Read Jeffrey Webber and Todd Gordon's excellent analysis of the current political situation in Honduras here. Also, consider taking a look at this collection of articles at Links that deals with a new political formation called Frente Amplio de Resistencia Popular (FARP) as well as the Cartegena Accord.
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Latin America. Show all posts
Saturday, July 23, 2011
What's Next for the Honduran Resistance?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Attempted Coup in Ecuador
(via Lenin's Tomb) Democracy Now is reporting on it, but at present it appears that there is a blackout on the issue in the US media.
UPDATE: Read and watch here and here. The coup failed and Correa has been freed.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
NYTimes to Mexico: Give US corporations back your oil
Read the NYTimes screed against nationalization here. Man, the Times is terrible when it comes to Latin America. The "argument" in this article is pathetic. It's the same old shopworn right-wing rhetoric about nationalizing resources: "those dumb Mexicans are happy that they booted out the foreign oil companies... but they are too inept to know how to properly extract it... better invite the US corporate experts back in to take the oild back".
As readers of their foreign coverage have come to expect, the Times conflates an important issue of political/economic power with one about efficiency and instrumental virtues. But we can separate these matters. The issue of efficiency of extraction is separate from the issue of whether or not the Mexican people should collectively own their natural resources. If the problem is merely with the former, why not suggest ways in which the extraction could be more efficiently undertaken? Of course, the whole point of the article is not to solve this problem, but to offer us the facile conclusion that the only problem is nationalization. The obvious solution, the article seems to leads us to believe, is that privatization and control of the oil by a small group of wealthy foreign investors is the only way to go.
Of course, nationalization as such is not necessarily a good thing. It matters who "owns" the national state and it matters how the revenues are spent. But even with all of the problems with the Mexican state apparatus, I'll gladly take public ownership of that sort (and the loads of money it provides for education spending) over private ownership by a small clique of foreign capitalists.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Chomsky on the "War on Drugs"
View it here.
4:32 - Chomsky asks us to compare the following with "Plan Colombia": "suppose that, say, China established military bases near the US... to carry out chemical warfare in Kentucky and North Carolina to kill this leathal crop [tobacco] that's killing large numbers of Chinese... I mean, is that all right? It's part of the imperial mentality [in the US] that this doesn't register... since we're the owners of the world."
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Nice Tony Wood takedown of Michael Reid's neoliberal take on Latin America
Michael Reid's book has been a hugely lauded success in mainstream Anglo-American outlets and, among the Jeffrey Sachs's, and in the Washington foreign policy establishment. And why not -it is a lengthy articulation of a point of view they all share: that what's wrong in Latin America is a 'radical populist' movement that has swept through the region over the last decade, and the medicine is more structural adjustment, more 'friendly business climates', regimes more subservient to global Capital and Washington.
As Tony Wood points out in his deft critical review of the book, it received rave reviews in the Guardian, the Financial Times, the Economist, Wapo, the Weekly Standard, the NYTimes, Foreign Affairs, and others.
Wood's review is refreshingly radical and analytically sharp. Its hard to find this kind of stuff. I mean, you can read any of the above mentioned publications regularly and begin to think that Reid's neoliberal mantra is more or less uncontroversial or unchallengeable. In my experience, I don't think it's an exaggeration at all to say that one should prima facie doubt anything whatsoever that the NYTimes has to say about the political situation in Venezuela.
As Reid argues at one point:
"Reid’s case against the Venezuelan ‘populist’ alternative is the weakest element in his overall argument, since it does not even rest on selective deployment of facts, but rather on occlusion of the Chávez government’s actual record (though here at least Reid, unlike many others, has enough integrity not to actively distort the figures). In the social sphere, this has been indisputably positive: poverty, which had reached an astronomical 65 per cent after the implementation of the imf’s ‘Agenda Venezuela’ in 1996, has been cut by almost half since Chávez took office, from 55 per cent to 31 per cent. According to Mark Weisbrot at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, government social spending has increased significantly, from 8.2 per cent of gdp in 1998 to 13.6 per cent in 2006, a figure which does not include programmes directly administered through pdvsa or the Fondo de Desarrollo Nacional, which total another 7.3 per cent of gdp. This considerable outlay has permitted a twelvefold increase in the number of primary care physicians, and a cut in the infant mortality rate from 21 per 1,000 in 1998 to 16 in 2005. Unemployment too has dropped in Chávez’s decade in power, from 11 per cent to 7.8 per cent—a development facilitated by growth rates averaging 13.5 per cent since 2003."It's much harder to maintain the position on Latin America cultivated by the NYTimes, et. al when one actually juxtaposes to them some real figures and facts about the social/political situation there. Why think critically about a narrative that is so common as to be banal in virtually all of our media? If a modestly 'informed' person reads in 4 different 'respected' papers that Chavez is a noxious authoritarian monster, why should they bother to stop and think twice about it?
Friday, July 3, 2009
Venezuelan opposition, WSJ, backs coup
Ideological match made in heaven: the good old reactionaries at the Wall Street Journal and their brethren in the Venezuelan opposition.
Unsurprisingly both of these groups have come out in favor of the recent coup in Honduras, criticizing their own respective governments for failing to aver that the coup was a boon to democracy. If you ask the editors at WSJ or in the opposition/corporate media in Venezuela, they will tell you that the coup was justified, they will defend the currently sworn-in 'president', and they'll argue that Zelaya was a power hungry tyrant bent on destruction.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Obama, Washington and the Coup in Honduras
The Official US line on the coup is now one of condemnation. It became clear that all of the OAS countries, including the more conservative and neoliberal leaders such as Mexico's Right-Wing Felipe Calderon, unequivocally oppose the recent violent overthrow of a popular government elected by the people. The worldwide response, it must be said, is condemnatory.
But like everything that governments and their political spokespeople say in public, we should not take the US State dept's statement at face value. Moreover, the only real test of what the orientation of the US government is, will be to see what it actually does and not what it says at press conferences. This is particularly true for the Obama Adminsitration, who has made a rigorous science of making soaring rhetorical flourishes only to renege and opt for tepid alternatives to real reform.
The NYTimes published an article yesterday revealing that the Obama administration had been in contact with the coup plotters for several days before the coup. From the NYTimes:
Also, we read that:"The United States has a history of backing rival political factions and instigating coups in the region, and administration officials have found themselves on the defensive in recent days, dismissing repeated allegations by President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela that the C.I.A. may have had a hand in the president’s removal.
Obama administration officials said that they were surprised by the coup on Sunday. But they also said that they had been working for several weeks to try to head off a political crisis in Honduras as the confrontation between Mr. Zelaya and the military over his efforts to lift presidential term limits escalated."
The United States has long had strong ties to the Honduras military and helps train Honduran military forces. Those close ties have put the Obama administration in a difficult position, opening it up to accusations that it may have turned a blind eye to the pending coup.While many NYTimes readers may be surprised to read of the US involvement in violent repression, military dictatorships, coups and so forth throughout Latin American history, there is nothing abstract about this for people who came of age in the 20th century in Latin America. It is therefore totally legitimate for Hugo Chavez, of all people, to make public statements pressing the suspicion that the US may have had a hand in the latest right-wing reaction against a popular government in Latin America. Suspicion, of course, is not tantamount to proof. But it is hardly outlandish to say that the burden of proof is absolutely on the party who has traditionally funded, participated, incited, supported and praised just about every single violent Right-wing military coup in Latin America throughout the 20th century, from Vargas to Allende to the most recent attempt to violently suppress the Bolivarian Revolution and attempts to whack Evo Morales.
But the issue is too unclear to say for sure what the precise role of the US was in the run-up to the coup. Speculation, therefore, is not helpful. What we do have, is a series of facts ripe for critical reflection and analysis.
We know that the US opposed Zelaya and his bid to change the Constitution to enable a president to run for re-election more than once. We know that the US has traditionally (as late as the 1980s) had very close ties to the Honduran military, who have now taken the lead in undertaking this coup. We also know that the US hedged at first and refused to take a clear stand against the coup and in favor of Zelaya. That they have done so now, in light of widespread condemnation globally, is not to say that their position hasn't shifted.
We also know that the US loathes Chavez, Morales, Correa and Ortega. We know that Washington would love to see these pan-Latin American socialists just go away. We know that big multinationals, some of whom have been given the boot from the above countries, feel the same way.
So the US is not heading into this crisis with the best of intentions. And for me, that's all that's important here to understanding this situation. Washington may or may not have been directly involved, they may have protested, they may have been lukewarm in telling the coup-plotters not to go ahead. I must say, however, that it doesn't appear that the US government was ever ademant or united in any kind of support for the coup. Nonetheless, whatever the situation actually is, it doesn't change all sorts of uncontroversial and trivial political facts we know about Honduras, the region, and the relationship of the former with Washington.
Of course, you wont find any critical reflection in tripe written by an ultra-conservative hack like Vargas Llosa for the NYTimes. If you ask him, the coup is a good thing, and moreover it has widespread 'popular support'. We should expect nothing less from Vargas Llosa, though, who has proven so consistently over the years that he has no intention of stating what actually is the case.
The truth is that there is currently there is widespread popular unrest trying to stop the coup-backers. There have been huge mobilizations as well as a general strike demanding that Zelaya be allowed to return. All of this has occured in spite of threats of violent military repression. Over 7.3 million in Honduras live below the poverty line; some 70% of the population.
When Zelaya talked about taking on the sweatshop industry and substantially increasing the minimum wage in his country, its not difficult to see why the majority of Hondurans got behind these reforms. Of course, when he also said he would "force the business oligarchy to start paying what is fair" in terms of taxes, he wasn't making any friends with the forces who are trying to crush democracy in Honduras at present.
Of course, Zelaya is no saint. And, after all, he comes from the Liberal Party in Honduras, which is anything but unanimous in their support social justice or for Zelaya himself (on the contrary, there is a deep split, with many party elites opposing Zelaya's modest left turn). Only recently has he shifted toward more ALBA-centric policies and social reformism. While his populism is a welcomed alternative to the status quo in Honduran politics, it is clear that Zelaya is no Morales or Chavez. Nonetheless, for many in the country (particularly those in student organizations, trade unions and other social movements) the openings created by Zelaya's turn to the Left are likely worth fighting for, particularly when the oligarchs threaten to crush what modest headway Zelaya has attempted to make. I cannot say enough times: those empowered by he current configuration of politics in Honduras are frightened of losing their power. Their subsequent acts must be understood in light of this fact.
After all if, as cynical Right-wing hacks like Llosa would tell us, it is true that the coup has popular support and is backed up by a majority; why were the anti-referendum Oligarchs so deathly afraid of holding a vote designed to take a non-binding national poll over whether it would be a good idea to vote on reforming the Constitution? Why were they so afraid of letting people make their voices heard? Why were they blocking democracy through every institution and avenue available to them through the law (e.g. The Supreme Court, Congress, the Police and Military, etc. all of which the Right controlled in Honduras)? Why were those in power so scared that they eventually resorted to violence to forestall a democratic procedure from occuring?
Monday, June 29, 2009
Update on Honduras
The OAS (of which the US is a member) has condemned the coup unequivocally. The official US line on the coup, now, appears to be also unequivocal condemnation and a call for the return of Zelaya to his rightful post as President. This is good to see. But as Golinger reports:
"A New York Times article has just confirmed that the US Government has been "working for several days" with the coup planners in Honduras to halt the illegal overthrow of President Zelaya. While this may indicate nobility on behalf of the Obama Administration, had they merely told the coupsters that the US Government would CUT OFF all economic aid and blockade Honduras in the event of a coup, it's almost a 100% guarantee that the military and right wing parties and business groups involved in the coup would not have gone through with it.I agree. It is too strong to say that the above indicates that the US indirectly caused the coup through their communications with the coup-plotters, but I don't think its out of line to suggest that the US didn't do enough to prevent it. They should have unequivocally told the coup-plotters not to go through with it. The economic (and, historically, military) dominance of the US over Honduras makes this point even clearer. It is no stretch to say that this issue is, at least, quite complicated for the Washington foreign policy establishment. They would rather see (as is clear from the NGO investments in the country made by USAID and NED) a more business-friendly and pro-US regime than Zelaya's. But they hardly hate Zelaya enough that they would support a haphazard coup that the entire Latin American region deplored. It is instructive to recall here the behaviour of Washington and US corporate media during the attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002. Washington staunchly supported (and was implicated in) that violent affront to Venzuelan democracy. Also- it is hardly a question whether or not the NYTimes, for example, has a principled objection to coups; they flatly do not. In a now infamous editorial, they cheered on the oligarch-driven military coup against Chavez's popular government and immediately strove to legitimate the short-lived military dictatorship as a boon to democracy. (Incidentally, the always-reactionary-on-foreign-policy WSJ has published op/ed's enthusiastically supportive of the recent coup).
So, while many make excuses for the Obama Administration's "calculated" statements, had they been more firm with the coup leaders, instead of "negotiating", the coup may never have happened. Also, the State Department says they believed "dialogue" was the best way to resolve the situation, but their lack of clarity and firm position has caused multiple human rights violations to occur in Honduras and a lot of tension to take place in the region."
Nonetheless, it is a welcomed departure from the Bush years that the US is working through OAS, and in fact joining up with Venezuela and others to unequivocally condemn this violent power grab. The mistake, however, would be to take this modest improvement to be a principled step away from US imperialism in the region. There are conjunctural and political reasons why this coup is being condemned and others were not. We should not expect that some major change of heart as it regards Latin American self-determination from Washington. (e.g. see the continuity of policy in Colombia from Clinton-Bush-Obama).
Apparently there are major protests outside the presidential palace and unrest throughout the country. Unfortunately for the oligarchs backing the coup, Zelaya has a great deal of popular support throughout the country and the coup-backers will not be able to brush this aside without violent repression.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
COUP IN HONDURAS
Early this morning there was a Coup d'Etat against the democratically elected government of Manual Zelaya. Zelaya is a member of Honduras's Liberal Party and has been a growing ally of the countries in ALBA (e.g. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc.). Right-wing elements of the opposition in the military have invaded the presidential palace, captured the president, and cut off power and telephone service throughout the country. The President and his cabinet (and also ambassadors from ALBA countries) have reportedly been beaten and threatened within an inch of their lives.
Despite the cynical hand-wringing coming from the Washington establishment over the brutal situation in Iran, their reaction to this violent effacement of democracy and human rights belies their opportunism and imperialistic aims.
In contradistinction to the unflinching, staunch condemnation of the coup by Latin American leaders, Obama and the U.S. government are hedging their bets. They've made vague statements about respecting 'democratic norms' but have made no specific statements about condemning the coup or supporting President Zelaya.
Given the frightening similarities between this coup and the attempted coup against Chavez in 2002 backed by the US Government, Eva Golinger is suspicious that there may be US involvement in this violent attack on the people of Honduras. It seems to me that she isn't unjustified in suspecting this at all: the Honduran military was trained by the US under Reagan when the US Government was training death squads to murder and terrorize Hondurans who supported Leftist political movements. Moreover, USAID gives over $50 million anually to Honduran NGO's who are pro-US and sufficiently cozy with ruling elites. Here's what one of the NGO's said on CNN this morning (via Eva Golinger @ Venezuelanalysis):
"Opposition forces in Honduras, led by a US-funded NGO Grupo Paz y Democracia, have stated via CNN that a coup has not ocurred, but rather a "transition" to democracy. Martha Diaz, coordinator of the NGO, which receives USAID funding, has just declared minutes ago on CNN that "civil society" does not support President Zelaya nor his "illegal quest" to hold a non-binding referendum on a potential future constitutional reform. She justified his kidnapping, beating and removal from power as a "democratic transition". Again, this is eerily reminiscent of the coup d'etat in Venezuela in April 2002, when so-called "civil society" along with dissident military forces kidnapped President Chávez and installed a "transition government". The goups involved also received funding from the U.S. government, primarily via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and later from USAID as well."A couple of hours ago, Obama's czar for Latin American politics had the following to say on CNN en Espanol:
"He has just stated that Obama's government is communicating with the coup forces in Honduras, trying to "feel out" the situation. He also responded to the reporter's question regarding whether Washington would recognize a government in Honduras other than President Zelaya's elected government, by saying that the Obama Administration "is waiting to see how things play out" and so long as democratic norms are respected, will work with all sectors."It seems to me that Golinger is basically right to say that this response is tantamount to "a confirmation practically of support for the coup leaders". If the FARC took power in Bogota, you can bet Obama et. al wouldn't be 'waiting to work with all sectors'. In Honduras, it is totally unambiguous what has recently occured. There is nothing to 'feel out': a band of military reactionaries barged into the hondureño equivalent of the White House with guns and threatened to kill people. Washington's lacklustre response to this violent power grab is classic US imperialism in Latin America, vintage 2002 in Venezuela. This is the "Change we can all believe in", evidently.
From what we've seen so far, Obama's reaction parallels what the Bush Administration did in 2002 with Venezuela, although the latter was more brazenly supportive of the opposition than the Obama Administration has been of the Honduran opposition. This is for obvious reasons. Honduras is no Venezuela. It is a relatively small country with little power or economic independence from the US and it poses little threat in itself, although its clear why Washington would much, much prefer that did not integrate with ALBA or attempt to become economically self-sufficient.
I'm getting really sick of the right-wing cynicism motivating the complaints (this includes Obama) about the brutal State violence and the atrocities occuring in Iran. I'm not saying we shouldn't condemn State violence; I'm saying we should be principled opponents of it. The Washington-centric cynics I have in mind whine and make such a fuss about Iran, simply because they want a neoliberal pro-US government...but if a neoliberal pro-US regime cropped up without democracy or basic freedoms these cynics would be fully satisfied. They care nothing about freedom as such. See, forstance, Obama's support for violent and authoritarian regimes in, for example, Egypt (a country which receives massive amounts of military aid from the US every year)? Why isn't it abundantly obvious to everyone that if atrocities are bad in Iran, then they are also bad in Honduras, Egypt, Colombia and other places as well? Why doesn't it count when the US either sanctions or directly commits atrocities?
It will be interesting to see how this develops. More on this later.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Eva Golinger: USAID gave millions to anti-Morales Bolivian Right
From Golinger's Blog:
"Recently declassified documents obtained by investigators Eva Golinger and Jeremy Bigwood reveal that the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has invested more than $97 million in “decentralization” and “regional autonomy” projects and opposition political parties in Bolivia since 2002. The documents, requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), evidence that USAID in Bolivia was the “first donor to support departmental governments” and “decentralization programs” in the country, proving that the US agency has been one of the principal funders and fomentors of the separatist projects promoted by regional governments in Eastern Bolivia."Hardly surprising. If there is ever another attempt on Morales's life or a Right-led coup against his government, we can expect that US dollars will be involved somehow.
Despite the wave of change and hope moving through Washington, I'm sure we can expect this time-honored tradition to continue unabated.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
International Right-Wingers Attempt to Assassinate Morales
BBC reports.
And the silent American press remains completely disconnected from from developments in leftist Latin American politics.Three alleged international mercenaries in the city of Santa Cruz were killed, after Mr Morales gave the order to thwart the attempt on his life.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
NYTimes: Fucking unbelievable.
Check this bullshit out.
Most important, Mexico is a young democracy that eliminated an essentially one-party political system, controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, that lasted more than 70 years. And with all its defects, the domination of the party, known as the P.R.I., never even approached the same level of virtually absolute dictatorship as that of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or even of Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez.Say WHA? Unbelievable. Perhaps I'm naive to be surprised (given the NYTimes's ugly track record of taking a strict anti-democratic, right-wing line on Latin American politics). But "absolute dictator"? Comparing Chavez to Mugabe? What the FUCK!? Chavez has been elected by overwhelming majorities in elections with high turnout that have been certified by countless independent international bodies, including Jimmy Carter's organization. These Right-wing slanderers, we should take note, NEVER actually challenge the popular mandate Chavez has in Venezuela because they would have literally no grounds on which to challenge it. He has the staunch support of more than 60% of the electorate, which should come as little surprise since the majority of the country is quite poor and had been previously disempowered and disenfranchised for decades.
What the Right-wing slanderers DO say is that Chavez is stepping on "private enterprise", he's taking freedoms away from the minority (middle class and wealthy business elites) opposition, etc. "Absolute dictator" is completely ridiculous slander.
And this "young fledling democracy" bullshit that the author offers us about Mexico? Its about as credible as his claim that Chavez is an "absolute dictator". He says literally nothing about the 2006 Mexican presidential elections where Felipe Calderón of the right-wing PAN stole the election in a highly suspect and last-minute attempt to stop populist Left candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador from winning. (Obrador had consistently led in all major polls for months leading up to the election and was backed by large social movements). When Calderón "won" the election in a haze of controversy and sabotage, George Bush was the first to step up and "recognize" his "victory" and attempt to give credibility to the contested result. Millions of people took to the streets to protest the result, but ultimately nothing came of it.
Venezuela, on the other hand, has a more robust democracy than most countries in the world. Turnout in Venezuelan elections routinely blows US elections out of the water. Morever, Chavez has diffused some forms of power through local councils ("Bolivarian circles") which involves the participation of hitherto ignored groups of Venezuelans at the local-level. But it should come as no surprise that the Right doesn't like Venezuelan democracy, since the electoral mechanism there has consistently (with the exception of Chavez's referendum loss last year) resulted in majorities of Venezuelan's emphatically opposing the neoliberal march of the Right. This is why the US-backed opposition/business elite attempted a coup to overthrow Chavez by force in 2002; because they knew that they couldn't stop the forward momentum of him or the movement behind him by challenging it at the ballot box.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
El Salvador elects leftist president
It looks like Funes is in.
The leftist party (FMLN) has the largest presence in the legislature, but no majority, however, so changes might come to El Salvador gradually (though I'm not convinced that's a bad thing).
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Thursday, December 4, 2008
PSUV leader Gonzalo Gomez on the elections and where Venezuela is heading
"To Stop the Advance of the Right, We Must Strengthen People’s Power”Great interview at Venezuelanalysis here.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Venezuelan union organizers killed
Protests have shut down highways in Venezuela following the hired assassination of 3 labor leaders involved in a drive to organize workers owned by the Colombian milk company ALPINA. The protest is comprised of over 12 Venezuelan unions all of whom are demanding that an extensive investigation bring those behind the murder to justice.
Incidentally, its worth mentioning that Colombia is the most dangerous country in the entire world to be a trade unionist. ALPINA is probably just following company policy as its carried out in Colombia. The difference in Venezuela is that the leaders of its government will not let this stand, whereas in Bogota this sort of thing is probably applauded if not encouraged.
Hand's Off Venezuela has a statement here.
Statements of support and solidarity can be sent to trabajadores2008@yahoo.com and usi_venezuela@yahoo.com, and copy to secre@uit-ci.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
