuesta por Hugo Chávez de la que Rafael Correa, se ha declarado admirador, al afirmar como Chávez y Evo Morales que “los latinoamericanos, todos somos bolivarianos,” puesto que uno de los objetivos de Correa es la “unidad sudamericana”.
Esos planes incluyen proyectos de golpes de Estado, financiamiento a la oposición, intensificación de la dominación económica y política, la ejecución de actividades encubiertas mediáticas y de otra naturaleza, sin excluir ninguna de las opciones militares y planes ciertos para cometer magnicidios. Las intenciones de asesinar a Hugo Chávez han sido expresadas públicamente por líderes religiosos y políticos de Estados Unidos.
La Casa Blanca se propone priorizar en su política exterior para América Latina, no sólo la desestabilización de los gobiernos considerados enemigos, sino que, mediante campañas sistemáticas y científicamente planificadas, pretende sembrar la desconfianza entre países históricamente distantes a pesar de la vecindad, azuzar las diferencias socio-económicas-étnicas y culturales, incrementar las sospechas entre vecinos, impulsar las competencias desleales en busca de hegemonía y el liderazgo, como quieren hacerlo entre Chávez y Lula o entre Lula y Kirchner.
La meta es obstaculizar e impedir que la Unión Sudamericana sea una realidad próxima en la historia de nuestros pueblos.
Estados Unidos no quiere saber nada de la integración de nuestras patrias, libre de las influencias del capitalismo imperial. Para eso se propone, además, incrementar los conflictos existentes para separar a los países en lugar de unirlos, para aislarlos en lugar de integrarlos.
Estados Unidos no es ajeno a los procesos desintegradores de los últimos tiempos. Abraham F. Lowenthal, en la Revista América Economía, Edición No. 325, sostenía:
Después de altos y bajos en el progreso y de intermitente retórica sobre la integración en Sudamérica, las últimas semanas han mostrado un galopante proceso de fragmentación. Ejemplos abundan:
º Argentina y Uruguay se enfrentan a raíz de la fábrica de celulosa y papel que se construye en Uruguay, en la frontera con Argentina. (El caso fue a parar en la Corte Internacional de Justicia de La Haya).
º Chile se queja de que Argentina no está cumpliendo su compromiso de suministro de gas.
º El Presidente de Uruguay Tabaré Vásquez ha llamado al MERCOSUR “más un problema que una solución”.
º Bolivia ha nacionalizado sus reservas de hidrocarburos y anunciado nuevas reglas para los inversionistas extranjeros, poniendo en peligro la participación de la compañía estatal energética de Brasil, Petrobrás, y poniendo en problemas al presidente Lula.
º Más dramáticamente, el Presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, ha defendido una visión bolivariana de la unidad sudamericana en contra del orden internacional ’neoliberal’ liderado por Estados Unidos y resumido, desde su punto de vista, en el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio de las Américas (ALCA)
Rebosante de reservas obtenidas con el alto precio del petróleo, dice Lowenthal, Chávez anunció la decisión de Venezuela de retirarse de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones y acusó a Colombia y Perú de haberla socavado firmando acuerdos bilaterales con Estados Unidos.
Chávez ha adoptado el ALBA, la Alternativa Bolivariana para las Américas, un «eje del bien» regional que involucra a Bolivia y Cuba, hasta ahora; una alternativa explícita al ALCA y a la Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones, de inspiración brasileña.
º Chávez y Evo Morales, de Bolivia, se han involucrado abiertamente en las elecciones presidenciales de Perú, al haber apoyado al candidato Ollanta Humala. Atacaron duramente al candidato Alan García y a Toledo, el presidente que acababa su período.
Lo expresado por Lowenthal es una parte importante de la problemática de América del Sur que, de una u otra forma, impide que se acelere el proceso de unión.
De estos conflictos reales y aparentes toma provecho Estados Unidos para mantener la división económica y social entre nuestros pueblos; pero aún hay otros puntos de conflicto que deben superarse con la decisión altiva, militante y participativa de la sociedad civil y de los movimientos y organizaciones populares, estudiantiles, de trabajadores e intelectuales del Subcontinente.
Que trascendente sería que los presidentes Lula y Chávez superen la rivalidad por la hegemonía y liderazgo de la Unión Sudamericana, si los dos se encaminan hacia el mismo objetivo. También Argentina de Kirchner debería sumarse con entusiasmo a la integración y unidad de América del Sur y dejar de sentir ciertos recelos y celos por el liderazgo de Brasil. Si así lo hicieran, Estados Unidos tendría mayores dificultades y graves problemas para provocar la división y evitar la unión de nuestras patrias.
Estados Unidos tiene socios menores en América del Sur, pero no menos peligrosos para nuestros pueblos, y que consciente o inconscientemente colaboran con Washington, la CIA, el Pentágono y el Departamento de Estado, para el logro de los objetivos de neocolonización, dominación y consolidación del status quo en el Subcontinente.
Entre esos socios menores sobresalen las oligarquías criollas, dueñas indiscutidas del poder económico, y que propugnan las autonomías o la franca disolución de las Repúblicas como ocurre con las oligarquías santacruceñas en Bolivia o las oligarquías guayaquileñas en el Ecuador.
Estados Unidos conoce perfectamente a sus «socios cipayos» y usa de ellos para debilitar las propuestas nacionales y la efectiva Unión Sudamericana. De hecho, la Casa Blanca estaría feliz con la «balcanización» de nuestros países.
Otro de los grandes problemas de nuestros países es el ocasionado por las posiciones racistas y violentas que surgen entre algunos pueblos indígenas de Bolivia, Perú y Ecuador. Los movimientos indígenas de la Región Andina merecen el mejor de los apoyos y respetos; pero este es otro de los factores utilizados por Estados Unidos, no sólo para denigrar a los indígenas sino para dividirlos con el uso de la religión y para oponerlos a los blanco-mestizos, en ocasiones en forma violenta azuzando reclamos y reivindicaciones ancestrales. Los medios de comunicación social, en poder de los grupos dominantes y al servicio de la Casa Blanca, se muestran encantados con este tipo de problemas a los que explotan para atemorizar a poblaciones enteras y para incrementar odios raciales que escapan a la razón.
Lowenthal, a pesar de sus reticencias ideológicas, llega a afirmar:
“Con todo, puede que haya menos fragmentación regional de lo que parece a primera vista. Hay mucha más cooperación e integración funcional que la que había antes, o de lo que es generalmente reconocida:
Las subyacentes rivalidades bilaterales, algunas de las que llevaron o amenazaron con hostilidades militares, han sido reemplazadas por sólidas pautas de cooperación. Es el caso de Argentina y Brasil, Chile y Argentina, y Perú y Ecuador. Estos cambios significan mucho más que las disputas sobre plantas papeleras, el precio del gas o las preferencias comerciales. En vez de eso, algunas de las tensiones son de hecho el resultado de la creciente integración.
Brasil y Chile, las dos naciones más exitosas e influyentes de Sudamérica siguen comprometidas con la cooperación regional y responden a las provocaciones de Venezuela y Bolivia de un modo paciente y flexible, en vez de aumentar la exuberancia nacionalista. Es poco probable que Perú, Argentina, Uruguay o Paraguay caigan en el eje de Chávez. (Como se comprueba, el autor se ubica ideológicamente en contra de Chávez y de esta manera, de alguna forma apoya los planes mediáticos de Washington. Nota del Tribunal Dignidad, Paz y Soberanía contra la Guerra).
El comercio interregional de Sudamérica, continúa Lowenthal, se ha expandido mucho en los últimos 15 años, alcanzando niveles sin precedentes y sigue creciendo.
Similar ha sido el aumento de las inversiones y operaciones a través de la región por parte de varias multinacionales de América Latina. Nunca había habido tanta migración intrarregional, tantos proyectos de infraestructura regionales y redes profesionales tan extensas a través de las fronteras.
“Hay una desconexión entre la aceleración de la integración funcional en Sudamérica y las instituciones formales de la integración. Las existentes no responden efectivamente a esta realidad. Se necesitan nuevos objetivos para reflejar el intenso intercambio que está ocurriendo, para reforzar la cooperación regional y reservar la reciente tendencia a denigrar y dividir”, concluye Lowenthal, en su análisis.
’DENIGRAR Y DIVIDIR’ MADE IN USA
Denigrar y dividir son dos elementos profusamente utilizados por Estados Unidos, para impedir la Unión Sudamericana; es decir la integración efectiva en lo social, cultural, política y económica.
La CIA y otras agencias estadounidenses cuentan con expertos profesionales en propaganda negra y en cuestiones de guerra sicológica. Ahora, dedican grandes esfuerzos para persuadir a los pueblos y alienarlos en contra de Bolivia y, especialmente, de Venezuela. Los medios de comunicación social de Estados Unidos, sistemáticamente mienten, engañan, tergiversan realidades y hechos económicos, sociales, políticos y culturales para denigrar a las naciones latinoamericanas.
Suelen propagar rumores y exacerbadas fantasías en contra de los líderes revolucionarios y nacionalistas de nuestra América Latina y los medios de comunicación latinoamericanos se convierten en ecos y parlantes de los mass media estadounidenses.
Para ello tienen a la Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa –SIP- que es una asociación de dueños de periódicos creada y formada por la CIA, según órdenes de la Casa Blanca. Para eso los diarios, revistas, radiodifusoras y canales de televisión son generosamente pagados por las millonarias cuentas de la CIA, del Departamento de Estado y similares o por intermedio de las grandes agencias de publicidad que, también, son de propiedad estadounidense.
Nunca hay que olvidar que el comportamiento de los medios de comunicación social de América Latina responde a los intereses de los grupos dominantes que son dominantes hacia adentro y dominados desde afuera, conforme con el lúcido pensamiento del uruguayo Eduardo Galeano.
Es más, ese comportamiento antiunitario y antinacional, responde, también, a la política estadounidense que consiste en invitar a los directores, jefes de redacción e información, editorialistas y reporteros a giras por Estados Unidos con todos los gatos pagados. Algunos se convierten en informantes y agentes de la CIA.
La Casa Blanca y el Departamento de Estado por intermedio de la CIA, la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, la Agencia para el Desarrollo Internacional –USID-, la Agencia para el Desarrollo de la Democracia (NED), las agencias de «cooperación» y de organizaciones privadas de Estados Unidos (ONGs) e inclusive a través de organizaciones religiosas, distribuyen enormes cantidades de dólares a lo largo y ancho de América Latina que, anualmente, suman muchos millones, entre la oposición política de los gobiernos progresistas y democráticos, para causar graves problemas y francos intentos de golpes de Estado y programas desestabilizadores como ocurrió en Venezuela, Bolivia y últimamente en Ecuador, o los escándalos de corrupción en el Partido de los Trabajadores de Brasil, curiosamente en plena campaña electoral, tratando de impedir la reelección de Lula.
La política exterior de Estados Unidos con respecto a América Latina está diseñada para aumentar las ingerencias, los intervencionismos que buscan la desestabilización de los partidos políticos, el desprestigio o aniquilación de los líderes de la izquierda nacionalista y unionista, de los políticos democráticos, progresistas y revolucionarios.
Siempre habrá que recordar a uno de los fundadores de la NED, Allen Weinstein que, en declaraciones dadas al The Washington Post, dijo: “Mucho de lo que hacemos hoy, se hacía encubiertamente hace 25 años por la CIA” . En otras palabras, el intervencionismo yanqui en nuestra América es más abierto, más descarado y más prepotente.
Otra organización estadounidense sobre la que se debe investigar es la denominada Oficina de Iniciativas para la Transición , seguramente a cargo de la CIA y de las mafias de la Fundación Cubano Americana, con sede en Miami. Tiene un presupuesto de millones de dólares y «trabaja» en muchos países de América Latina para desestabilizar a los gobiernos considerados peligrosos para los intereses norteamericanos.
Desestabilizar, desacreditar, dividir, estrangular económicamente, manipular políticamente a través del engaño y la mentira, es la estrategia permanente de Estados Unidos para América Latina.
J. C. Alfaro, un periodista de la Prensa de MERCOSUR informaba que la Agencia AFP “difundió una entrevista con un alto funcionario estadounidense el cual pidió el anonimato, quien sostuvo que según el gobierno de George W. Bush, ’la verdadera lucha está teniendo lugar primero dentro de la izquierda’, entre la presidenta chilena Michelle Bachelet, Lula da Silva, Vásquez y quizá el argentino Kirchner contra el mandatario cubano Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez y quizá el boliviano Evo Morales”.
Ese pensamiento demuestra que la directriz principal de la Casa Blanca para América del Sur es atizar las situaciones conflictivas, crearlas y desarrollarlas para torpedear los procesos integradores, para destruir el MERCOSUR y poner en duda los ideales de unión pensados por nuestros libertadores y que comenzaron a concretarse en el Cuzco y que tienen la posibilidad cierta de consolidarse después de la Cumbre de Cochabamba, efectuada en el pasado mes de diciembre.
Por todos los medios. Estados Unidos se propone crear o aumentar problemas.
Michael Shifter, un experto del Centro de Análisis Diálogo Interamericano, para Washington lo ideal es que Brasil y otros países como Perú, “den la pelea contra Venezuela”, según reseña Alfaro quien agrega que otra herramienta funcional al discurso de Washington es el reciente informe de la Oxford Analytica-centro de análisis vinculado a la universidad británica- que circula en organismos multilaterales de Washington, estimó que Brasil “no aceptará fácilmente la competencia de Venezuela” en su liderazgo.
Hace mucho que Brasil se siente el líder natural de la Región y ha estado en el centro de los esfuerzos por extender la integración regional, que las recientes acciones de Chávez parecen socavar.
Añade que en este marco, un dato muy importante a tener en cuenta es la visita del ex agente de la Agencia Central de Inteligencia -CIA- y embajador de Washington en la Organización de Estados Americanos -OEA-, John Maisto quien recorrió las oficinas del poder en Brasil y Argentina para pedir que disparen contra Chávez a fin de congelar la influencia de la Revolución Bolivariana en los procesos integradores de América del Sur.
Politólogos y expertos analistas de América Latina coinciden en destacar que Washington apuesta al fracaso del MERCOSUR y de la Comunidad Andina de Naciones –CAN- razones por las que ha desarrollado un acercamiento económico de Uruguay a los Estados Unidos, ha acelerado los Tratados de Libre Comercio en América Central y ha divido a la Zona Andina al firmar los TLC con Perú y Colombia que si bien demuestran el fracaso del ALCA han sido eficaces para desintegrar a nuestros pueblos.
Según el politólogo brasileño Luis Moniz Bandeira “era inevitable el surgimiento de gobiernos más a la izquierda o progresistas, después del fracaso del Consenso de Washington y de las medidas neoliberales que ha recomendado. Pero la región no es uniforme, tiene intereses, en larga medida diferentes y así mismo contradictorios. Y muchos de esos dirigentes no tienen una visión estratégica y hacen política volcados a sus intereses inmediatos, de política interna, para atender a los grupos nacionales de presión…”
Moniz Bandeiras sostiene que los líderes de América del Sur deberían entender que las tendencias de la economía mundial capitalista evolucionan hacia un sistema multipolar, en el que solamente jugarán algún papel las grandes masas territoriales, demográficas y económicas.
LA COMUNIDAD SUDAMERICANA DE NACIONES ES UNA OPCIÓN NECESARIA
Por lo tanto hay que desarrollar una clara conciencia de que es necesario formar una Comunidad Sudamericana de Naciones que ya fue lanzada por 12 países sudamericanos el 8 de diciembre de 204.
Las aspiraciones de la Unión Sudamericana de Naciones son resaltadas en la enciclopedia Wikipedia de esta manera:
1.- Concertación y coordinación política y diplomática de la Región.
2.- Convergencia entre MERCOSUR, Comunidad Andina de Naciones y Chile en una zona de libre comercio. Surinam y Guyana se podrán asociar a este proceso sin perjuicio de sus obligaciones con el CARICOM.
3.- Integración física, energética y de comunicaciones en América del Sur, impulsado por la Iniciativa de Integración Regional Sudamericana (IIRSA)
4.- Armonización de políticas de desarrollo rural y agroalimento.
5.- Transferencia de tecnología y de cooperación horizontal en todos los ámbitos de la ciencia, educación y cultura.
6.- Creciente interacción entre las empresas y la sociedad civil en la integración.
Con la integración, América del Sur, representa una población de 361 millones de habitantes.
Además están las siguientes cifras:
Superficie: 17 millones de kilómetros cuadrados.
Producto Interno Bruto: 973.613 millones de dólares.
Exportaciones: 181.856 millones de dólares.
Países miembros: 12 Estados nacionales.
Según el «libro de datos mundiales» preparado por la CIA (The World Factbook), las repúblicas sudamericanas tienen un PIB por habitante que es entre dos y diez veces menor al de la Unión Europea.
Para superar las deficiencias, es indispensable acelerar los procesos de integración y derrotar los objetivos de dominación y neocolonización de Estados Unidos.
El Presidente de Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, tiene una visión optimista sobre el futuro de la Unión Sudamericana y no suele caer en las provocaciones divisionistas.
Cuando asistió a la IV Cumbre Unión Europea-América, dijo tajantemente: “En Brasil pretenden enemistar a Venezuela con ese país; pero yo les puedo decir que Lula y yo, somos hermanos. Brasil está con nosotros en el proyecto del Gasoducto del Sur y pareciera que a algunos brasileños, esto se les olvida”.
ATRÁS ESTÁ EL PODER CADUCO DE EEUU
Pero atrás de esas intenciones divisionistas está el poder económico, político y militar de Estados Unidos.
Washington exacerba las tensiones en América Latina. No cesa en su empeño de denigrar a la Revolución Cubana y de satanizar al Comandante Fidel Castro. Las agresiones son permanentes y ahora las extiende a Chávez y al proceso de la Revolución Bolivariana.
Estados Unidos, bajo la Administración Bush, usa y abusa de la guerra mediática desatada en contra de América del Sur y de los gobernantes democráticos y progresistas a los que acusa de querer acabar con las democracias al estilo norteamericano, de implementar modelos “socialistas totalitarios”, y niega los logros evidentes alcanzados por Chávez, para lo que recurre a las técnicas de la guerra sicológica a fin de atemorizar a los pueblos y volverlos en contra de Hugo Chávez, de Lula, de Correa, de Kirchner, de Evo Morales.
La guerra desatada a través de los medios de comunicación social se encamina a querer recuperar el terreno perdido en América del Sur gracias al surgimiento de líderes de la nueva izquierda que, básicamente, se muestran antiimperialistas y que decidieron impulsar y promover la Comunidad de Naciones de América del Sur.
La Casa Blanca recurre a menudo a las tácticas y estrategias de la Guerra Fría.
Descalifica y denigra a nuestros pueblos, impone condiciones a los gobiernos, crea nuevos fantasmas como la lucha contra el narcotráfico, el crimen organizado internacional, en tanto penaliza la migración ilegal, construye un muro gigantesco a lo largo de la frontera con México y siembra de miseria a América Latina en nombre de la libertad, como predijera el Libertador Simón Bolívar, en su célebre Carta de Guayaquil.
Tribunal Dignidad, Soberanía y Paz Contra la Guerra
Agrupa a intelectuales y representantes de organizaciones sociales del Ecuador y se formó en el teatro Universitario de Quito al inicio de la última invasión estadounidense e inglesa a Iraq.
IMPORTANTE: Para el Tribunal Dignidad, Soberanía y Paz contra la Guerra, serán muy valiosos sus comentarios y opiniones sobre este documento. Mail: tribunalpazecuador@yahoo.com
El mundo cambia, pero el imperio no - por AIN *, Angel Rodríguez Alvarez *
Cada día son mayores las evidencias de que el gobierno norteamericano considera el planeta tierra como si este fuera una finca de su propiedad. A la inmensa cantidad de episodios confirmatorios de lo anterior se suma ahora la exigencia de Washington a Nicaragua de que destruya más de un millar de cohetes tierra-aire de fabricación soviética.
Se trata de los conocidos Sam-7, adquiridos por el primer gobierno sandinista en la década del 80 del pasado siglo, que por sus más de 20 años de fabricados y carácter táctico, no ofrecen el menor peligro para los países limítrofes y mucho menos para EE.UU.
En la región se encuentran emplazados o almacenados en arsenales de los países vecinos de Nicaragua, medios de artillería antiaérea mucho más modernos y de mayor alcance, entregados por los propios Estados Unidos mediante tratados de cooperación hemisférica.
Cabe entonces suponer que las "preocupaciones" de la Casa Blanca no están asociadas con el aspecto militar del asunto, sino con la necesidad de reafirmar su posición de rector absoluto en el manejo de las fuerzas armadas de la región, considerada desde siempre como el más seguro traspatio del Imperio.
Tampoco resulta descabellada la idea de que se trate de un ejercicio de exploración con el fin de comprobar la voluntad del nuevo gobierno sandinista de defender los principios soberanos y marchar con rumbo independiente en materia política.
En la insólita exigencia de la Unión están, sin duda alguna, los dos componentes citados, aunque el segundo parece más llevado de la mano dada la incógnita que representa la existencia de un renovado equipo presidencial, encabezado por un veterano antagonista de las posiciones imperiales.
La respuesta del mandatario nica parece confirmar las sospechas de la Oficina Oval. "A Nicaragua, declaró Ortega, se le tiene que respetar y yo voy a defender con la Constitución y la ley, el respeto que se le debe a Nicaragua." Cabe preguntarse por qué Washington recurre a tal procedimiento, solo para conocer lo que la simple observación de los acontecimientos le permitiría percibir con absoluta claridad.
El mundo está cambiando y cada vez más las políticas exteriores de ordeno y mando dejan de ser efectivas. Ejemplos, de ahora mismo, sobran para demostrar la creciente ineficiencia del chantaje y el soborno como medios para extender sus dominios.
Corea del Norte se resiste a abandonar su programa nuclear; mientras el mundo no acuda al desarme general; Irán no cede terreno en su derecho a emplear, como si hacen los desarrollados, la energía nuclear con fines pacíficos; el pueblo iraquí lucha con creciente eficiencia contra la agresión y el crimen.
Y América Latina hace mecer con fuerza indetenible el péndulo hacia la izquierda con el propósito de sacudirse la dependencia, recuperar sus recursos y marchar con rumbo propio, y lo logra oponiendo a la tozudez imperial la fuerza de las ideas.
Quizás resulte oportuno recomendar a Bush, Condoleezza y Gates un ejercicio de meditación en torno a una frase pronunciada por el presidente ecuatoriano Rafael Correa: "No estamos en una época de cambios, estamos ante un cambio de época".
AIN
Agencia Cubana de Noticias
http://www.ain.cu/
Se trata de los conocidos Sam-7, adquiridos por el primer gobierno sandinista en la década del 80 del pasado siglo, que por sus más de 20 años de fabricados y carácter táctico, no ofrecen el menor peligro para los países limítrofes y mucho menos para EE.UU.
En la región se encuentran emplazados o almacenados en arsenales de los países vecinos de Nicaragua, medios de artillería antiaérea mucho más modernos y de mayor alcance, entregados por los propios Estados Unidos mediante tratados de cooperación hemisférica.
Cabe entonces suponer que las "preocupaciones" de la Casa Blanca no están asociadas con el aspecto militar del asunto, sino con la necesidad de reafirmar su posición de rector absoluto en el manejo de las fuerzas armadas de la región, considerada desde siempre como el más seguro traspatio del Imperio.
Tampoco resulta descabellada la idea de que se trate de un ejercicio de exploración con el fin de comprobar la voluntad del nuevo gobierno sandinista de defender los principios soberanos y marchar con rumbo independiente en materia política.
En la insólita exigencia de la Unión están, sin duda alguna, los dos componentes citados, aunque el segundo parece más llevado de la mano dada la incógnita que representa la existencia de un renovado equipo presidencial, encabezado por un veterano antagonista de las posiciones imperiales.
La respuesta del mandatario nica parece confirmar las sospechas de la Oficina Oval. "A Nicaragua, declaró Ortega, se le tiene que respetar y yo voy a defender con la Constitución y la ley, el respeto que se le debe a Nicaragua." Cabe preguntarse por qué Washington recurre a tal procedimiento, solo para conocer lo que la simple observación de los acontecimientos le permitiría percibir con absoluta claridad.
El mundo está cambiando y cada vez más las políticas exteriores de ordeno y mando dejan de ser efectivas. Ejemplos, de ahora mismo, sobran para demostrar la creciente ineficiencia del chantaje y el soborno como medios para extender sus dominios.
Corea del Norte se resiste a abandonar su programa nuclear; mientras el mundo no acuda al desarme general; Irán no cede terreno en su derecho a emplear, como si hacen los desarrollados, la energía nuclear con fines pacíficos; el pueblo iraquí lucha con creciente eficiencia contra la agresión y el crimen.
Y América Latina hace mecer con fuerza indetenible el péndulo hacia la izquierda con el propósito de sacudirse la dependencia, recuperar sus recursos y marchar con rumbo propio, y lo logra oponiendo a la tozudez imperial la fuerza de las ideas.
Quizás resulte oportuno recomendar a Bush, Condoleezza y Gates un ejercicio de meditación en torno a una frase pronunciada por el presidente ecuatoriano Rafael Correa: "No estamos en una época de cambios, estamos ante un cambio de época".
AIN
Agencia Cubana de Noticias
http://www.ain.cu/
Represión y control - El FBI en las universidades norteamericanas
por Gaston Pardo*
El nuevo macartismo ensombrece las universidades estadunidenses y amenaza con implantarse en el área norteamericana para en seguida ir dominando las áreas educativas del continente. Esto cunduciría a la mediatización de la educación, cuyo rechazo ha comenzado ya en Estados Unidos.
Poco tiempo después de los ataques del 11S, el Consejo Estadunidense de Miembros y Graduados (ACTA), de Lynne Cheney, esposa del vicepresidente norteamericano, publicó un informe espeluznante titulado: Defendamos la civilización: cómo nuestras universidades están fallando a Estados Unidos y qué podemos hacer al respecto.
Los autores del documento se quejan de que “el ámbito universitario es el único sector de la sociedad estadounidense que está claramente dividido en su respuesta a los ataque sufridos por EU”. Suele etiquetar a las universidades sospechosas como “eslabón débil en la respuesta norteamericana”.
El director de inteligencia de la revista Executive Intelligence Review, Jeffrey Steinberg dice que, entre otras medidas que se dispararon después de David Horowitz, presidente del Centro para el Estudio de la Cultura Popular proporcionó los fondos a un antiguo alumno de la Universidad de California en Los Angeles (UCLA), de 24 años, Andrew Jones, para que fundara la Asociación de Graduados Bruin, grupo globalista que ofrecía pagar a los alumnos para que grabaran las clases de los profesores sospechosos de ser izquierdistas.
Como consecuencia de sus "investigaciones", Jones publicó un folleto titulado Dirty Thirty («Los treinta abominables»), en el que denunció a otros tantos profesores a los que se hizo blanco de ataques por sus inclinaciones izquierdistas. Hay una lista en circulación que se refiere a 28 de los 30 anunciados. Dos "están por anunciarse". Entre los primeros se encuentran Doglas Kellner, Gabrielle Piterberg, Robert Watson, Sondra Hale, Saree Makdisi y otros.
En cuanto el entramado de las denuncias fue hecho público, Horowitz despidió a Jones, aunque en febrero de 2005 el dirigente del Centro para el Estudio de la Cultura Popular presentó su libro The professors: the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. cuya publicidad recibida lo decía todo: Pronto en tu universidad más cercana habrá terroristas, racistas y comunistas; tú los conoces como los profesores. Los académicos radicales actuales no son la excepción sino la legión. Lejos de de ser inofensivos escupen un antinorteamericanismo violento, predican el antisemitismo y celebran el asesinato de soldados y civiles norteamericanos; todo mientras cobran dólares de los impuestos y las colegiaturas para que nuestros hijos sean inductrinados.
Para septiembre de 2005, la campaña de terror sembrada por Lynne Cheney y David Horowitz había creado ya las condiciones para que el FBI entrara directamente a los claustros universitarios. El 15 de septiembre el director del buró Robert S. Mueller anunció la creación de la Junta Consultiva de Seguridad Nacional en la Educación Superior, que será el enlace para la colaboración de los cuerpos docentes universitarios con el FBI. Su objetivo es combatir el espionaje y la subversión en las universidades. En ese engranaje de vigilancia el papel de la junta consiste en controlar el destino de los millones de dólares que las universidades reciben de sus benefactores para labores de investigación y desarrollo de la técnica.
La obsesión por el terror
Aaron Yule, miembro de la redacción de « EIR» en español agrega que la política del gobierno de Bush ha sido el combate al terror, no sólo en el exterior, en otros países, sino también entre sus propios ciudadanos. Se está utilizando la propaganda más aterradora para mantener a la población estadunidense en un estado de incertidumbre total y de miedo para hablar de las medidas de Bush.
No obstante los esfuerzos por atemorizar a los ciudadanos y los menores de edad mediante la difusión masiva de mensajes alarmantes y generadores de paranoia, no han podido evitar la resistencia de muchos jóvenes al clima de demencia que intenta implantar el gobierno bushista.
Ha sido el entusiasmo de los jóvenes en edad universitaria por poner punto final a la locura desenfrenada del gobierno federal lo que está haciendo que renazca el optimismo ante la posibilidad de que el Partido Demócrata llegue a significar un cambio absoluto si llega al poder en las próximas elecciones federales de 2008.
¿Una educación para el imperio?
El primer intento de legislar sobre la implantación del miedo data de principios de 2003 cuando llegó la fecha de renovar el Título VI de la Ley de Educación superior de 1965, que proporciona financiamiento a los programas universitarios del país.
La ley ha sido muy importante para reglamentar el funcionamiento de las escuelas, pero en septiembre de ese año se sometió el Proyecto de Ley HR 3077 (Ley de estudios internacionales en la Educación superior) ante la la Subcomisión sobre Educación y fuerza Laboral para reformar el Título VI. La resolución fue presentada por el representante republicano Pete Hoekstra, aunque no fue él el autor de su contenido. La autoría del documento es atribuida a Stanley Kutz, del Instituto Hoover. Uno de los cambios propuestos por Kurtz, con el propósito de detener la discriminación política, fue el de que el Congreso "cree una junta de supervisión a cargo del Título VI y que determine quién recibe su financiamiento". Dicha junta se conoció en la resolución 3077 de Hoekstra con el nombre de Junta Consultiva de Educación Internacional. cuando a Stanley le preguntaron si había sido influido por Hoekstra, respondió:
Sí creo que algunos de sus comentarios son válidos. No creo que estos estudios deban usarse para promover un punto de vista ideológico. Estoy a favor de que se eduque a los estudiantes en asuntos internacionales, no de que se les meta en un aula para que los indocrinen en una ideología política.
La resolución fue aprobada por la cámara de Representantes el 21 de octubre de 2003. David Brodsky, escritor y asesor que tiene varios posgrados en la Universidad de Yale bautizó la Resolución 3077 como la ley de educación para el imperio. Y merced a la oposición abrumadora a la resolución, el Senado la rechazó a fines de 2003 en espera de pasar a una subcomisión. Mientras tanto, Horowitz y otros neocons se organizan para legitimar los comités de vigilancia. Pittsburg.com informó en febrero de 2005 cuál es el objetivo de este grupo:
La Carta de los Derechos Académicos es una declaración de independencia de la tiranía de opresores intelectuales en las universidades. David Horowitz, presidente del Centro para el Estudios de la Cultura Popular, es su padre fundador.
Las universidades dominadas por la izquierda autoritaria permiten que profesores de mentalidad afín cometan actos intolerables de coerción intelectual contra quienes no aceptan su ortodoxia extremista.
La Asociación Estudunidense de Profesores Universitaruios declaró, desde el inicio de su actividad en 1915 que la facultad debía evitar aprovecharse injustamente de la inmadures de los estudiantes para indoctrinarlo con las opiniones personales de los maestros.
Sí, los profesores alguna vez tuvieron esta ética.
El TLC hará proliferar el nuevo macartismo
Esta Carta de los Derechos Académicos es una verdadera declaración de guerra contra la Constitución. También es un atentado a las leyes fundamentales de los estados signatarios del TLC, Canadá, Estados Unidos y México el programa globalizador que se prondrá en marcha en los tres países, al parecer sin oposición, como consecuencia de la persuasión llevada a cabo por organismos integrados por globalistas a sueldo. Ellos son el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores (FRC) de Estados Unidos; el Consejo Canadiense de Altos Ejecutivos (CCAE) y el socio mexicano del FRC: el Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. Sus propósitos están enmarcados en el documento titulado La construcción de una comunidad en América del Norte.
Su objetivo es nada menos que establecer un gobierno supranacional de intereses privados en la región para el 2010, cuyos confines quedarán definidos. como lo ha afirmado el grupo especial, su recomendación medular es el establecimiento de una comunidad económica y de seguridad de América del Norte, cuyos confines quedarán definidos por un perímetro común arancelario y de seguridad exteriores.
El grupo especial lo copresiden El banquero estadunidense Bill Weld; Pedro Aspe, representante mexicano del nefasto Carlos Salinas de Gortari, educado en Harvard; y el canadiense John P, Manley, ex alto funcionario del gobierno que encabezó la Comisión de Seguridad Pública tras los ataques del 11S.
Es de esperar que la política de seguridad común anunciada por estos perros guardianes de la globalización americana apunte asimismo hacia las universidades del área continental. Por lo pronto, los privatizadores mexicanos han aplaudido los primeros pasos en favor de que la educación pública desaparezca dejando de recibir fondos gubernamentales. El desastre de los centros de cultura ocurrirá a menos que la inminente administración demócrata cambie el rumbo.
Gaston Pardo
Periodista mexicano. Es corresponsal de la Red Voltaire en México.
El nuevo macartismo ensombrece las universidades estadunidenses y amenaza con implantarse en el área norteamericana para en seguida ir dominando las áreas educativas del continente. Esto cunduciría a la mediatización de la educación, cuyo rechazo ha comenzado ya en Estados Unidos.
Poco tiempo después de los ataques del 11S, el Consejo Estadunidense de Miembros y Graduados (ACTA), de Lynne Cheney, esposa del vicepresidente norteamericano, publicó un informe espeluznante titulado: Defendamos la civilización: cómo nuestras universidades están fallando a Estados Unidos y qué podemos hacer al respecto.
Los autores del documento se quejan de que “el ámbito universitario es el único sector de la sociedad estadounidense que está claramente dividido en su respuesta a los ataque sufridos por EU”. Suele etiquetar a las universidades sospechosas como “eslabón débil en la respuesta norteamericana”.
El director de inteligencia de la revista Executive Intelligence Review, Jeffrey Steinberg dice que, entre otras medidas que se dispararon después de David Horowitz, presidente del Centro para el Estudio de la Cultura Popular proporcionó los fondos a un antiguo alumno de la Universidad de California en Los Angeles (UCLA), de 24 años, Andrew Jones, para que fundara la Asociación de Graduados Bruin, grupo globalista que ofrecía pagar a los alumnos para que grabaran las clases de los profesores sospechosos de ser izquierdistas.
Como consecuencia de sus "investigaciones", Jones publicó un folleto titulado Dirty Thirty («Los treinta abominables»), en el que denunció a otros tantos profesores a los que se hizo blanco de ataques por sus inclinaciones izquierdistas. Hay una lista en circulación que se refiere a 28 de los 30 anunciados. Dos "están por anunciarse". Entre los primeros se encuentran Doglas Kellner, Gabrielle Piterberg, Robert Watson, Sondra Hale, Saree Makdisi y otros.
En cuanto el entramado de las denuncias fue hecho público, Horowitz despidió a Jones, aunque en febrero de 2005 el dirigente del Centro para el Estudio de la Cultura Popular presentó su libro The professors: the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America. cuya publicidad recibida lo decía todo: Pronto en tu universidad más cercana habrá terroristas, racistas y comunistas; tú los conoces como los profesores. Los académicos radicales actuales no son la excepción sino la legión. Lejos de de ser inofensivos escupen un antinorteamericanismo violento, predican el antisemitismo y celebran el asesinato de soldados y civiles norteamericanos; todo mientras cobran dólares de los impuestos y las colegiaturas para que nuestros hijos sean inductrinados.
Para septiembre de 2005, la campaña de terror sembrada por Lynne Cheney y David Horowitz había creado ya las condiciones para que el FBI entrara directamente a los claustros universitarios. El 15 de septiembre el director del buró Robert S. Mueller anunció la creación de la Junta Consultiva de Seguridad Nacional en la Educación Superior, que será el enlace para la colaboración de los cuerpos docentes universitarios con el FBI. Su objetivo es combatir el espionaje y la subversión en las universidades. En ese engranaje de vigilancia el papel de la junta consiste en controlar el destino de los millones de dólares que las universidades reciben de sus benefactores para labores de investigación y desarrollo de la técnica.
La obsesión por el terror
Aaron Yule, miembro de la redacción de « EIR» en español agrega que la política del gobierno de Bush ha sido el combate al terror, no sólo en el exterior, en otros países, sino también entre sus propios ciudadanos. Se está utilizando la propaganda más aterradora para mantener a la población estadunidense en un estado de incertidumbre total y de miedo para hablar de las medidas de Bush.
No obstante los esfuerzos por atemorizar a los ciudadanos y los menores de edad mediante la difusión masiva de mensajes alarmantes y generadores de paranoia, no han podido evitar la resistencia de muchos jóvenes al clima de demencia que intenta implantar el gobierno bushista.
Ha sido el entusiasmo de los jóvenes en edad universitaria por poner punto final a la locura desenfrenada del gobierno federal lo que está haciendo que renazca el optimismo ante la posibilidad de que el Partido Demócrata llegue a significar un cambio absoluto si llega al poder en las próximas elecciones federales de 2008.
¿Una educación para el imperio?
El primer intento de legislar sobre la implantación del miedo data de principios de 2003 cuando llegó la fecha de renovar el Título VI de la Ley de Educación superior de 1965, que proporciona financiamiento a los programas universitarios del país.
La ley ha sido muy importante para reglamentar el funcionamiento de las escuelas, pero en septiembre de ese año se sometió el Proyecto de Ley HR 3077 (Ley de estudios internacionales en la Educación superior) ante la la Subcomisión sobre Educación y fuerza Laboral para reformar el Título VI. La resolución fue presentada por el representante republicano Pete Hoekstra, aunque no fue él el autor de su contenido. La autoría del documento es atribuida a Stanley Kutz, del Instituto Hoover. Uno de los cambios propuestos por Kurtz, con el propósito de detener la discriminación política, fue el de que el Congreso "cree una junta de supervisión a cargo del Título VI y que determine quién recibe su financiamiento". Dicha junta se conoció en la resolución 3077 de Hoekstra con el nombre de Junta Consultiva de Educación Internacional. cuando a Stanley le preguntaron si había sido influido por Hoekstra, respondió:
Sí creo que algunos de sus comentarios son válidos. No creo que estos estudios deban usarse para promover un punto de vista ideológico. Estoy a favor de que se eduque a los estudiantes en asuntos internacionales, no de que se les meta en un aula para que los indocrinen en una ideología política.
La resolución fue aprobada por la cámara de Representantes el 21 de octubre de 2003. David Brodsky, escritor y asesor que tiene varios posgrados en la Universidad de Yale bautizó la Resolución 3077 como la ley de educación para el imperio. Y merced a la oposición abrumadora a la resolución, el Senado la rechazó a fines de 2003 en espera de pasar a una subcomisión. Mientras tanto, Horowitz y otros neocons se organizan para legitimar los comités de vigilancia. Pittsburg.com informó en febrero de 2005 cuál es el objetivo de este grupo:
La Carta de los Derechos Académicos es una declaración de independencia de la tiranía de opresores intelectuales en las universidades. David Horowitz, presidente del Centro para el Estudios de la Cultura Popular, es su padre fundador.
Las universidades dominadas por la izquierda autoritaria permiten que profesores de mentalidad afín cometan actos intolerables de coerción intelectual contra quienes no aceptan su ortodoxia extremista.
La Asociación Estudunidense de Profesores Universitaruios declaró, desde el inicio de su actividad en 1915 que la facultad debía evitar aprovecharse injustamente de la inmadures de los estudiantes para indoctrinarlo con las opiniones personales de los maestros.
Sí, los profesores alguna vez tuvieron esta ética.
El TLC hará proliferar el nuevo macartismo
Esta Carta de los Derechos Académicos es una verdadera declaración de guerra contra la Constitución. También es un atentado a las leyes fundamentales de los estados signatarios del TLC, Canadá, Estados Unidos y México el programa globalizador que se prondrá en marcha en los tres países, al parecer sin oposición, como consecuencia de la persuasión llevada a cabo por organismos integrados por globalistas a sueldo. Ellos son el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores (FRC) de Estados Unidos; el Consejo Canadiense de Altos Ejecutivos (CCAE) y el socio mexicano del FRC: el Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales. Sus propósitos están enmarcados en el documento titulado La construcción de una comunidad en América del Norte.
Su objetivo es nada menos que establecer un gobierno supranacional de intereses privados en la región para el 2010, cuyos confines quedarán definidos. como lo ha afirmado el grupo especial, su recomendación medular es el establecimiento de una comunidad económica y de seguridad de América del Norte, cuyos confines quedarán definidos por un perímetro común arancelario y de seguridad exteriores.
El grupo especial lo copresiden El banquero estadunidense Bill Weld; Pedro Aspe, representante mexicano del nefasto Carlos Salinas de Gortari, educado en Harvard; y el canadiense John P, Manley, ex alto funcionario del gobierno que encabezó la Comisión de Seguridad Pública tras los ataques del 11S.
Es de esperar que la política de seguridad común anunciada por estos perros guardianes de la globalización americana apunte asimismo hacia las universidades del área continental. Por lo pronto, los privatizadores mexicanos han aplaudido los primeros pasos en favor de que la educación pública desaparezca dejando de recibir fondos gubernamentales. El desastre de los centros de cultura ocurrirá a menos que la inminente administración demócrata cambie el rumbo.
Gaston Pardo
Periodista mexicano. Es corresponsal de la Red Voltaire en México.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Russia is not a clay pigeon on an American shooting range
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Vladimir Simonov) - According to the Western media, "Russian special forces used images of the poisoned former spy Alexander Litvinenko as target practice." I can understand their concern, as permitting such a folly would be absolutely amoral.
I can also understand the outrage of millions of Russians on learning on Friday morning that the Pentagon has put up Russia's image on the army shooting range. Moreover, it appears that Americans are prepared to fire live missiles if they consider the danger coming from Russia excessive.
This is how I interpret the following statement by Pentagon chief Robert Gates about Russia as an adversary.
"We need the full range of military capabilities," including ground combat forces to battle large armies and nimble special operations troops to scout out terrorist threats, Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. "We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere," he said.
Did Gates add Russia to the "axis of evil" by mistake? I don't think so, as he said some time later that in addition to waging a war on global terror, the Untied States needed to confront threats created by the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and unclear positions of such countries as Russia and China, which are also building up their armaments.
I don't know about China, but Gates chose a really bad time for berating Russia. Several days ago, President George W. Bush presented to Congress a draft federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year, where $700 billion out of the $2.9 trillion total is earmarked for defense, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the buildup of American forces, and the development of expensive missile systems.
So, is it the military buildup in Russia, whose defense budget is at least 25 times smaller than the American one, that is alarming Washington or vice versa? Had the Kremlin applied the same alarm scale to the U.S. military buildup, the humankind would have started crying wolf by now.
I was shocked by Gates' reference to the vague positions of countries such as Russia. I cannot believe that Robert Gates, a specialist on the Soviet Union and Soviet leadership, especially of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era, a one-time White House Russia analyst, and a former CIA director, has any doubts about the Kremlin's current position.
In December 2006, he thought Russia's position was clear enough to explain it in Senate during his nomination hearing. "I think that what Putin is trying to do, frankly, is re-establish Russia as a great power," Gates said. "And I think Putin is trying to restore the pride of Russia. I think he has a lot of popular support at home for the things he's trying to do."
Many people thought Gates would speak for the U.S. administration's more realistic "dove" faction, including as regards relations with Russia. He promised to be quite unlike his neo-conservative predecessor Donald Rumsfeld and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.
Idealists were jubilant, sincerely believing that the advocates of the "American age" theory of changing the world according to American values were ceding their positions in Washington. They thought the hawks were being replaced with more tolerant people respecting other countries' opinions, such as Bob Gates.
The first to fall prey to that illusion were American analysts, who heralded a forthcoming thaw in relations with Russia.
Dr. Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said that now that Gates had become part of the administration, an attempt would be made to promote military and military-technical cooperation with Russia.
Unfortunately Cohen was wrong. Washington intends to deploy ballistic missile launchers and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, and has moved the world's largest Sea-Based X-Band Radar from Hawaii to the Aleutians in the Bering Sea, off Kamchatka.
John Michael "Mike" McConnell, the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has promised to pay more attention to Russia. He has created a "mission manager" position to focus on Russia. The focus of current mission manager positions also includes Cuba and Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and counterterrorism.
And lastly, Gates said last Thursday that the U.S. army should prepare for a war against Russia.
What has happened to the strategic partnership between the White House and the Kremlin?
This is a multifaceted problem, with one core element. The painful American failures in Iraq, the aborted attempt to turn the Broader Middle East into a testing ground for the Western model of democracy, and the flop of the neo-conservative doctrine of "a new American age" are pushing the U.S. administration to search for external reasons for failure, that is, somebody to blame for American mistakes.
In that situation, Russia with its growing economy, an image of the world's largest energy supplier, and the new confidence of its leaders seemed like an easy "clay pigeon" for the American shooting range.
I can also understand the outrage of millions of Russians on learning on Friday morning that the Pentagon has put up Russia's image on the army shooting range. Moreover, it appears that Americans are prepared to fire live missiles if they consider the danger coming from Russia excessive.
This is how I interpret the following statement by Pentagon chief Robert Gates about Russia as an adversary.
"We need the full range of military capabilities," including ground combat forces to battle large armies and nimble special operations troops to scout out terrorist threats, Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. "We don't know what's going to develop in places like Russia and China, in North Korea, in Iran and elsewhere," he said.
Did Gates add Russia to the "axis of evil" by mistake? I don't think so, as he said some time later that in addition to waging a war on global terror, the Untied States needed to confront threats created by the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, and unclear positions of such countries as Russia and China, which are also building up their armaments.
I don't know about China, but Gates chose a really bad time for berating Russia. Several days ago, President George W. Bush presented to Congress a draft federal budget for the 2008 fiscal year, where $700 billion out of the $2.9 trillion total is earmarked for defense, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the buildup of American forces, and the development of expensive missile systems.
So, is it the military buildup in Russia, whose defense budget is at least 25 times smaller than the American one, that is alarming Washington or vice versa? Had the Kremlin applied the same alarm scale to the U.S. military buildup, the humankind would have started crying wolf by now.
I was shocked by Gates' reference to the vague positions of countries such as Russia. I cannot believe that Robert Gates, a specialist on the Soviet Union and Soviet leadership, especially of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin era, a one-time White House Russia analyst, and a former CIA director, has any doubts about the Kremlin's current position.
In December 2006, he thought Russia's position was clear enough to explain it in Senate during his nomination hearing. "I think that what Putin is trying to do, frankly, is re-establish Russia as a great power," Gates said. "And I think Putin is trying to restore the pride of Russia. I think he has a lot of popular support at home for the things he's trying to do."
Many people thought Gates would speak for the U.S. administration's more realistic "dove" faction, including as regards relations with Russia. He promised to be quite unlike his neo-conservative predecessor Donald Rumsfeld and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.
Idealists were jubilant, sincerely believing that the advocates of the "American age" theory of changing the world according to American values were ceding their positions in Washington. They thought the hawks were being replaced with more tolerant people respecting other countries' opinions, such as Bob Gates.
The first to fall prey to that illusion were American analysts, who heralded a forthcoming thaw in relations with Russia.
Dr. Ariel Cohen, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said that now that Gates had become part of the administration, an attempt would be made to promote military and military-technical cooperation with Russia.
Unfortunately Cohen was wrong. Washington intends to deploy ballistic missile launchers and radars in Poland and the Czech Republic, and has moved the world's largest Sea-Based X-Band Radar from Hawaii to the Aleutians in the Bering Sea, off Kamchatka.
John Michael "Mike" McConnell, the newly appointed Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has promised to pay more attention to Russia. He has created a "mission manager" position to focus on Russia. The focus of current mission manager positions also includes Cuba and Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Iraq and counterterrorism.
And lastly, Gates said last Thursday that the U.S. army should prepare for a war against Russia.
What has happened to the strategic partnership between the White House and the Kremlin?
This is a multifaceted problem, with one core element. The painful American failures in Iraq, the aborted attempt to turn the Broader Middle East into a testing ground for the Western model of democracy, and the flop of the neo-conservative doctrine of "a new American age" are pushing the U.S. administration to search for external reasons for failure, that is, somebody to blame for American mistakes.
In that situation, Russia with its growing economy, an image of the world's largest energy supplier, and the new confidence of its leaders seemed like an easy "clay pigeon" for the American shooting range.
The World Can't Wait, Won't Wait, Isn't Waiting
Cynthia McKinney Speech
Kuala Lumpur Peace Conference
"Something is happening in our world!" The world's marginalized, exploited, and dispossessed are taking center stage because they have decided to defy imperial domination. They are saying that resource wars that hurt the masses and benefit the few are illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.
02/08/07 "ICHBlog" -- - It is among the greatest pleasures of my life to have been invited to participate in this Conference dedicated to peace. I look forward to joining the international community of activists dedicated to change based on the principles of dignity, justice, self-determination, and peace for all the peoples of the world.
Everyone in this room and every participant in this Conference is here because we want peace. Peace and justice.
And these principles of peace and dignity, justice and self-determination were embodied in the policies pursued by our host, The Honorable Tun Mahathir, while he was Prime Minister of Malaysia. In fact, it was Tun Mahathir who put Malaysia on the map for me when he stood up to the world's economic powers and refused to cash their check of dependency. Instead, Tun Mahathir returned their check and said out loud for the entire world to hear that Malaysia would chart its own course. As a result of that singular act of pride, self-determination, confidence, and independence, Malaysia boasts a strong economy and a legacy of uncommon independence.
But, Tun Mahathir has also learned that such independent thinking, and confidence in the people comes at a personal price. For while his message ricocheted around the world and struck me, an African American woman steeped in the Old Confederate South of the United States, the people we fight for are rarely in a position to reward such acts of courage. Yet the powers that be always seem to be able to exact their punishment. So oftentimes, where there is courage, truth, compassion, belief in the people, and a solid sense of right and wrong, there is also aloneness, vulnerability, or deep disappointment.
But instead of abandoning the struggle, we come together at this important Conference to commune with each other, learn from each other, give love and support to each other, recharge our batteries, and continue our work on behalf of what is right in a world currently filled with so much wrong.
Not too long ago, I was asked by Debra Sweet to endorse the activities of the American peace-seeking organization named World Can't Wait. They advocate the impeachment of George Bush and other Members of his Administration because in their view, the World Can't Wait.
I agree with them.
And after having been defeated for the second time by an unsupportive Democratic Party and Republican voters who crossed over and voted in the Democratic Primary for my opponent, and knowing that George Bush had earned impeachment, I decided that I would do it if no one else would. So, on my last day in Congress, after 12 years of service to my people and my country, I offered Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice.
Impeachment is America's roadmap back to dignity. Impeachment is the Constitutional way to handle an Administration that has, from the outset, violated so many tenets of the U.S. Constitution. It is also a way of saying "No, we do not condone what has been done in our name, and we are not complicit."
The first time I felt the sting of Republican retribution and Democratic Party indifference was in 2002 when I questioned the Administration's explanation of what happened on September 11th, 2001. I am the Member of Congress who asked the simple question, "What did the Bush Administration know and when did it know it, about the tragic events of September 11th." After I was defeated in 2002, I traveled all over my country supporting the anti-war movement and informing the American people of the lies of the Bush Administration.
The film "American Blackout" tells the whole story of how Republicans stole two Presidential elections and of how Republicans stole two elections from me.
Well, as it turns out, The World Didn't Wait. And activists in the rest of the world are the people now practicing the art of effective resistance.
I guess it started in 1959 with Cuba. However, Cuba is no longer alone in its attempt to chart its own course.
In 1998, Venezuelans elected Hugo Chavez who has used oil profits to set up healthcare for all, arts programs for the children, and subsidized education, including free universities.
In 2001, the people of Cote d'Ivoire rejected dictatorship and up to today, continue to try and chart an independent course despite huge big power interference due to offshore oil reputed to be of the quality of Nigeria's.
In 2002, Brazilians sent shockwaves throughout the Americas by electing the Workers' Party Lula to become their head of state.
In 2003 Argentina elected Kirchner, 2004, Spain elected Zapatero, and India rejected the BJP politics of division. In 2005, Bolivia elected Morales; 2006, Bachelet in Chile, Correa in Ecuador, Ortega in Nicaragua were all elected, with one agenda—to provide prosperity, independence, justice, and peace—to the people that they represent.
And let us not forget the valiant people of Haiti who twice have had their elected President, Aristide, removed from office by means of U.S. intrigue. But the Haitian people took to the streets and demanded that their votes be counted and that the election not be stolen as the U.S. opposed the election of Aristide's friend and ally, Rene Preval.
Today, Preval is the President of Haiti because the Haitian people took every step within their means to ensure that their votes were counted and that their democracy was respected.
Against tremendous odds, people who have far less than most Americans have—in terms at least of material goods—stood up and took their fates in their hands. They did what Mario Savio asked Americans to do in the 1960s. They put their bodies against the levers and the gears and the wheels of the machine and they said to the owners if you don't stop it, we will. And stop it, they did. The people of these countries stopped the machine. And I know that Americans can do it, too.
On the day before he was murdered, in his less-celebrated "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that he is happy to be living in the second half of the 20th Century because something is happening in our world. He said, "The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled . . . whether in Johannesburg, Nairobi, Accra, or New York City, the cry is always the same: "We want to be free."
Well, I can stand here nearly 40 years later and say that at the dawn of the 21st Century, "something is happening in our world!" The world's marginalized, exploited, and dispossessed are taking center stage because they have decided to defy imperial domination. They are saying that resource wars that hurt the masses and benefit the few are illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.
If Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were with us today, I think he would be proud of the people around the world who are standing up for themselves. But would he be proud of American resistance?
I'm sure Dr. King would wonder why the American people have failed to change their own government when it's so very possible to do, notwithstanding the stolen elections.
What is clear is that the world isn't waiting for the people of the United States to act. But what the world is showing us, is that if we, in the United States, fail to act, we will be the ones left far behind.
Republicans stole the 2000 Presidential election.
Then, on September 11th a grave tragedy befell our country. We, the American people, were promised a white paper by Colin Powell stating what happened, how it happened, and who did it. We have yet to receive such a white paper, Osama bin Laden is on the FBI website, but not for September 11th! And yet, the American people continue to rely on the truthfulness of the Administration for explanations.
Hot on the heels of September 11th, however, the Administration pushed through a series of draconian laws that usurp the United States Constitution and the civil liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights that make us "free," the ostensible cause of the September 11th attacks in the first place, according to the Administration story.
Then, the Administration seized the September 11th tragedy to invade and occupy Iraq while lying to the American people and the global community about why this action was necessary.
A campaign of terror ensued at home with the U.S. government targeting the Muslim community and actually rounding up innocent, law-abiding residents for interrogations. Those of all faiths, races, and ethnicities who dissented from the Administration's policies found themselves targeted for surveillance and worse. Medical records, bank records, telephone conversations, e-mails, regular mail, and more, all became subject to government seizure. Even church sermons, environmentalists, and peace groups were monitored. The Administration spied on the American people, breaking U.S. law, and lied to them about it.
The Administration stole the 2004 Presidential election, and immediately set the stage for attacks on other countries it didn't like. It told us to expect war for the next generation and targeted 60 countries around the world. It has now initiated gunboat diplomacy against Iran, is saber rattling against Syria, taunting North Korea, and has actually dropped bombs on the poor, defenseless people of Somalia. Ethiopia, a country with a proud heritage of never having succumbed to any colonial power is now firmly a Bush vassal, part of the Administration's war machine against fellow Africans.
Interestingly, none of what I've said is a secret in the U.S.
When Bobby Kennedy was asked about a U.S. military strike on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, his response was that it was unseemly for a country the size of the United States to use military force against a small country like Cuba.
Bobby Kennedy, would have been President of the United States had he not been murdered by assassin's bullets. And I'm told that Bobby Kennedy was considering Dr. King to be his Vice President, but the assassins got Dr. King, too.
Who could explain today's U.S. behavior to Bobby Kennedy or Dr. King? How do we maintain any dignity or pride or responsibility to our children and to the world's children when we fail to exercise every tool available to us to stop the Bush Administration and for that matter, any future Administration that would do this in our name?
I am pleased to announce that I have signed the online petition pledging not to vote for any candidate who has voted in the past or who will vote this year to fund the war.
The petition can be found at www.petitiononline.com/Abstain/petition.html.
The work being done here in Malaysia is necessary and we must conduct our lives in such a way as to mean it when we say "No War!"
Each one of us, individually, has no choice but to become the leader we are looking for. Otherwise, we will continue to get what we've always been given: handpicked leaders who don't represent us.
One way for the American people to demand accountability from their leaders and a return to respectability is to impeach the Bush Administration. However, the complicity of both major U.S. parties in this intensifying debacle is clear now that the Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table." And if the Democratic Congress, that owes its majority status to antiwar voters, votes to fund the war, then our mission will become very clear.
We will have to change the structure of U.S. politics because changing the people, clearly, isn't enough.
This is quite possible with the right set of circumstances. And the current elected leadership is helping to create those circumstances.
When the Presidential election was stolen in Mexico, defenders of democracy shut Mexico City down for weeks until the unrightful, new Mexican President was sworn in. After that, they formed a "parallel" government. And if Mexican defenders of democracy can do it, certainly American defenders of democracy can do it, too.
For us, nothing less than the soul of our country is at stake. But for the world, nothing less than the fate of mankind is at stake.
Because of the work of the Perdana Global Peace Organisation, Kuala Lumpur has become the "peace capital" of the world. And because of this Conference that should be taken to every Continent Kuala Lumpur will shine the light of peace on the world by showing us the horrors of war.
Thank you, Tun Mahathir, for hosting this Conference for peace. Thank you Tun Mahathir, for giving us the courage to go forth, especially in the United States, and build an uncompromised movement for dignity and justice, based on peace and love.
Thank you.
You can learn more about Cynthia McKinney at www.cynthiaforcongress.com and coming soon at www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com .
Link to this page: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/441/1/
Kuala Lumpur Peace Conference
"Something is happening in our world!" The world's marginalized, exploited, and dispossessed are taking center stage because they have decided to defy imperial domination. They are saying that resource wars that hurt the masses and benefit the few are illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.
02/08/07 "ICHBlog" -- - It is among the greatest pleasures of my life to have been invited to participate in this Conference dedicated to peace. I look forward to joining the international community of activists dedicated to change based on the principles of dignity, justice, self-determination, and peace for all the peoples of the world.
Everyone in this room and every participant in this Conference is here because we want peace. Peace and justice.
And these principles of peace and dignity, justice and self-determination were embodied in the policies pursued by our host, The Honorable Tun Mahathir, while he was Prime Minister of Malaysia. In fact, it was Tun Mahathir who put Malaysia on the map for me when he stood up to the world's economic powers and refused to cash their check of dependency. Instead, Tun Mahathir returned their check and said out loud for the entire world to hear that Malaysia would chart its own course. As a result of that singular act of pride, self-determination, confidence, and independence, Malaysia boasts a strong economy and a legacy of uncommon independence.
But, Tun Mahathir has also learned that such independent thinking, and confidence in the people comes at a personal price. For while his message ricocheted around the world and struck me, an African American woman steeped in the Old Confederate South of the United States, the people we fight for are rarely in a position to reward such acts of courage. Yet the powers that be always seem to be able to exact their punishment. So oftentimes, where there is courage, truth, compassion, belief in the people, and a solid sense of right and wrong, there is also aloneness, vulnerability, or deep disappointment.
But instead of abandoning the struggle, we come together at this important Conference to commune with each other, learn from each other, give love and support to each other, recharge our batteries, and continue our work on behalf of what is right in a world currently filled with so much wrong.
Not too long ago, I was asked by Debra Sweet to endorse the activities of the American peace-seeking organization named World Can't Wait. They advocate the impeachment of George Bush and other Members of his Administration because in their view, the World Can't Wait.
I agree with them.
And after having been defeated for the second time by an unsupportive Democratic Party and Republican voters who crossed over and voted in the Democratic Primary for my opponent, and knowing that George Bush had earned impeachment, I decided that I would do it if no one else would. So, on my last day in Congress, after 12 years of service to my people and my country, I offered Articles of Impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice.
Impeachment is America's roadmap back to dignity. Impeachment is the Constitutional way to handle an Administration that has, from the outset, violated so many tenets of the U.S. Constitution. It is also a way of saying "No, we do not condone what has been done in our name, and we are not complicit."
The first time I felt the sting of Republican retribution and Democratic Party indifference was in 2002 when I questioned the Administration's explanation of what happened on September 11th, 2001. I am the Member of Congress who asked the simple question, "What did the Bush Administration know and when did it know it, about the tragic events of September 11th." After I was defeated in 2002, I traveled all over my country supporting the anti-war movement and informing the American people of the lies of the Bush Administration.
The film "American Blackout" tells the whole story of how Republicans stole two Presidential elections and of how Republicans stole two elections from me.
Well, as it turns out, The World Didn't Wait. And activists in the rest of the world are the people now practicing the art of effective resistance.
I guess it started in 1959 with Cuba. However, Cuba is no longer alone in its attempt to chart its own course.
In 1998, Venezuelans elected Hugo Chavez who has used oil profits to set up healthcare for all, arts programs for the children, and subsidized education, including free universities.
In 2001, the people of Cote d'Ivoire rejected dictatorship and up to today, continue to try and chart an independent course despite huge big power interference due to offshore oil reputed to be of the quality of Nigeria's.
In 2002, Brazilians sent shockwaves throughout the Americas by electing the Workers' Party Lula to become their head of state.
In 2003 Argentina elected Kirchner, 2004, Spain elected Zapatero, and India rejected the BJP politics of division. In 2005, Bolivia elected Morales; 2006, Bachelet in Chile, Correa in Ecuador, Ortega in Nicaragua were all elected, with one agenda—to provide prosperity, independence, justice, and peace—to the people that they represent.
And let us not forget the valiant people of Haiti who twice have had their elected President, Aristide, removed from office by means of U.S. intrigue. But the Haitian people took to the streets and demanded that their votes be counted and that the election not be stolen as the U.S. opposed the election of Aristide's friend and ally, Rene Preval.
Today, Preval is the President of Haiti because the Haitian people took every step within their means to ensure that their votes were counted and that their democracy was respected.
Against tremendous odds, people who have far less than most Americans have—in terms at least of material goods—stood up and took their fates in their hands. They did what Mario Savio asked Americans to do in the 1960s. They put their bodies against the levers and the gears and the wheels of the machine and they said to the owners if you don't stop it, we will. And stop it, they did. The people of these countries stopped the machine. And I know that Americans can do it, too.
On the day before he was murdered, in his less-celebrated "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said that he is happy to be living in the second half of the 20th Century because something is happening in our world. He said, "The masses of people are rising up. And wherever they are assembled . . . whether in Johannesburg, Nairobi, Accra, or New York City, the cry is always the same: "We want to be free."
Well, I can stand here nearly 40 years later and say that at the dawn of the 21st Century, "something is happening in our world!" The world's marginalized, exploited, and dispossessed are taking center stage because they have decided to defy imperial domination. They are saying that resource wars that hurt the masses and benefit the few are illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong.
If Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were with us today, I think he would be proud of the people around the world who are standing up for themselves. But would he be proud of American resistance?
I'm sure Dr. King would wonder why the American people have failed to change their own government when it's so very possible to do, notwithstanding the stolen elections.
What is clear is that the world isn't waiting for the people of the United States to act. But what the world is showing us, is that if we, in the United States, fail to act, we will be the ones left far behind.
Republicans stole the 2000 Presidential election.
Then, on September 11th a grave tragedy befell our country. We, the American people, were promised a white paper by Colin Powell stating what happened, how it happened, and who did it. We have yet to receive such a white paper, Osama bin Laden is on the FBI website, but not for September 11th! And yet, the American people continue to rely on the truthfulness of the Administration for explanations.
Hot on the heels of September 11th, however, the Administration pushed through a series of draconian laws that usurp the United States Constitution and the civil liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights that make us "free," the ostensible cause of the September 11th attacks in the first place, according to the Administration story.
Then, the Administration seized the September 11th tragedy to invade and occupy Iraq while lying to the American people and the global community about why this action was necessary.
A campaign of terror ensued at home with the U.S. government targeting the Muslim community and actually rounding up innocent, law-abiding residents for interrogations. Those of all faiths, races, and ethnicities who dissented from the Administration's policies found themselves targeted for surveillance and worse. Medical records, bank records, telephone conversations, e-mails, regular mail, and more, all became subject to government seizure. Even church sermons, environmentalists, and peace groups were monitored. The Administration spied on the American people, breaking U.S. law, and lied to them about it.
The Administration stole the 2004 Presidential election, and immediately set the stage for attacks on other countries it didn't like. It told us to expect war for the next generation and targeted 60 countries around the world. It has now initiated gunboat diplomacy against Iran, is saber rattling against Syria, taunting North Korea, and has actually dropped bombs on the poor, defenseless people of Somalia. Ethiopia, a country with a proud heritage of never having succumbed to any colonial power is now firmly a Bush vassal, part of the Administration's war machine against fellow Africans.
Interestingly, none of what I've said is a secret in the U.S.
When Bobby Kennedy was asked about a U.S. military strike on Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, his response was that it was unseemly for a country the size of the United States to use military force against a small country like Cuba.
Bobby Kennedy, would have been President of the United States had he not been murdered by assassin's bullets. And I'm told that Bobby Kennedy was considering Dr. King to be his Vice President, but the assassins got Dr. King, too.
Who could explain today's U.S. behavior to Bobby Kennedy or Dr. King? How do we maintain any dignity or pride or responsibility to our children and to the world's children when we fail to exercise every tool available to us to stop the Bush Administration and for that matter, any future Administration that would do this in our name?
I am pleased to announce that I have signed the online petition pledging not to vote for any candidate who has voted in the past or who will vote this year to fund the war.
The petition can be found at www.petitiononline.com/Abstain/petition.html.
The work being done here in Malaysia is necessary and we must conduct our lives in such a way as to mean it when we say "No War!"
Each one of us, individually, has no choice but to become the leader we are looking for. Otherwise, we will continue to get what we've always been given: handpicked leaders who don't represent us.
One way for the American people to demand accountability from their leaders and a return to respectability is to impeach the Bush Administration. However, the complicity of both major U.S. parties in this intensifying debacle is clear now that the Democrats have taken impeachment "off the table." And if the Democratic Congress, that owes its majority status to antiwar voters, votes to fund the war, then our mission will become very clear.
We will have to change the structure of U.S. politics because changing the people, clearly, isn't enough.
This is quite possible with the right set of circumstances. And the current elected leadership is helping to create those circumstances.
When the Presidential election was stolen in Mexico, defenders of democracy shut Mexico City down for weeks until the unrightful, new Mexican President was sworn in. After that, they formed a "parallel" government. And if Mexican defenders of democracy can do it, certainly American defenders of democracy can do it, too.
For us, nothing less than the soul of our country is at stake. But for the world, nothing less than the fate of mankind is at stake.
Because of the work of the Perdana Global Peace Organisation, Kuala Lumpur has become the "peace capital" of the world. And because of this Conference that should be taken to every Continent Kuala Lumpur will shine the light of peace on the world by showing us the horrors of war.
Thank you, Tun Mahathir, for hosting this Conference for peace. Thank you Tun Mahathir, for giving us the courage to go forth, especially in the United States, and build an uncompromised movement for dignity and justice, based on peace and love.
Thank you.
You can learn more about Cynthia McKinney at www.cynthiaforcongress.com and coming soon at www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com .
Link to this page: http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/441/1/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)