Boletín de Noticias / Newsbulletin

No. 1620

Español / English

29 – 09 – 2012



Español:

English:


Español


Lavrov ante la ONU: “Occidente empuja a Siria a la vorágine sangrienta del conflicto”


El canciller ruso llamó a los participantes de la conferencia a reafirmar que apoyan los acuerdos de Ginebra

Publicado: 28 sep 2012 | 21:40 GMT

Última actualización: 29 sep 2012 | 3:18 GMT

El canciller ruso, Serguéi Lavrov, aprovechó su intervención en la Asamblea General de la ONU para comentar la situación en Siria y en Oriente Medio.

A lo largo de más de 1,5 años la situación en África y Oriente Medio es el punto de dolor de la política mundial. Rusia apoya a los pueblos en sus aspiraciones de elegir ellos mismos su destino. Estamos convencidos de que en el caso de Siria son necesarios los esfuerzos consolidados de la comunidad mundial para forzar a los rivales a sentarse a la mesa de las negociaciones”, dijo Serguéi Lavrov.

Occidente empuja a Siria a la vorágine sangrienta del conflicto. El terrorismo no debe tener la justificación de ningún estado. Llamamos a todos los participantes de la conferencia a reafirmar que apoyan los acuerdos de Ginebra”, declaró.

Es inaceptable imponer a los pueblos un régimen político. Las decisiones deben tomarse de una manera colectiva en la ONU”, sentenció Lavrov.

La libertad de expresión no debe ser utilizada para justificar la propaganda de opiniones nazis y extremistas, según considera el ministro ruso de Relaciones Exteriores.

"Inquietan mucho las acciones cada vez más testarudas de los que alegando a la libertad de expresión consienten a los nazis y sus aliados, denigran el honor de las víctimas de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y de los vencedores del fascismo. Estas acciones son incompatibles con la Carta de la ONU", subrayó.

Recordó que ayer el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de Naciones Unidas aprobó con una mayoría aplastante de votos la resolución denominada 'Promoción de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales mediante un mejor entendimiento de los valores tradicionales de la humanidad', propuesta por Rusia. "El pacto internacional sobre los derechos civiles y políticos prohíbe directamente la propaganda de la guerra y el encendimiento de los conflictos nacionales y religiosos", declaró Lavrov. La situación en Cuba fue otro eje que tocó el canciller ruso en su discurso. Lavrov subrayó que "el embargo que sufre Cuba por EE.UU. viene desde la Guerra Fría" y sentenció que Rusia aboga por el cese del embargo de EE.UU. sobre Cuba.


Texto completo en: http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/54771-lavrov-onu-occidente-empuja-siria-voragine-sangrienta-conflicto

http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/54771-lavrov-onu-occidente-empuja-siria-voragine-sangrienta-conflicto


Elecciones en Venezuela: Por qué la Corriente Marxista Internacional apoya a Chávez

Written by Alan Woods Wednesday, 26 September 2012


La elección presidencial del 7 de octubre representa un momento decisivo en la historia de Venezuela. El resultado de estas elecciones tendrá un gran impacto en todo el continente americano e internacionalmente. No hace falta decir que la Campaña Manos Fuera Venezuela está apoyando activamente al candidato bolivariano Hugo Chávez, y luchando contra cualquier intento de la oligarquía y del imperialismo para sabotear las elecciones. La CMI defiende firmemente la reelección de Hugo Chávez ¿Por qué hemos tomado esta posición?


16 de septiembre. Foto: chavezcandanga16 de septiembre. Foto: chavezcandangaLa victoria de Hugo Chávez en 1998 representó un avance histórico de los obreros y campesinos de Venezuela. Según la Comisión Económica de la ONU para América Latina (CEPAL) hubo una reducción del 21 por ciento de la tasa de pobreza entre 1999 y 2010. El analfabetismo ha sido abolido. Por primera vez, se ha proporcionado atención médica gratuita a los pobres.


Todos estos logros se verían amenazados con una victoria de la oposición. Es el deber elemental de todo revolucionario genuino defender estos logros. El que no es capaz de defender las conquistas del pasado nunca será capaz de avanzar hasta la victoria final.


La afirmación de la oposición de que no van a revertir las reformas de Chávez no es de fiar. Tomemos un solo ejemplo: la vivienda. La Misión Vivienda ha construido miles de viviendas para los pobres. En mayo, el ministro de Información, Andrés Izarra, anunció que el programa estaba en el camino de conseguir el objetivo de 200.000 unidades fabricadas desde su inicio en 2011. La firma encuestadora Hinterlaces indica que, con un índice de aprobación del 76 por ciento, la Misión Vivienda es el programa social más popular del gobierno. Sin embargo, la coalición opositora MUD llama a la Misión Vivienda "un fraude y un fracaso" y critica al gobierno por la expropiación de tierras para construir viviendas.


Cuando Capriles ganó la gobernación del Estado Miranda en 2008, desató sus seguidores contra los médicos cubanos que participan en los programas de salud de la revolución, y trató de cerrar de manera generalizada los distintos programas sociales, expulsarlos de los establecimientos pertenecientes a la gubernatura, etc. Sólo la movilización activa del pueblo en las calles logró defender las conquistas de la revolución.


La nueva Ley del Trabajo recientemente aprobada redujo la semana laboral de 44 a 40 horas; y la licencia maternal pre-y post-natal, con salario garantizado, se ha aumentado de 18 a 26 semanas. Al salir de una empresa, por la razón que sea, los trabajadores recibirán un pago en base a su último salario mensual multiplicado por el número de años de servicio - una demanda sindical importante. Esto ocurre en un momento en que en Europa, todos los gobiernos están empeorando las condiciones laborales de los trabajadores.


Capriles ha atacado la ley sobre la base de que "no hace nada para combatir el desempleo ni para beneficiar a los que tienen empleos ocasionales no protegidos". Eso significa que estas reformas serían abolidas por la oposición.


Pero no se trata sólo de defender las conquistas de los últimos 13 años, de la preservación de las reformas, los avances en salud y educación, las misiones y otros programas en beneficio de los trabajadores y de los pobres. Es, sobre todo, la necesidad de derrotar a la contrarrevolución burguesa y así preparar el camino para un avance decisivo de la Revolución, que aún no ha logrado sus objetivos fundamentales.


La oposición dice que está defendiendo la "democracia" contra la "dictadura". Pero esta misma oposición estuvo detrás del fallido golpe de Estado de 2002. Si hubieran tenido éxito entonces, habría sido el fin de la democracia en Venezuela. El ejemplo de Chile muestra el destino que le habría esperado. Capriles mismo, como alcalde del distrito caraqueño de Baruta, participó en el intento de asaltar la embajada cubana durante el golpe de abril de 2002, en flagrante violación de su estatuto diplomático.


La oposición burguesa demostró su desprecio por la democracia y por las elecciones cuando decidió boicotear las elecciones nacionales de 2005. Ahora, sin embargo, los líderes de la oposición están mostrando un entusiasmo sorprendente por la "defensa" de la Constitución de 1999 - a la que siempre se han opuesto con uñas y dientes pese a que fue aprobada por una abrumadora mayoría en un referéndum popular.


Nadie puede poner la más mínima confianza en las credenciales democráticas de la oposición.

Lo que defiende la oposición


La oposición dice representar a las clases medias. Pero eso es mentira. La oposición representa los intereses de la oligarquía - los grandes terratenientes, banqueros y capitalistas. Está completamente subordinada a los imperialistas y a las grandes compañías petroleras que dominaron y saquearon Venezuela durante generaciones.


Los ricos odian a Chávez, porque lo identifican con la eliminación de la propiedad privada. Ellos están motivados por el resentimiento de clase hacia los pobres, que, después de generaciones de abandono, se han beneficiado de los programas progresistas del gobierno. La oposición no es el representante de la clase media, sino su explotador político.


El candidato de la oposición, Henrique Capriles Radonski, se llama a sí mismo un reformista. Él afirma que no defiende ningún tipo de ideología. Hemos escuchado esta historia muchas veces: "Yo soy apolítico; es decir, soy de derecha". Pero basta con echar un vistazo al partido al que pertenece este político "no ideológico", para comprender de inmediato la situación real.


Capriles afirma ser "progresista". Dice que no repetirá las "políticas erróneas" del período anterior a 1998 en Venezuela. Pero los partidos que respaldan su candidatura fueron los responsables de estas políticas, que no eran para nada "errores", sino la expresión directa de los intereses de la camarilla de super-ricos que gobernaba el país.


Pero las masas no son ingenuas. Ellas no se dejan engañar por la demagogia de Capriles. Ven que detrás de su máscara sonriente se oculta la fisonomía fea de la oligarquía, que, si vuelve al poder, los pisoteará.


Capriles pertenece al Movimiento Primero Justicia (MPJ), un partido burgués de derecha que representa a la "empresa privada" y se opone a la intervención del Estado en la vida económica. Esto es irónico en una época en que la llamada "libre empresa" ha quedado en evidencia como un fraude gigantesco a una escala global.


¿No sabe el Señor Capriles que el sistema capitalista está en una crisis profunda en todas partes? Cuando los bancos privados de los EE.UU. se derrumbaron en 2008, ¿qué hicieron? ¿Se limitaron a cantar las alabanzas de la "empresa privada"? No, salieron corriendo hacia el Estado y le exigieron al gobierno que les entregara miles de millones de dólares de dinero público para salvarlos.


El fracaso de la "empresa privada" es la razón por la que todos los gobiernos de Europa se encuentran profundamente endeudados. Dicen que no hay dinero para escuelas, hospitales y jubilaciones, pero sí hay un montón de dinero para los banqueros.


En las últimas semanas, un dirigente de la oposición reveló un documento, escrito por los asesores económicos de la campaña de Capriles, con detalles sobre sus planes reales si llegara a ser elegido. El documento propone un plan de austeridad clásico, que plantea recortes en las jubilaciones, el gasto social, los programas sociales, la "apertura" de PDVSA y de otras empresas estatales a la inversión privada, etc. El plan es tan escandaloso que llevó a cuatro partidos más pequeños de la plataforma conjunta de la oposición, la Mesa de Unidad Democrática (MUD), a retirar su apoyo a Capriles y toda una serie de otras figuras de la oposición también se distanciaron de él.


Los trabajadores y los campesinos comprenden lo que está en juego. En cada giro decisivo se han unido para defender la revolución contra sus enemigos: los terratenientes, banqueros y capitalistas, y los imperialistas que están detrás de ellos. Ellos entienden que un voto a Chávez en estas elecciones es el voto en contra de volver a los viejos tiempos, cuando un puñado de oligarcas ricos decidían todo y la mayoría de los pobres no contaba para nada.


Pese a las afirmaciones de la oposición de que está ganando, Chávez está actualmente encabezando las encuestas. La encuesta de Datanálisis dio a Chávez una ventaja de 43,6 por ciento frente al 27,7 para Capriles. También mostró que el 62,4 por ciento de los votantes consideraba que el desempeño del presidente estaba por encima del promedio, mientras que sólo el 29,4 por ciento lo consideran deficiente. Estos datos pueden ser creídos, ya que el dueño de Datanálisis, Luis Vicente León, es bien conocido por ser un partidario de la oposición.

Capriles y el imperialismo de EEUU


Chávez es considerado el Enemigo Público Número Uno de Washington, que lo ve como el instigador principal de la oposición al imperialismo de EE.UU. en América Latina. Chávez condenó enérgicamente el golpe de Estado contra el presidente Fernando Lugo de Paraguay. Impulsado por sus amigos en el Departamento de Estado de EE.UU., Capriles criticó a Chávez por retirar a su embajador de Asunción y cortar el suministro de petróleo a Paraguay.


Capriles se compromete a restablecer las relaciones de amistad con los EE.UU.; es decir, hacer de Venezuela un socio servil de Washington, como lo fue en el pasado. Promete una revisión a fondo de los programas de ayuda y de las alianzas de Venezuela con el resto de América Latina. Eso significa una ruptura con Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador y Nicaragua, para complacer a sus "aliados" al norte del Río Grande.


Poco antes de dimitir como presidente del Banco Mundial en junio, Robert Zoellick, declaró que "los días de Chávez están contados" y, con la eliminación de los subsidios extranjeros de su gobierno, otras naciones como Cuba y Nicaragua "estarán en problemas". Zoellick ve una victoria de Capriles como "una oportunidad para hacer del hemisferio occidental el primer hemisferio democrático del mundo" en oposición a un "lugar de golpes de Estado, caudillos y cocaína".


Estas palabras expresan con precisión la actitud del imperialismo de EE.UU. hacia las elecciones del 7 de octubre, a las que ve como un acontecimiento decisivo. Si la oposición gana, significará retrasar el reloj a la situación anterior a 1998, cuando Venezuela era gobernada por los grandes monopolios norteamericanos. Pero si Chávez gana, será un duro golpe para la contrarrevolución, como Michael Penfold advierte en en Foreign Affairs: "Si Chávez gana en octubre, una gran mayoría del capital político de la oposición será reducido a polvo, y en muchos sentidos, será como volver a partir de cero. "


Es por eso que los imperialistas y sus agentes locales distinguen a Chávez con un tratamiento especial. Las expropiaciones, la reversión de las medidas económicas "neoliberales", la creación de una milicia popular, la negativa a doblar la rodilla ante las presiones de Washington, los ataques contra el capitalismo y el llamamiento a favor del socialismo - todo esto es una mezcla peligrosa y explosiva que actúa como un poderoso catalizador de las tendencias revolucionarias en América Latina.


Sin embargo, otro objetivo esbozado en la plataforma electoral de Chávez es la expansión del poder de los consejos comunales. Varios cientos de "comunas en construcción" van a participar en áreas tales como la distribución del gas y del agua. Chávez propone promover la creación de nuevas comunas que alcanzarían a representar el 68 por ciento de la población. Las comunas deben concederse las mismas prerrogativas que tienen los gobiernos estatales y municipales, incluyendo el presupuesto, la participación en la planificación estatal y, eventualmente, la recaudación de impuestos. Todas estas medidas representan un cercenamiento gradual del Estado en la vida económica.


Los imperialistas temen que una victoria de Chávez en octubre suponga una mayor profundización de cambio en Venezuela. Chávez ha dicho que el período 2013-2019 debe ver nuevas incursiones estatales en el comercio y el transporte, en detrimento de los intermediarios, a través de la creación de "centros de distribución locales para la venta y distribución directa de productos". Esta tendencia hacia nuevas expropiaciones puede llegar a amenazar la existencia misma del capitalismo en Venezuela.

La verdadera diferencia


La división entre los dos campos es la división entre dos clases antagónicas: por un lado, los millones de pobres, trabajadores y campesinos, pobres urbanos y capas inferiores de la clase media; por el otro, los grandes terratenientes, banqueros y capitalistas, y su acomodada y parásita clase media.


La verdadera diferencia se centra en la cuestión de la propiedad privada: la cuestión de la política económica y, en particular, las expropiaciones. La gran mayoría de los partidarios de Chávez está constituida por los estratos anteriores mencionados en primer lugar, que se mantienen firmemente a favor del socialismo, por la expropiación de los terratenientes y capitalistas.


La burocracia bolivariana ha tratado de diluir el programa socialista. Así, habla de una "economía mixta", en la que los monopolios y oligopolios se enfrentarán a la competencia de las empresas públicas. Esta es la vieja idea de una "tercera vía" entre el capitalismo y el socialismo, que el presidente Chávez ha descrito correctamente como una farsa.


No es posible hacer media revolución. En última instancia, una clase debe ganar y la otra clase debe perder. Las nacionalizaciones parciales no pueden funcionar porque no se puede planificar lo que no se controla, y es imposible controlar lo que no se posee. Una economía que sólo sea, parcialmente, propiedad del Estado no puede ser debidamente planificada.


Al mismo tiempo, todo intento de "regular" el capitalismo para tratar de mejorar la situación de las masas (a través de los controles de precios, controles de cambio de divisas, etc) impiden el normal funcionamiento de una economía de mercado, creando una situación caótica de inflación, fuga de capitales, caída de la inversión, cierre de fábricas, escasez artificialmente creada, acaparamiento y especulación con los alimentos básicos, torpeza burocrática y mala gestión. En otras palabras, se conseguirá el peor de todos los mundos.


El sector privado, que todavía controla una parte significativa de la economía, está en las manos de los enemigos de la Revolución. Los capitalistas están haciendo todo lo posible para sabotear la economía a través de una huelga de capital. Hay que expropiar la tierra, los bancos y las grandes empresas con el fin de poner fin a este sabotaje.


Pero Capriles se ha comprometido a poner fin a todas las expropiaciones. "Yo no voy a reñir con los empresarios ni con nadie más", dice. ¡Naturalmente! ¿Cómo se puede reñir con la gente cuyos intereses representa, y a la que pertenece? Capriles mismo proviene de una familia adinerada de negocios con intereses múltiples (bienes raíces, industria, medios de comunicación). También es el ex alcalde del municipio de Baruta, una zona adinerada de Caracas.


Él promete crear tres millones de empleos durante su presidencia ¿Cómo podría lograr este milagro? Aliviando las restricciones o las condiciones a las inversiones extranjeras; es decir, entregando Venezuela en un plato a las mismas grandes compañías petroleras extranjeras que la saquearon en el pasado. No es casualidad que la alianza de partidos que apoya a Capriles, la Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD), abogue por "flexibilizar" la legislación que asegura el control estatal sobre la industria petrolera "para promover la competencia y la participación privada en la industria".

La Revolución no ha terminado


Una victoria de Chávez estimulará el giro a la izquierda en América Latina en un momento en que el capitalismo está en una crisis profunda a nivel mundial. Esto socavará aún más la influencia de EE.UU. En unos momentos en que sus planes para Irak y Afganistán están en ruinas. En cambio, una derrota de Chávez sería retrasar el reloj a la Venezuela anterior a 1999. Sería un duro golpe para la izquierda en todas partes. Y dejaría completamente aislada a Cuba, proporcionando un poderoso impulso a los elementos pro-capitalistas en la isla.


La oposición ha tratado cruelmente de tomar ventaja de la enfermedad de Chávez antes de la campaña electoral. Destacaron la "fragilidad" de Chávez, en contraste con la supuesta buena salud juvenil y la energía de su oponente. Además, añaden, los chavistas no tienen a nadie que pueda ocupar su lugar. En esto tienen razón. Es una debilidad innegable del movimiento bolivariano y del PSUV que dependan tanto de un solo hombre.


Chávez ha ido más lejos que ningún otro líder de América Latina en desafiar al imperialismo y al capitalismo, y en volver a colocar el socialismo en el orden del día. Esto merece un reconocimiento. Pero existen profundas contradicciones dentro del movimiento bolivariano, donde no todo el mundo está a favor del socialismo ni en contra del capitalismo.


Cuando Chávez fue elegido por primera vez presidente en diciembre de 1998, él defendía más bien un vago programa que no mencionaba el socialismo. Pero la vida enseña. Sobre la base de la experiencia, él se ha pronunciado a favor del socialismo. Eso es un gran paso adelante. Sin embargo, todavía necesita ser llevado a la práctica. Es cierto que han habido algunos pasos hacia adelante: se han nacionalizado parcialmente algunos sectores clave como las telecomunicaciones, el cemento y el acero. En repetidas ocasiones Chávez ha atacado a la burguesía y a la oligarquía (que es lo mismo) y se ha mantenido firme frente al imperialismo de EE.UU..


Pero la falta de control obrero en las industrias pesadas estatales como el acero, ha dado lugar a muchas dificultades y conflictos laborales. Los trabajadores se resienten de la burocracia que está tratando de empujarlos a un lado y usurpar el control del movimiento bolivariano. Todos los intentos de los trabajadores para tomar la iniciativa e introducir elementos de control y gestión obrera, por ejemplo, en las industrias pesadas básicas de Guayana, con el apoyo del Presidente, se han encontrado con una fuerte resistencia y el sabotaje abierto por parte de la burocracia. Aprovechando la enfermedad del presidente, estos elementos están hablando abiertamente de "chavismo sin Chávez". Esto representa el mayor peligro para la Revolución.


Hoy, trece años después de la primera elección de Chávez aún no se ha alcanzado la victoria final. Mientras la tierra, los bancos y las grandes empresas sigan en manos de la oligarquía, la Revolución Bolivariana nunca estará a salvo. El profundo vínculo que existe entre Chávez y las masas venezolanas es un reflejo del hecho de que Chávez las despertó a la vida política y a la lucha.


La verdad es que un gran sector de la burocracia bolivariana nunca estuvo a favor del socialismo. Este sector ha estado conspirando constantemente para poner freno a las expropiaciones y a la revolución, y sobre todo evitar que los trabajadores tomen el control.


Le Monde Diplomatique reveló recientemente la actitud del ala derecha del movimiento bolivariano, que ha estado durante mucho tiempo soñando con un "chavismo sin Chávez":


"En una visita a Brasil en abril de 2010, se le preguntó [a Chávez] si dejaría que emergiera otro líder. "Yo no tengo un sucesor a la vista", respondió. Pero puede haber un cambio de pensamiento. El año pasado, Chávez le dijo a un ex asesor, el académico español Juan Carlos Monedero, quien había advertido sobre el peligro del "hiperliderazgo” en Venezuela: "Tengo que aprender a delegar más poder". Durante su tratamiento médico prolongado, varios altos dirigentes llenaron el vacío y emergieron como posibles sucesores: el canciller Nicolás Maduro (un ex dirigente sindical), quien encabezó la comisión que redactó la nueva Ley de Trabajo, el vicepresidente ejecutivo Elías Jaua (popular entre los chavistas de base); el presidente de la Asamblea Nacional, Diosdado Cabello (un ex teniente del ejército con un enfoque pragmático y un fuerte respaldo en las fuerzas armadas). En mayo, el crítico Monedero comentó que anteriormente "algunos de nosotros vimos las dificultades de continuar con este proceso" sin Chávez, pero que "ahora hemos perdido el miedo, porque veo decenas de personas que podrían continuar el proceso sin ningún problema."


Que haya "decenas de personas" a la espera de tomar el control del movimiento bolivariano en el momento en que Chávez abandone la escena, no lo dudamos. Pero los defensores del "chavismo sin Chávez" no tienen ningún deseo de "continuar el proceso" de la Revolución. Por el contrario, desean "continuar" el proceso de descarrilar la revolución bolivariana, de diluir su programa para que sea aceptable para la oligarquía, detener las expropiaciones y revertir todo el programa. En otras palabras, desean poner en práctica el programa de la Quinta Columna de la burguesía dentro del chavismo.


La clave para el éxito de la Revolución es que el control del movimiento esté en manos de la base, no de los burócratas y arribistas que han hecho tanto daño a la causa bolivariana. Son los trabajadores y campesinos quienes han sido la verdadera fuerza motriz de la revolución. Ellos y sólo ellos, deben tener el control. Las únicas personas que pueden conducir la revolución a la victoria son los obreros y campesinos.


* ¡Derrotemos a la contrarrevolución!

* ¡Expropiemos a la oligarquía!

* ¡El poder para los obreros y campesinos!

* ¡Llevar a cabo la revolución hasta el final!


Londres, 24 de septiembre

http://www.marxist.com/elecciones-en-venezuela-por-que-apoya-chavez.htm


Más de 10 puntos de ventaja para Chávez en una encuesta es un `empate técnico´

Lecciones de manipulación

Viernes, 28 de Septiembre de 2012


Europa Press, Reuters y otras agencias llevan a la opinión pública la tesis del "empate técnico" entre Chávez y Capriles para las elecciones en Venezuela, a pesar de todas las encuestas.


José Manzaneda, coordinador de Cubainformación.- La inmensa mayoría de las encuestas sobre las elecciones del día 7 de octubre en Venezuela otorgan una clara ventaja al presidente Hugo Chávez sobre el opositor Henrique Capriles (1).


Grandes agencias y medios internacionales realizan, desde hace meses, una sostenida campaña de imagen y propaganda en favor del candidato de la derecha venezolana (2). Por ello, algunos no dudan en enmascarar los resultados de estas encuestas.


Por ejemplo, la agencia española Europa Press titulaba que “debido a los indecisos”, “Los últimos sondeos apuntan a un empate técnico entre Chávez y Capriles” (3). Pero veamos qué considera “empate técnico” esta agencia. Nos dice que, según la encuestadora venezolana Datanálisis, el voto de las personas indecisas se eleva actualmente al 11,6 por ciento. Esta empresa, además, asegura que en los últimos cuatro meses la atracción de voto de Capriles sobre este sector de población indecisa ha sido importante. Y a partir de estos datos, plantea tres escenarios hipotéticos en los que, en todos ellos, sin excepción, vencería el presidente Chávez: en uno, por 11 puntos, en otro por 9, y en otro por más de 3. Este tercer escenario, el supuestamente más ajustado, es el que da pie al titular, al considerarlo “empate técnico”.


Pero –curiosamente- la nota de Europa Press solo se refiere a la cifra de personas indecisas, y no recoge el dato más importante: que, según esta misma encuesta de Datanálisis, la ventaja a día de hoy es de 10,4 puntos a favor del presidente Chávez (4). Es como si en una nota deportiva, Europa Press llamara “empate técnico” a un partido de baloncesto que acabara con 10 puntos de diferencia.


La nota de la agencia, ya al final, recoge los resultados de otras dos encuestas, en las que Chávez también vence con holgura, en una incluso con una ventaja de 20 puntos.


Otra agencia internacional, la británica Reuters, titulaba “Venezuela: encuestas a gusto de todos”, dando a entender que los sondeos aportan resultados muy dispares (5). Sin embargo, la nota cita siete encuestas, de las cuales 5 darían victoria clara a Hugo Chávez y dos un supuesto “empate técnico”. El titular debería ser entonces, más bien, “encuestas al gusto de Chávez”.


Ambos casos de manipulación informativa son especialmente relevantes, ya que se trata de agencias cuyos materiales son reproducidos por centenares de medios de prensa, radio y televisión de todo el mundo, que llevan a la opinión pública la tesis del “empate técnico” (6).


Ante la contundencia de los sondeos, que dan una victoria clara a la izquierda venezolana, los grandes medios tratan por ésta y otras vías de manipular sus resultados. Por ejemplo, convirtiendo en noticia no ya la clara ventaja de Hugo Chávez, sino el supuesto acortamiento de ésta en los últimos meses, con titulares como “Venezuela, se cierra la distancia” (7). También, llevando a titular la única encuesta –de al menos una decena publicadas- que daría una mínima ventaja al candidato opositor, y que curiosamente ha sido realizada por Consultores 21, una empresa con vínculos directos con el partido de Henrique Capriles (8). O bien poniendo en duda la propia validez de las encuestas, con argumentos tan inverosímiles como el del “miedo (de las personas encuestadas) a perder los beneficios que el Gobierno otorga sólo a sus seguidores” (9).


Lo cierto es que las encuestas son solo eso, encuestas, y el resultado final se conocerá el próximo 7 de octubre. Mientras, el presidente Hugo Chávez sigue realizando llamamientos constantes a no tomar en cuenta estos sondeos y vencer cualquier tentación de triunfalismo (10). Porque en estas elecciones presidenciales –para unos y para otros- se juega mucho más que el futuro político inmediato de Venezuela (11).


(1) http://www.telesurtv.net/articulos/2012/09/23/encuestadora-vaticina-victoria-de-chavez-en-todas-las-regiones-venezolanas-997.html


(2) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=156637&titular=la-campaña-de-los-medios-de-comunicación-españoles-contra-chávez-y-la-preparación-del-día-


(3) http://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticia-venezuela-ultimos-sondeos-apuntan-empate-tecnico-chavez-capriles-20120926081710.html


(4) http://www.lajornadanet.com/diario/archivo/2012/septiembre/26/6.php


(5) http://www.infolatam.com/2012/09/25/venezuela-encuestas-a-gusto-de-todos/


(6) http://noticias.lainformacion.com/mundo/los-ultimos-sondeos-en-venezuela-apuntan-a-un-empate-tecnico-entre-chavez-y-capriles_3s0ekYQztVuTKuzG3iRDj/


(7) http://eleconomista.com.mx/columnas/columna-especial-politica/2012/09/25/venezuela-se-cierra-distancia


(8) http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n212775.html


(9) http://eleconomista.com.mx/internacional/2012/09/25/encuesta-da-ventaja-10-puntos-hugo-chavez


(10) http://www.eldiariodeguayana.com.ve/nacionales/14274-chavez-pide-no-caer-en-triunfalismos.html


(11) http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=156566&titular=“en-las-urnas-venezolanas-se-juega-también-el-futuro-de-toda-américa-latina”-


http://www.cubainformacion.tv/index.php/lecciones-de-manipulacion/45828-M


Declaración conjunta FARC- ELN ratifica voluntad de paz de la guerrilla

28 septiembre, 2012 | En Para La Calle | Posteado por Aana Cuento, fiesta, candela


DECLARACIÓN POLÍTICA –


El Ejercito de Liberación Nacional (ELN) y Las Fuerzas armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP), inspirados en los más profundos sentimientos de hermandad, solidaridad y camaradería, con optimismo y elevada moral de combate, estrechados en un fuerte abrazo de esperanza en el cambio revolucionario, nos hemos reunido para analizar la situación política nacional e internacional, los problemas de la guerra y de la paz en Colombia y avanzar en el proceso de unidad que desde el año 2009 venimos forjando paso a paso, con el propósito de hacer converger ideas y acciones que permitan enfrentar junto al pueblo a la oligarquía y al imperialismo como elementos que imponen la explotación y la miseria en nuestra patria.


Indoblegable determinación nuestra, es continuar la búsqueda de una paz que para Colombia y el continente signifiquen el establecimiento de la verdadera democracia, la soberanía popular, la justicia social y la libertad.


Realizamos esta reunión, en momentos en que se desarrolla la más profunda crisis del sistema capitalista mundial, caracterizada por una desaforada carrera de guerras de invasión, saqueo y sobreexplotación de los recursos de la naturaleza, precarización de las condiciones de trabajo, que condenan al hambre y la muerte a millones de seres humanos en un planeta conducido por la voracidad del imperialismo, hacia el caos y la destrucción.


En nuestra patria las calamidades generadas por este sistema de inhumana sobre-explotación y exclusión de las pobrerías, ha escalado la desigualdad y profundizado la confrontación de clases en dimensiones nunca antes vistas, las cuales derivan directamente de la aplicación sostenida y desbocada de políticas neoliberales que favorecen a los grandes grupos financieros y grandes corporaciones transnacionales, en detrimento de las mayorías nacionales.


Dentro del panorama internacional de crisis sistémica del capital, que muestra sus rostros múltiples de debacle financiera, económica, ambiental, urbanística, energética, militar, política, institucional, moral y cultural, Colombia se configura como un país de economía reprimarizada y financiarizada.


A esa condición la han llevado los detentadores del poder, para permitir el saqueo que significa la extracción desaforada, el robo de sus recursos naturales y la especulación financiera. Millones de compatriotas han sido lanzados a la miseria y la guerra, impuesta por las élites para acallar la inconformidad de las mayorías frente a esta iniquidad.


El gobierno de Juan Manuel Santos fue instaurado para garantizar la continuidad de los planes de desposeción por despojo que sobre el pueblo colombiano impone el imperialismo. Una nueva espacialidad del Capital acompañada de ordenamientos jurídicos y disposiciones militaristas de seguridad y defensa inmersas en la vieja Doctrina de la Seguridad Nacional y terrorismo de Estado, se afianza en nuestro país para blindar los “derechos” del capital, el bienestar de los ricos a costa de los trabajadores y del pueblo más humilde. Dentro de esa perspectiva se define la nueva etapa de despojo de tierras que hoy se disfraza con el falso nombre de restitución. En la práctica, a los millones de desplazados y víctimas de las sucesivas etapas de despojo violento auspiciadas por el Estado, se suman ahora nuevas legiones de campesinos, indígenas, y gente sencilla en general, a los que se les arrebatará o se les niega ya la tierra mediante procedimientos de engañosa legalidad, engrosándose aún más las cifras de pobreza y de indigencia que colocan a Colombia en el rango del tercer país más desigual del mundo.


Es este el sentido cruel de la seguridad inversionista y de la prosperidad que difunde el presidente Juan Manuel Santos, mientras se sigue encarcelando, asesinando y reprimiendo a sus opositores.


Frente a esta realidad no puede haber otro camino para los revolucionarios que la unidad y la lucha, la acción de masas en las calles, el levantamiento popular en el campo y las ciudades, retando la criminalización de la protesta y exigiendo al gobierno reales hechos de paz, que no pueden ser otra cosa que hechos de solución a los problemas sociales y políticos que padecen las mayorías por cuenta del terrorismo Estado de la casta gobernante cuyas tendencias más guerreristas han conducido los destinos del país durante la última década.


No es con demagogia y amenazas de represión y más guerra que se pondrá fin al conflicto. No es con más compra de material bélico ni entregando el país al pentágono que se alcanzará la paz; no es con planes guerreristas y de tierra arrasada, como el “Plan Patriota” o el “Espada de Honor” como se logrará la reconciliación de los colombianos. Mucho menos dando ultimatums a la insurgencia a partir de la idea vana de que la paz sería el producto de una quimérica victoria militar del régimen, que lleve de rodillas a la insurgencia, rendida y desmovilizada, ante ese adefesio llamado marco jurídico para la paz.


Nuestra voluntad de paz radica en el convencimiento de que el destino de Colombia no puede depender de los intereses ruines de la oligarquía. Los cambios políticos y sociales con la participación y decisión plenos del pueblo son una necesidad y un requerimiento inevitable. Por ello la unidad y la movilización del pueblo en favor de los cambios estructurales para, sobre la base de la justicia, construir la paz, son la verdadera llave de su conquista.

Con pasos firmes de unidad en el pensamiento y en la acción, fraternalmente,


COMANDO CENTRAL, ELN.


SECRETARIADO DEL ESTADO MAYOR CENTRAL, FARC-EP.


Montañas de Colombia, septiembre de 2012

http://laguarura.net/2012/09/28/declaracion-conjunta-farc-eln/


Assange ante la ONU: "Es hora de que EE.UU. cese la persecución de WikiLeaks"

La investigación en contra de WikiLeaks no tiene precedentes por su escala, según declaró Assange ante la Asamblea General de la ONU

Publicado: 26 sep 2012 | 22:00 GMT Última actualización: 27 sep 2012 | 15:00 GMT 320 RT

El fundador de WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, apareció hoy entre los relatores en la Asamblea General de la ONU. "Hay un mundo nuevo tras la revelación de las publicaciones de WikiLeaks", declaró. El fundador de WikiLeaks subrayó la diferencia entre las palabras y las acciones de Estados Unidos, alabó lo que dijo el presidente Barack Obama, pero señaló que se acabó el tiempo de la mera retórica sin acciones.

"Felicitamos y estamos de acuerdo con las palabras de que se puede lograr la paz. Pero el tiempo de las palabras ha terminado. Es hora de que EE.UU. cese la persecución de WikiLeaks, nuestra gente y nuestras fuentes", dijo.

"La investigación en contra de WikiLeaks no tiene precedentes por su escala. Es hora de que el presidente Obama haga lo correcto y se una a los cambios en el mundo", declaró Julian Assange.

En su discurso Assange denunció la violación de derechos de ciudadanos por el Gobierno de EE.UU. Puso como ejemplo al informador de WikiLeaks Bradley Manning. El australiano acusó al Gobierno de EE.UU. de haber detenido a Bradley Manning sin presentar cargos en su contra y maltratarle. Actualmente Manning, que fue "maltratado y torturado psicológicamente", es acusado de "delitos capitales".

"Bradley Manning fue encarcelado en Bagdad y luego fue transferido a Virginia. Fue torturado. Es un soldado y patriota que fue abusado por su Gobierno. Le querían forzar para testimoniar contra WikiLeaks y contra mí. Ahora puede enfrentar la pena capital por revelar la verdad", sentenció.

Agregó que el FBI elaboró 42.135 páginas sobre la actividad de WikiLeaks, y al menos 8.000 son sobre Bradley Manning.

Antes de Assange intervino ante la ONU el canciller de Ecuador, Ricardo Patiño, que hizo hincapié en el tema del asilo diplomático que su país había concedido al australiano. "Ya durante dos meses intentamos encontrar una decisión legal con el Reino Unido y Suecia sobre el asunto de Assange. Defendemos el derecho de asilo, un derecho humano fundamental", dijo.

El famoso activista e informático presentó su discurso a través de una videoconferencia desde la embajada ecuatoriana en Londres, donde permanece refugiado desde hace un centenar de días. RT retransmitió el evento en vivo desde la sede de la ONU en Nueva York.

La intervención de Assange, organizada por Quito, busca encontrar una postura común con el Reino Unido sobre el asilo diplomático concedido al australiano y está centrada ante todo en los derechos humanos. Londres le ha negado un salvoconducto, alegando que está obligado a extraditarlo a Suecia, país que lo reclama por una supuesta agresión sexual. Se puede ver la versión completa del discurso de Assange ante la ONU aquí.


Texto completo en: http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/54598-assange-onu-hora-eeuu-cesar-persecucion-wikileaks

http://actualidad.rt.com/actualidad/view/54598-assange-onu-hora-eeuu-cesar-persecucion-wikileaks


La pulseada de Venezuela

Claudia Korol

2012-09-28

El 7 de octubre se juega una nueva pulseada en Nuestra América. El voto a Chávez, en esta oportunidad, se constituirá como un plebiscito popular sobre la continuidad de un proyecto democrático popular de transformaciones, cuya dimensión es continental. Para poder sostener ese proyecto, Chávez no sólo debe ganar… sino ganar con un margen de votos suficiente como para poder asegurar el rumbo de su gobierno, frente a una derecha que no quiere seguir esperando su caída, sino que la busca por todos los medios, contando con el apoyo activo del establishment de los EE.UU..

Hay una paradoja latente en este evento: las elecciones -el sistema electoral reconocido por la ideología liberal como el medio privilegiado para ejercer la democracia-, se vuelve un arma en las manos de un pueblo que en sus franjas más concientes apunta los votos contra la ideología que lo promueve. Es así como las fuerzas que sustentan política e ideológicamente al sistema capitalista y a sus democracias de baja intensidad, conspiran contra el resultado que surja de las elecciones, sabiendo que Chávez tiene el triunfo asegurado por esa vía. Porque el resultado previsible el 7 de octubre -de acuerdo con los datos de prácticamente todas las encuestas y de la mayoría de los analistas-, el triunfo de Chávez, es un verdadero desafío a las políticas neoliberales del necrocapitalismo del siglo 21, a sus guerras de alta y de baja intensidad, a sus invasiones, al genocidio sistemático de los pueblos originarios y al ecocidio –propios del colonialismo reciclado-. La conspiración de la derecha está en marcha, con acusaciones de fraude, y con maniobras tendientes a crear un clima desestabilizador alrededor de esa fecha.

Es por eso que estamos ante una pulseada de carácter estratégico que tiene su epicentro en Venezuela, y que no se limita –aunque es parte fundamental de los intereses en juego- a la batalla mundial por el petróleo, por el agua, por la biodiversidad del Amazonas, por las riquezas que existen en esas tierras o bajo las mismas… Es también una batalla por nuestros sentidos de humanidad. Por demostrar que desde un poder popular es posible insubordinarse frente a las políticas imperialistas de prepotencia basadas en la ley del más fuerte. Es demostrar que hay otro mundo posible que el capitalista, vencedor de la contienda ideológica, política, económica y militar del siglo 20. Y que ese otro mundo puede ser nombrado… que no es necesario seguir realizando ejercicios semánticos, porque entre tantas recuperaciones que los pueblos del continente estamos realizando: recuperación de memoria histórica, de dignidad, de experiencias de resistencia… también estamos recuperando el sentido propio para palabras como antiimperialismo, unidad, poder popular, y socialismo.

Nuestro apoyo a la revolución bolivariana no se sustenta entonces en ningún fanatismo. Hay numerosas críticas que en diferentes momentos hemos realizado fraternalmente al compañero Hugo Chávez desde algunos movimientos sociales, y desde colectivos de intelectuales, incluso en espacios de diálogo que él mismo ha organizado y convocado para escuchar estas opiniones, como son los Encuentros en Defensa de la Humanidad. Hay muchos debates posibles que seguirán abiertos: sobre el modelo de desarrollo, sobre las concepciones y la metodología de construcción de la unidad latinoamericana, sobre la solidaridad necesaria con quienes sufren la sistemática persecución en Colombia, sobre el golpe que ha significado el apoyo y la legitimación otorgadas al gobierno de Porfirio Lobo -continuista del golpe de estado en Honduras- para su ingreso en la OEA y en otras instancias internacionales. Los debates continuarán, porque es parte de las batallas por el socialismo el cultivo del pensamiento crítico y el esfuerzo de que el mismo no sea clausurado en el contexto de las experiencias revolucionarias.

Pero quisiera señalar un aporte fundamental que la revolución bolivariana nos ha dado a los latinoamericanos y latinoamericanas. En plena crisis ideológica de las izquierdas, Hugo Chávez ha desafiado con coraje al orden hegemónico mundial, a su pensamiento único, atreviéndose a inscribir nuevamente en la historia el nombre del socialismo como opción, como desafío a los modelos de muerte del capitalismo. Ha desafiado al mismo tiempo al conservadorismo de algunas izquierdas, al culto al equilibrio, a una exagerada domesticación y subordinación a las relaciones de fuerzas que consagran la hegemonía mundial…

El factor Chávez se ha vuelto un factor de desequilibrio de las relaciones de fuerzas tanto en su país como en el continente, y con su iniciativa ha logrado reforzar las nociones de solidaridad entre pueblos, ejerciendo acciones concretas de apoyo a la Revolución Cubana, y también gestos materiales de solidaridad frente a crisis humanitarias que afectaron a nuestros países en diferentes momentos, provocando un gran debate político pedagógico sobre el valor de la unidad latinoamericana, del antiimperialismo y del humanismo. Una solidaridad material que más que proclamada fue ejercida.

La pulseada del 7 de octubre, excede la simpatía o no por el líder de la revolución bolivariana… va más allá incluso de los debates intensos que se generan sobre muchos aspectos del modelo político, económico y social en curso.

Nuestro apoyo a Chávez no es solamente un gesto de solidaridad hacia un pueblo que intenta un camino propio, que no se subordina a la violencia imperialista. Es también un compromiso con los proyectos populares en nuestro país, en el continente y en el mundo.

Es asumir que la Revolución Bolivariana hoy es una fortaleza de todos nosotros y nosotras. Un lugar desde el cual podemos, en principio, resistir las políticas guerreristas gringas, sus bases militares, sus esfuerzos de multiplicar la bota sobre nuestras poblaciones, para que toda América vuelva a ser su disciplinado patio trasero, lugar de saqueo, de rapiña de nuestros bienes, de superexplotación y de genocidio. Un lugar desde el cual podemos, si resistimos, ganarnos el derecho a ensayar nuevas formas de vida, de buen vivir, en las que el pueblo vaya creando las bases de un poder popular.

Es conocido que entre los aspectos que más sostén ha dado a la revolución bolivariana están las políticas sociales, que benefician a grandes sectores de la población más humilde, y de manera especial a las mujeres pobres, a las mujeres trabajadoras. Las distintas Misiones creadas por la revolución dan respuestas a problemas como la salud, la alfabetización y la educación, vivienda, trabajo, agricultura, seguridad social, nutrición, entre otras. De 1999 al 2011, el gasto social del gobierno ocupó más del 60% de los ingresos fiscales. En ese período, la inversión social se ubica en el 20% del PBI, mientras que en la década anterior alcanzó el 8%. Según el Banco Mundial, la pobreza disminuyó del 70% en 1996 al 23.9% en 2009, y la pobreza extrema se redujo del 40% al 5.9%. Éstas son sólo algunas de las cifras de un vasto movimiento social que modifica las condiciones de vida de millones de personas, que promueven su participación política, y que constituyen el cimiento de la revolución bolivariana.

Las Misiones –aun con sus complejidades- son ejercicios concretos de poder popular. Para las mujeres, especialmente, no sólo significan un alivio en las tareas cotidianas –que siguen recayendo sobre ellas, a pesar de los debates sobre la igualdad de oportunidades-. Son también caminos para integrarse en la vida política, para formarse políticamente, para ejercer el derecho a salir de la casa hacia el país y el mundo. Los derechos de las mujeres han sido consagrados en un conjunto de leyes, e incluso en la Constitución se ha dado un avance significativo al reconocer el trabajo no remunerado de las mujeres en el hogar.

En estos años, es mucho lo que ha crecido la presencia de las mujeres en los movimientos sociales, en la gestión pública, y en el propio gobierno… aunque éste sigue siendo un reto fundamental. La idea de que sin feminismo no hay socialismo atraviesa los debates actuales de Venezuela –incluso desde algunas intervenciones del propio Chávez- desafiando a un machismo muy arraigado en la cultura patriarcal latinoamericana.

En esta perspectiva, más allá de los debates imprescindibles sobre cómo defender y profundizar el proceso en curso, de cómo enfrentar los obstáculos burocráticos, de cómo hacer más colectivas las formas de gobierno y de poder popular, la suerte de la revolución bolivariana que se pulsará en las próximas elecciones, significa la posibilidad de sostener los avances que los movimientos populares logramos en nuestro continente en las primeras décadas del siglo 21.

Luego del golpe de Estado en Honduras y en Paraguay, sabemos que el imperialismo concentra las energías en revertir el entusiasmo popular en Nuestra América, esforzándose por voltear de una manera u otra al gobierno bolivariano, eje de las políticas de unidad continental como el ALBA, UNASUR, CELAC y ahora MERCOSUR.

Es por esto que no podemos dudar a la hora de pararnos frente al imperialismo.

Tenemos que declararnos en estado de alerta frente a las campañas de confusión, de descrédito, de desestabilización de la revolución bolivariana. Tenemos que fortalecer el espacio de movimientos sociales del ALBA, en su capítulo argentino y en su carácter continental. Tenemos que reforzar las redes de comunicación alternativas, para desarmar los golpes mediáticos que se van a multiplicar en estos días. Tenemos que evitar que Venezuela, y con Venezuela toda Nuestra América, se vuelva un territorio de guerra. Tenemos que hacer del continente un lugar para la paz… como condición para que cada pueblo pueda decidir sus propios caminos de buen vivir.

Un 8 de octubre, hace 45 años, el Che era capturado por las fuerzas gringas en Bolivia. Che estaba combatiendo por hacer de Nuestra América un solo territorio rebelde frente al imperialismo. El 9 de octubre, el Che era asesinado y luego desaparecido.

Pero el 7 de octubre todavía estaba combatiendo. La solidaridad más importante, la más necesaria, es la que llega al cuerpo que todavía puede combatir.

Hagamos un frente de defensa de la Revolución Bolivariana, que se multiplique más allá de las elecciones, proyectando los sueños de todas y todos los que cayeron en nuestro continente. Y de todas y todos los que entregaron sus vidas, cada día de sus vidas, a las luchas por la liberación, por la emancipación, por el poder popular, por el feminismo y por el socialismo.

(Intervención en el acto de solidaridad y defensa de la Revolución Bolivariana, realizado por los Movimientos Sociales del ALBA –capítulo Argentina- el día 26 de septiembre del 2012 en CTA Capital )


http://alainet.org/active/58272



English


The Election That Matters

by GEORGE CICCARIELLO-MAHER

Weekend Edition September 28-30, 2012


On October 7th, Venezuelans head to the polls for an election that will determine not only the future of the country and its Bolivarian Revolution, but that could also have powerful implications for the anti-capitalist struggle in Latin America and beyond.


A Tale of Two Elections


In what is painted as a battle for the country’s future between two opposing ideals, an incumbent often berated as a populist demagogue faces off against a representative of the moneyed elite. The former, a political outsider hated by the far right for his skin color; the latter, a wealthy former state governor completely out-of-touch with the plight of the working poor.


The election begins in a dead heat, but a series of public gaffes by the conservative candidate as well as a general lack of charisma consistently dog his campaign, leading him to increasingly desperate measures. Just when it seemed things couldn’t get worse, a leaked recording reveals the emptiness of his rhetoric of unity and empathy.


I’m not talking about the U.S. election, Mitt Romney, or his now-notorious comments about the “47 percent.” I’m referring to the one election this Fall that really matters, because it represents the struggle for the future of the Americas: that of Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.


A Tale of Two Venezuelas


The 1998 election of Hugo Chávez marked the entry of “the other Venezuela” into the official political life of the nation. This Venezuela, in the words of legendary folk singer Alí Primera, is the “Venezuela of the poor, the Venezuela with no reason, no reason to exist.” But exist it has for five decades or more, despite being obscured by a series of oil booms and the hermetic exclusion of the poor and dark-skinned from politics, high society, and the media.


This Venezuela did not appear publicly for the first time with Chávez’s election, but instead existed subterraneously in a multiplicity of movements, struggles, collectives, militias, organizations, that emerged for all to see and none to deny in the massive rebellions of February 1989 known as the Caracazo. This spontaneously organized appearance of the Venezuelan pueblo then led to the attempted coup by Chávez and others three years later, which saw the future president imprisoned. The revolutionary grassroots, and Chávez himself, were at a fork in the road: to run, or not to run, in the elections. Chávez had previously rejected the possibility, but over the course of the mid-1990s, his mind and the minds of millions of others were changed, and the collective decision to attempt power by the ballot instead of the bullet.


The tear in the continuum of history that appeared in 1989 and grew in 1992 was blasted open in 1998, destroying the existing political system and demanding something completely different, something that would truly represent the other Venezuela. In this task, there have been significant successes: the social welfare of the Venezuela people has been dramatically improved through the Mission system and the groundwork has been laid for a qualitative leap to a political system that breaks firmly with the past. But the present remains heavy with the residue of that past: in the corruption, the opportunism, and the multitude of halfhearted revolutionaries that surround Chávez and threaten to derail or reverse the process.


And not only that. When Chávez fell ill last year and disappeared unannounced to Cuba, a long avoided conversation was forced upon this other Venezuela. Where the very word “Chavismo without Chávez” had previously marked one as a reactionary, everyone was now grappling, albeit in hushed tones, with the question of this inevitability. When the comedy of errors that is the Venezuelan opposition seemed to finally unify behind a single candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski, the stage seemed set for a competitive election of the kind not seen in more than a decade: young against old, healthy against ill, the appearance of novelty against 14 years in power.


But it was not to be.


A Tale of Two Leaks


The difficulties for Capriles were clear from the outset. The less charismatic of two young symbols of the opposition, Capriles’ candidacy was only ratified amid continuing doubts about Leopoldo López’s eligibility to run due to corruption allegations. Capriles is the very image of the Venezuelan elite: light-skinned, wealthy, and utterly out of touch with the mass of Venezuelans, he even ran for Congress in 1998 under the green banner of the discredited Copei party, one wing of Venezuela’s corrupt “partyocracy” that held power for decades. Despite his youth, here was a man firmly of the past in a country where any association with the “Fourth Republic” is a kiss of death. Moreover, as mayor of the wealthy Caracas sector of Baruta during the brief 2002 coup against Chávez, Capriles came under suspicion for doing little to stop an angry mob that attacked and besieged the Cuban Embassy as part of a witch hunt for Chavista cabinet members.


Capriles needed desperately to shake this legacy, to cut any ties with the past and chart a course for the future. But this is no easy task when the past is neoliberal and the present socialist, and Capriles and the opposition United Democratic Roundtable (MUD) coalition have struggled for a platform in a country where state intervention remains immensely popular. They have consistently insisted that they would not dismantle the Mission system or engage in large-scale privatization, but this has begged the question: what sets Capriles apart from Chávez? Meanwhile, many have suspected that behind the soft-pedaled rhetoric of social democracy, of Chavismo with a younger and whiter face, there lurked the threat of reaction and of a return to the disavowed past.


Two recent leaks have made it clear how justified this suspicion was. First came the release of a secret agreement by opposition forces on some basic aspects of their plan for government. Surprisingly, the document was released by an opposition politician and former governer of Anzoátegui state, David de Lima, himself no friend of the Chavistas. Whereas Capriles has argued that his government would pursue a “Brazilian model” a la Lula (notably neglecting the latter’s support for Chávez), the leaked MUD document lacks even the trappings of social democracy, and instead reveals plans for extensive reforms of a markedly neoliberal stripe. The French sociologist Romain Migus has published a short book analyzing the MUD program, which sums up the situation best: these are “[neo]liberal wolves in progressive sheep’s clothing.”


While the MUD has denied any knowledge of what they dismiss as a “fake” document, even anti-Chávez politician William Ojeda has attacked the “hidden agenda” it contains (only to be promptly expelled from his party). The Chavistas have gone on the offensive, tying the MUD to the past in the most direct of ways be deeming the proposed reforms a “paquetazo” (big package), a direct reference to the neoliberal reform package that sparked the Caracazo, and which was imposed in similarly backhanded fashion by Carlos Andrés Pérez. This was a master stroke, and one that has struck the anti-Chavistas at their weakest point. In an ill-conceived and visibly desperate attempt to displace the controversy with humor, Capriles even suggested that “the women know” what the real “big package” is.


More damning still was the second leak, which provided a visceral reminder of how much of the past remains in the present. On September 13th, a video appeared of a conversation between former Capriles aide Juan Carlos Caldera apparently accepting a large pile of cash (reportedly $9,300) in exchange for arranging a face-to-face meeting between a wealthy businessman and Capriles. Caldera denied the charges, but was quickly booted from the campaign in a failed attempt at damage control: the memory of corruption past and the pained knowledge that it continues even within the Chávez regime meant that Capriles would not be spared the taint of suspicion. (The fact that the money allegedly came from Wilmer Ruperti, an oil transport magnate with friendly relations to Chávez seems odd at first glance, but less so once we consider that this would not be the first time that Ruperti had orchestrated an undercover video recording).


While opinion polls are notoriously politicized in Venezuela, the most established opposition firm, Datanálisis, has consistently given Chávez a margin of victory of between 13 and 16 percentage points. But even Datanálisis has been fudging the presentation, if not the numbers, to show a late rally for Capriles: on September 25th the firm released a poll showing Chávez with only a 10-point advantage, where the prior week had seen nearly a 15-point margin. While head pollster and Capriles supporter Luis Vicente León suggested this as proof of the “stellar” impact of the opposition campaign, he failed to note that the most recently released data is drawn from a poll that was conducted earlier, prior to these scandalous revelations.


A Tale of Two Plans


Largely as a result of both leaks and the hemorrhaging of public support they have prompted, the MUD coalition has begun to splinter. Citing the leaked MUD government plan on which they were not consulted, four smaller parties withdrew their support from Capriles, joining David de Lima and William Ojeda in the untenable in-between space between Chavistas and their opposite. A few short days later, on September 17th, one independent candidate withdrew from the race to throw his weight behind Chávez and an open supporter of the opposition went nearly as far. The first, Yoel Acosta Chirinos, declared that “My adversary is the right wing, and my historic ally is Chavez. The important thing is that the government is maintained [in power], and that more power goes to the people.” While Acosta had admittedly been a Chávez supporter in the past, the constitutional lawyer and firm anti-Chavista Hermann Escarra openly declared the MUD platform unconstitutional, and a step backward toward “the most savage capitalism.”


This splintering of Capriles’ coalition and frustration with the electoral Plan A has yielded the threat of a perennial “Plan B.” Such poor prospects yield nothing if not desperation among an elite so imbued with the idea of its own divine right to rule that it will not let trifles like “democracy” or “elections” stand in its way. After briefly ousting Chávez in a quickly reversed 2002 coup, the Venezuelan opposition struggled for years to shed the taint of golpismo, of coup-mongering. In this sense, Chávez’s last re-election in 2006 was historic: it was the first time that the majority of the opposition recognized the results as fair and clean. But when they did so, it was not out of some abstract faith in democracy, but political strategy, and the question is how long will they fail before deciding that the strategy of repeatedly losing elections is not working out for them.


We have seen more than whispers that a Plan B might be in the works in recent weeks. On August 25th, a massive explosion at the Amuay refinery (Venezuela’s largest) killed dozens, immediately raising suspicions that sabotage had been at play, since opposition pollsters had previously suggested that only a “catastrophic” event could prevent a Chávez victory.


More ominously still, a leading member of Vota Piedra, one of the parties that recently withdrew support from Capriles, took to the airwaves to reject this decision. Ricardo Koesling, who some have tied to the Cuban-American terrorist network led buy Luis Posada Carriles from the 1970s to the present, and who allegedly participated in the 2002 attack on the Cuban Embassy under Capriles’ watch, made it clear that his days of political violence are far from over, and that: “Capriles is going to be President, and we’ll use bullets, fists, kicks, everything we’ve got, to force the Chavistas out.”


But such a direct strategy of tension has never worked out for the anti-Chavistas, whose flailing attempts to gain power through force have only hurt them on the political terrain when the majority sent them packing. Either in recognition of this fact or as an open threat lest they dare, posters recently spotted in Caracas from the hardcore Chavista Venezuelan Popular Unity (UPV) party feature deceased radical leader Lina Ron alongside the popular slogan: “With Chávez everything, without Chávez bullets [plomo].”


More likely than direct acts of sabotage, however, is the constant threat that the opposition will refuse to accept or recognize a Chávez victory, and as in previous elections, the groundwork for this strategy is already being laid. From opposition pollsters who suggest a clear Capriles victory to then denounce the opposite, to suggestions that electoral observers near the Colombian border are preparing to sow chaos, to a leaked email suggesting that opposition leader Julio Borges is already preparing to cry fraud.


In this, the domestic Venezuelan opposition can count on working hand-in-hand with both the U.S. government and media. The latter is already replete with stories about the undemocratic Chávez regime and the impending electoral fraud, and the expelled former U.S. ambassador Patrick Duddy recently outlined a variety of possible alternatives for U.S. intervention into the post-electoral scenario. Such view plainly contradict the recent conclusion of the Carter Center (confirmed by the Union of South American Nations, UNASUR), that “of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”


A Tale of Two Paths


Against those intransigent souls for whom elections can only be a trap, the Venezuelan example should give some hesitation. Few could have foreseen the collapse of the political system, the increasing social polarization, and the eventual resort to more or less open class combat that would be unleashed in part by Chávez’s election. Historical ruptures open possibilities, but political leaders are more often than not conditioned to make the wrong decision when it matters most. When Obama was elected, he could have, in theory at least, placed his bets on the poor, tacked hard to the left, and hoped to mobilize supporters faster than his enemies. Instead he did the opposite: giving up any radical pretensions from the get-go and charting a course of unabashed neoliberalism at home and imperialism abroad.


Chávez provides an alternative possibility: elected as a moderate and populist, he acted both on gut instincts and on the advice of those radicals and movements that had cut their teeth in the struggle against the old Fourth Republic. Before he had accomplished much, or even intended to, the right struck back, and it was the interplay of the “whip of the counter-revolution” and powerful revolutionary movements, more than anything else, that radicalized the once-moderate Chávez. It is this combative dialectic, one that has made the Venezuelan revolution possible and yet one that is notably absent at the heart of the empire, that is at stake on October 7th.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/the-election-that-matters/


Who is Henrique Capriles Radonski?

By Jody McIntyre


The presidential elections are a truly national event in Venezuela. There are rallies to attend, public statements and press releases by the candidates, mini-newspapers containing plans for the next six years of government… and everyone has an opinion.


The posters are the easiest to spot. On every street corner, two faces are prevalent: Hugo Chavez, and his main opponent, Capriles Radonski. Chavez, corazon de mi patria. Heart of my country. Capriles, hay un camino. There is a way. Where this way will lead us, exactly, we are not told.


With just two weeks to go until voting takes place, the candidate who tops the polls is difficult to miss. Hugo Chavez is a larger-than-life character, and has become well-known for his statements denouncing, imperialism, capitalism and US foreign policy. The man who famously called George W Bush ‘Mr Danger’ for his murderous policies of invasion in Afghanistan and Iraq looks to be on course for yet another election victory on 7 October, but what about Capriles? The Roundtable of Democratic Unity [MUD] coalition he represents is looking far from united; just two weeks ago, four organizations withdrew their support for the opposition candidate after leaked documents revealed the neoliberal agenda of his economic policies. But what are his main campaign policies, and how has he gone about communicating them to the Venezuelan people? Does he have the potential to cause an upset?


According to articles in mainstream Western media, Capriles is a ‘centre-left progressive’, and indeed, this seems to be the way he is attempting to present himself to voters. Instead of attacking the Misiones (missions) introduced by the Chavez government to tackle healthcare and education, Capriles has recognized the immense popularity they enjoy with the millions of ordinary Venezuelan people who run them at a local level and benefit from them. So Capriles has decided that, if elected, he will keep the Misiones in place.


If only he were telling the truth. On 23 August, an internal MUD document was leaked to the Venezuelan media, revealing his economic plans. The MERCAL Misiones, government-subsidized supermarkets offering families basic foods for a fraction of their usual price, are among the targets; food subsidies would be decreased by 60 per cent over the next three years. The Gran Mision Vivienda, which aims to build two million houses and also funds poorer sections of society to build their own housing, is to be ended. I have been extremely impressed by the fast and efficient Metro service around Caracas, on which, as a disabled person, I can travel for free – as can my brother, as someone helping me. Under Capriles, however, subsidized travel will be taken out of service, and standard prices will be increased by 5 per cent every four months in several cities.


Even before the leaked documents, it may have been difficult for voters to believe claims that he would keep in place Misiones which would never have existed without the actions of the Chavez government he is so intent on attacking. A march of hundreds of thousands which took place on Saturday in the capital, Caracas, and was dubbed ‘Misiones con Chavez’ in support of his re-election bid, seems to be a case in point. Similarly large mobilizations have taken place in the cities of Merida and Trujillo in recent days, attracting numbers that the opposition simply cannot.


Rather than policies, however, it seems to be Chavez’ personality that Capriles really dislikes, so perhaps we should analyze the latter’s own background in order to understand where he is coming from. In 2002, during the coup which ousted Chavez from power for a grand total of two days, Capriles was serving as mayor of Baruta. On 12 April, the Baruta police arrested the Minister of the Interior, Ramon Rodriguez Chacin. On the same day, Capriles was part of a crowd in Baruta that attacked the Cuban embassy, cutting off water and electricity, destroying vehicles parked outside and refusing to allow the Cuban ambassador to leave. Chavez has often been criticized for his ties with the Cuban government, which has resulted in such ‘atrocities’ as thousands of Cuban doctors providing free healthcare for the poorest sections of Venezuelan society through the Mision Barrio Adentro. Of course, attacking the embassy of any country is illegal under international law, but Capriles refused to accept responsibility, claiming that he helped to prevent further violence. After a lengthy investigation and more than one arrest, he was cleared of all charges under a government amnesty in December 2007.


It doesn’t add up to a record to be proud of. Nevertheless, Capriles is determined to get his message out. Hugo Chavez may have Plan Carabobo, his proposal for the next six years of the Bolivarian revolution, but Capriles has his Plan Venezuela, and he seems unwilling to give up without a fight. Indeed, that is what many are now concerned about: as the April 2002 coup and the oil bosses’ strike in December of that year show, the opposition is not averse to using extra-constitutional methods to achieve its objectives. As an electoral victory for the opposition becomes increasingly unlikely – a recent survey of opinion polls from August and the first week of September gave Chavez an average of 51 per cent support, but Capriles only 35 per cent – there are worries that the opposition may decide to refuse to accept the results of the election.


In a speech delivered in Caracas last Thursday, however, Capriles claimed that he was still confident of his chances.


...and we are going to see the victory of Plan Carabo- err... Plan Venezuela!’


It was a slip of the tongue, but perhaps, for once, Capriles was closer to the truth than he would like to admit.

http://www.newint.org/blog/2012/09/25/venezuela-elections-capriles-chavez/


Venezuelan elections: Why the IMT supports Chávez

Written by Alan Woods

Monday, 24 September 2012


The presidential election due on October 7 represents a decisive moment in the history of Venezuela. The outcome of this election will have a major impact throughout the continent and internationally. It goes without saying that the Hands Off Venezuela campaign is actively supporting the Bolivarian candidate Hugo Chavez and fighting against any attempt of the oligarchy and imperialism to sabotage the elections. The IMT stands firmly for the re-election of Hugo Chávez. Why have we taken this position?


Chavez at rally, September 2012. Photo: chavezcandangaChavez at rally, September 2012. Photo: chavezcandangaThe victory of Hugo Chávez in 1998 represented a historic advance of the workers and peasants of Venezuela. According to the UN Economic Commission on Latin America there was a 21 per cent reduction of poverty rates between 1999 and 2010. Illiteracy has been abolished. For the first time free healthcare has been provided for the poor.


All these gains would be threatened by a victory of the opposition. It is the elementary duty of every genuine revolutionary to defend these gains. Whoever is not able to defend the gains of the past will never be able to advance to the final victory.


The opposition’s claim that it will not reverse Chávez’s reforms is not to be trusted. Let us take just one example: housing. The Housing Mission has built thousands of homes for the poor. In May, information minister Andrés Izarra announced that the programme was on target with 200,000 units built since it began in 2011. The polling firm Hinterlaces indicates that, with a 76 per cent approval rating, the Housing Mission is the most popular government social programme. Yet the opposition coalition MUD calls the Housing Mission “a fraud and a failure” and criticizes the government for expropriating land to build housing.


When Capriles won the governorship of Miranda State in 2008, he unleashed his supporters against the Cuban doctors participating in the healthcare programs of the revolution, and generally attempted to close down the different social programs by expelling them from premises belonging to the governorship, etc. It was only the active mobilisation of the people in the streets that managed to defend the gains of the revolution.


The new Labour law recently reduced the working week from 44 to 40 hours, and pre- and post-natal paid time off has been increased from 18 to 26 weeks. On leaving a company, for whatever reason, workers will receive a payment based on their last monthly salary multiplied by the number of years of employment – a major trade union demand. This is at a time when in Europe, all governments are worsening workers’ conditions of employment.


Capriles has attacked the law on the grounds that it “does nothing to deal with unemployment or to benefit those with unprotected casual jobs”. That means that these reforms would be abolished by the opposition.


But it is not just a question of defending the conquests of the last 13 years, of preserving the reforms, the gains in healthcare and education, the Missions and other programmes in the interest of the workers and the poor. It is above all, the need to defeat the bourgeois counterrevolution and thus prepare the way for a decisive advance for the Revolution, which has not yet accomplished its fundamental goals.


The opposition says it is defending “democracy” against “dictatorship”. But the same opposition was behind the failed coup in 2002. If they had succeeded then, it would have been the end of democracy in Venezuela. The example of Chile shows the fate that would have been in store. Capriles himself, as the Mayor of the Caracas district of Baruta, participated in the attempt to storm the Cuban embassy during the April 2002 coup, in flagrant violation of its diplomatic status.


The bourgeois opposition showed its contempt for democracy and elections by its decision to boycott national elections in 2005. Now, however, opposition leaders are falling over themselves to “defend” the 1999 constitution – which they have always opposed tooth and nail, although it was approved by an overwhelming majority in a popular referendum.


Nobody can place the slightest trust in the democratic credentials of the opposition.

What the opposition stands for


The opposition claims to represent the middle classes. But that is a lie. The opposition represents the interests of the oligarchy – the big landowners, bankers and capitalists. They are completely subservient to the imperialists and the big oil companies that dominated and plundered Venezuela for generations.


The wealthy people hate Chávez, because they fear that he means to eliminate private property. They are motivated by class resentment toward the poor, who, after generations of neglect, have benefitted from progressive government programmes. The opposition is not the representative of the middle class but its political exploiter.


The candidate of the opposition, Henrique Capriles Radonski, calls himself a reformer. He claims not to stand for any sort of ideology. We have heard this story many times before: “I am non-political: that is, I am right wing.” But it is sufficient to cast a glance at the party to which this “non-ideological” politician belongs, to immediately grasp the real situation.


Capriles claims to be “progressive”. He says he will not repeat the “mistaken policies” of pre-1998 Venezuela. But the very parties that endorse his candidacy were responsible for these policies, which were not at all “mistakes” but were the direct expression of the interests of the super-rich clique that ran the country.


But the masses are not naive. They are not deceived by Capriles’ demagogy. They see that behind the smiling mask there lies concealed the ugly physiognomy of the oligarchy, which, if it returns to power, will trample them underfoot.


Capriles belongs to the Justice First Party (MPJ), a right-wing bourgeois party that stands for “private enterprise” and opposes the intervention of the state in economic life. This is ironical at a time when so-called “free enterprise” has been exposed as a gigantic fraud on a global scale.


Does Mr. Capriles not know that the capitalist system is in a deep crisis everywhere? When the private banks in the US collapsed in 2008, what did they do? Did they confine themselves to singing the praises of “private enterprise”? No, they ran to the state and demanded that the government hand over billions of dollars of public money to save them.


The failure of “private enterprise” is the reason why every government in Europe is deep in debt. They say there is no money for schools, hospitals and pensions, but there is plenty of money for the bankers.


In the last weeks an opposition leader revealed a document, written by the economic advisors of the Capriles campaign, with details about their real plans if he were to be elected. The document puts forward a classic austerity package, proposing cuts in pensions, social spending, the social programs, the “opening up” of PDVSA and other state-owned companies to private investment, etc. The plan is so scandalous that it led to four smaller parties in the joint opposition platform (MUD) withdrawing their support for Capriles and a whole host of other opposition figures also distancing themselves from him.


The workers and peasants understand what is at stake. At every decisive turn they have rallied to defend the Revolution against its enemies: the landowners, bankers and capitalists and the imperialists who stand behind them. They understand that a vote for Chávez in these elections is a vote against returning to the bad old days when a tiny handful of wealthy oligarchs decided everything and the poor majority counted for nothing.


Despite the opposition's claims that it is winning, Chávez is presently leading in the polls. The Datanálisis survey gave Chávez a lead of anything between 43.6 per cent and 27.7 per cent over Capriles. It also showed that 62.4 per cent of voters rate the president's performance as above average; while only 29.4 per cent consider it poor. These findings may be believed, since the owner of Datanálisis, Luis Vicente León is well known to be a supporter of the opposition.

Capriles and US imperialism


Chávez is regarded as Public Enemy Number One by Washington, who sees him as the main instigator of opposition to US imperialism in Latin America. Chávez energetically condemned the coup against President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay. Prompted by his friends in the U.S. State Department, Capriles criticized Chávez for recalling his ambassador from Asunción and cutting off the supply of oil to Paraguay.


Capriles pledges to re-establish friendly relations with the U.S., that is, to make Venezuela subservient to Washington, as it was in the past. He promises a thorough revision of Venezuela's aid programmes and alliances with the rest of Latin America. That means a break with Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua, to please his “allies” north of the Rio Grande.


Shortly before stepping down as president of the World Bank in June, Robert Zoellick declared that “Chávez's days are numbered” and, with the elimination of his government's foreign subsidies, other nations such as Cuba and Nicaragua will “be in trouble.” Zoellick sees a Capriles victory as “an opportunity to make the western hemisphere the first democratic hemisphere” as opposed to a “place of coups, caudillos, and cocaine.”


These words accurately express the attitude of US imperialism to the elections of October 7. They see this as a decisive event. If the opposition wins, it will mean putting the clock back to the situation before 1998, when Venezuela was ruled by the big US monopolies. But if Chávez wins it will be a devastating blow to the counterrevolution, as Michael Penfold warns in in Foreign Affairs: “If Chávez wins in October, a vast majority of the opposition's political capital will be dashed; in many ways, it will be back to square one.”


That is why the imperialists and their local agents single out Chávez for special treatment. The expropriations, the reversal of “neoliberal” economic measures, the creation of a popular militia, the refusal to bend the knee to pressure from Washington, the attacks on capitalism and appeals for socialism – all this is a dangerous and explosive mixture that acts as a powerful catalyst to revolutionary tendencies in Latin America.


Yet another goal outlined in Chávez's electoral platform is the expansion of the power of community councils. Several hundred “communes in construction” are to be involved in such areas as gas and water distribution. Chávez proposes to promote the creation of new communes to represent 68 per cent of the population. The communes are to be granted the same prerogatives as state and municipal governments, including budgeting, participation in state planning and, eventually, tax collection. All these measures represent a gradual encroachment of the state in economic life.


The imperialists fear that a Chávez victory in October will mean further deepening of change in Venezuela. Chávez has said that the period 2013-2019 must see new state incursions into commerce and transport, to the detriment of middlemen, through the creation of “centres of local distribution for the sale and direct distribution of products.” This tendency towards new expropriations may eventually threaten the very existence of capitalism in Venezuela.

The real difference


The division between the two camps is the division between two antagonistic classes: on the one hand, the millions of poor people, workers and peasants, urban poor and lower layers of the middle class, on the other, the big landowners, bankers and capitalists and their well-to-do middle class hangers-on.


The real difference centres on the question of private property: the question of economic policy and in particular, expropriations. The overwhelming majority of Chávez supporters are from the former strata and they stand firmly for socialism, for the expropriation of the landowners and capitalists.


The Bolivarian bureaucracy has attempted to water down the socialist programme. Instead, they speak of a “mixed economy”, in which monopolies and oligopolies will face competition from public companies. This is the old idea of a “third way” between capitalism and socialism, which President Chávez has correctly described as a farce.


It is not possible to make half a Revolution. In the last analysis, one class must win and the other class must lose. Partial nationalization can never work because it is impossible to plan what you do not control, and it is impossible to control what you do not own. An economy which is only partly owned by the state cannot be properly planned.


At the same time, all the attempt to “regulate” capitalism in an attempt to improve the situation of the masses (through price controls, foreign exchange controls, etc) will prevent the normal functioning of a market economy, creating a chaotic situation of inflation, a flight of capital, falling investment, factory closures, artificially created shortages, hoarding and speculation with basic food products, bureaucratic bungling and mismanagement. In other words, you will get the worst of all worlds.


The private sector, which still controls a significant part of the economy, is in the hands of the enemies of the Revolution. The capitalists are doing everything in their power to sabotage the economy through a strike of capital. It is necessary to expropriate the land, banks and big business in order to put an end to this sabotage.


But Capriles has pledged to halt all expropriations. “I'm not going to squabble with businessmen or anyone else,” he says. Naturally! How can he squabble with the people whose interests he represents, and to which he belongs? Capriles himself comes from a wealthy business family with multiple interests (real estate, industry, media). He is also the former mayor of the municipality of Baruta, an affluent area of Caracas.


He promises to create three million jobs during his presidency. How is this miracle to be accomplished? By lifting restrictions or conditions on foreign investments, that is to say, by handing Venezuela on a plate to the same big foreign oil companies that plundered it in the past. Not accidentally, the alliance of parties that support Capriles, the Democratic Unity Table (MUD), advocates “making flexible” the legislation that asserts state control over the oil industry “to promote competition and private participation in the industry.”

The Revolution is not finished


A Chávez victory will encourage the swing to the left in Latin America at a moment when capitalism is in a deep crisis on a world scale. It will further undermine U.S. influence at a time when its plans for Iraq and Afghanistan are in ruins. On the other hand, a defeat for Chávez would put the clock back to pre-1999 Venezuela. It would deal a heavy blow to the Left everywhere. It would leave Cuba completely isolated, providing a powerful impetus to the pro-capitalist elements on the island.


The opposition has callously attempted to take advantage of Chavez's illness prior to the election campaign. They stressed Chávez's “frailty,” in contrast to the alleged youthful good health and energy of his opponent. In addition, they add, the chavistas do not have anyone who could take his place. On this they have a point. It is an undoubted weakness of the Bolivarian Movement and the PSUV that it depends so much on one man.


Chávez has gone further than any other leader in Latin America in challenging imperialism and capitalism and placing socialism back on the agenda. This deserves recognition. But there are deep contradictions within the Bolivarian Movement, where not everyone is in favour of socialism or opposed to capitalism.


When Chávez was first elected president in December 1998, he stood on a rather vague platform that did not mention socialism. But life teaches. On the basis of experience, he has come out in favour of socialism. That is a great step forward. But it still needs to be implemented. True, there have been some steps forward: he has partially nationalized some key sectors such as telecommunications, cement and steel. He has repeatedly attacked the bourgeoisie and the oligarchy (which is the same thing) and he has stood up against U.S. imperialism.


But the lack of workers’ control in state-run heavy industries such as steel, has given rise to many difficulties and labour unrest. The workers resent the bureaucracy that is trying to elbow them to one side and usurp control of the Bolivarian Movement. All the attempts of the workers to take the initiative and introduce elements of workers' control and management, for instance in the basic heavy industries in Guayana, with the support of the President, have been met with fierce resistance and open sabotage on the part of the bureaucracy. Taking advantage of the President’s illness, these elements are openly talking about “chavismo without Chávez.” This represents the biggest danger for the Revolution.


Today, thirteen years after the election of Chávez that final victory has still not been achieved. As long as the land, the banks and big enterprises remain in the hands of the oligarchy, the Bolivarian Revolution will never be safe. The deep bond that exists between Chávez and the Venezuelan masses is a reflection of the fact that Chávez aroused them to political life and struggle.


The truth is that a big section of the Bolivarian bureaucracy was never in favour of socialism. They have been constantly conspiring to put the brakes on the Revolution, halt expropriations and above all prevent the workers from taking control.


Le Monde Diplomatique recently revealed the attitude of the right wing of the Bolivarian Movement, which has long been dreaming of “chavismo without Chávez”:


On a visit to Brazil in April 2010, he was asked about letting another leader emerge. ‘I do not have a successor in sight,’ he answered. But there may be a change in thinking. Last year Chávez told a former adviser, the Spanish academic Juan Carlos Monedero, who had warned of the danger of ‘hyperleadership’ in Venezuela: ‘I have to learn to delegate power more.’ During his extended medical treatment, several top leaders filled the gap and emerged as possible successors: foreign minister Nicolás Maduro (a former trade union leader), who headed the commission that drafted the new labour law; executive vice president Elías Jaua (popular among the Chávez rank-and-file); National Assembly president Diosdado Cabello (a former army lieutenant with a pragmatic approach and strong backing among the armed forces). In May, the critical Monedero remarked that formerly ‘some of us saw the difficulties of continuing this process’ without Chávez, but ‘now we have lost this fear because I see dozens of people who could continue the process without any problem’.”


That there are “dozens of people” waiting to seize control of the Bolivarian Movement the moment Chávez leaves the scene we do not doubt. But the advocates of “chavismo without Chávez” have no wish to “continue the process” of the Revolution. Rather, they wish to “continue the process” of derailing the Bolivarian Revolution, of watering down its programme so as to be acceptable to the oligarchy, halting the expropriations and putting the whole programme into reverse. In other words, they wish to implement the programme of the Fifth Column of the bourgeoisie within chavismo.


The key to the success of the Revolution is that control of the movement must be in the hands of the rank and file, not the bureaucrats and careerists who have done so much harm to the Bolivarian cause. It is the workers and peasants who have been the real motor force of the Revolution. They and they alone, must be in control. The only people who can lead the Revolution to victory are the workers and peasants themselves.


* Defeat the counterrevolution!

* Expropriate the oligarchy!

* Power to the workers and peasants!

* Carry out the Revolution to the end!


London, 24th September

http://www.marxist.com/venezuelan-elections-why-imt-supports-chavez.htm


US Designates Wikileaks "Enemy of the State"

Documents show US policy puts media outlet in same legal category as violent terrorist groups

Published on Thursday, September 27, 2012 by Common Dreams


Military documents (pdf) obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request and posted online by Wikileaks show that the US government has designated the whistleblower website and its founder Julian Assange as "enemies of the state"—the same legal category as Al Qaeda and other foreign military adversaries.


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange speaks to UN delegates via videostream on Wednesday September 26, 2012. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports:


The documents, some originally classified "Secret/NoForn" - not releasable to non-US nationals - record a probe by the air force's Office of Special Investigations into a cyber systems analyst based in Britain who allegedly expressed support for WikiLeaks and attended pro-Assange demonstrations in London.


The counter-intelligence investigation focused on whether the analyst, who had a top-secret security clearance and access to the US military's Secret Internet Protocol Router network, had disclosed classified or sensitive information to WikiLeaks supporters, described as an "anti-US and/or anti-military group".


The suspected offence was "communicating with the enemy, 104-D", an article in the US Uniform Code of Military Justice that prohibits military personnel from "communicating, corresponding or holding intercourse with the enemy".


Mr Assange's US attorney, Michael Ratner, told the Herald that designating WikiLeaks an "enemy" would have serious implications for the WikiLeaks publisher if his fears of being extradited to the US were realized.


Mr Ratner stipulated that under US law it would most likely have been considered criminal for the US Air Force analyst to communicate classified material to journalists and publishers, but those journalists and publishers would not have been considered the enemy or prosecuted.


"However, in the FOI documents there is no allegation of any actual communication for publication that would aid an enemy of the United States such as al-Qaeda, nor are there allegations that WikiLeaks published such information," he said.


"Almost the entire set of documents is concerned with the analyst's communications with people close to and supporters of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, with the worry that she would disclose classified documents to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.


"It appears that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are the 'enemy'. An enemy is dealt with under the laws of war, which could include killing, capturing, detaining without trial, etc."


The revelations contained in the documents led the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald to ask: "How could leaking to WikiLeaks possibly constitute the crime of 'communicating with the enemy'? Who exactly is the 'enemy'?"


Answering his own question, Greenwald argues there are two equally disturbing possibilities:


The first possibility is the one suggested by today's Sydney Morning Herald article on these documents (as well as by WikiLeaks itself): that the US military now formally characterizes WikiLeaks and Assange as an "enemy", the same designation it gives to groups such as Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This would not be the first time such sentiments were expressed by the US military: recall that one of the earliest leaks from the then-largely-unknown group was a secret report prepared back in 2008 by the US Army which, as the New York Times put it, included WikiLeaks on the Pentagon's "list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States" and then plotted how to destroy it.


But it's the second possibility that seems to me to be the far more likely one: namely, that the US government, as part of Obama's unprecedented war on whistleblowers, has now fully embraced the pernicious theory that any leaks of classified information can constitute the crime of "aiding the enemy" or "communicating with the enemy" by virtue of the fact that, indirectly, "the enemy" will - like everyone else in the world - ultimately learn of what is disclosed.


Greenwald concludes by articulating what he sees as the inherent irony of the ongoing Wikileaks saga and what it says about the Obama administration's inconsistent stance on freedoms of the press and expression.


The real "enemies" of American "society" are not those who seek to inform the American people about the bad acts engaged in by their government in secret. As Democrats once recognized prior to the age of Obama - in the age of Daniel Ellsberg - people who do that are more aptly referred to as "heroes". The actual "enemies" are those who abuse secrecy powers to conceal government actions and to threaten with life imprisonment or even execution those who blow the whistle on high-level wrongdoing.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/27


Bibi’s Crazy UN Speech


Medievalist poses as champion of “modernity”

by Justin Raimondo

September 28, 2012


It’s no wonder the Israeli Foreign Ministry initially held back from releasing a transcript of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the UN General Assembly: Bibi’s wackiness doesn’t bear close scrutiny. Perhaps “wacky” isn’t quite the right word for his 40-minute peroration, during which he pulled out a bomb “diagram” and a red marker to illustrate where he would draw a “red line” defining the outer limits of Iran’s nuclear program. Cartoonish is more like it. The cartoonish quality of the bomb drawing underscored the content and tone of the speech, which was the jeremiad of a radical ideologue rather than anything one would expect from a statesman:


Today a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval. Israel stands proudly with the forces of modernity. We protect the right of all our citizens, men and women, Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians, all are equal before the law.”


Israel, which privileges its priestly caste, has a state religion, and bases its national mythology on a “promise” from G-d, is as medieval as any of its neighbors. Aside from being a lie, however, this statement is interesting because it evokes the very same supremacist spirit that animates the controversial pro-Israel public relations campaign launched by the Jewish state’s extremist American supporters. Posters in the public transport system, from New York to San Francisco, proclaim:


In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”


No wonder the Israeli consulates in New York and San Francisco won’t disavow those vile subway posters: Pamela Geller is the new public face of Israel.


Yes, Israel protects the rights of all citizens – unless they’re Palestinians who happen to own property coveted by the “settlers,” in which case it doesn’t. And the key word here is citizens: of course, the Palestinians in the occupied territories are not citizens, but helots, with no rights, and no protection from fanatical Jewish fundamentalists who have launched hundreds of attacks on their homes, and sought to displace them at every opportunity, with the active complicity of the Israeli government.


This idea that Israel represents “modernity” is rich, considering that every day Israeli society is sinking lower into the morass of religious and cultural fundamentalism, a regression that has not gone unnoticed in the West. Bibi opened his speech with biblical references, describing Jersusalem as the “eternal capital” of Israel and declaring that “the Jewish state will live forever.” Yet as we secularists know, nothing lives “forever,” and the idea of a city being the “eternal” capital of anything is a metaphor, at best, at worst a dangerous delusion. If this is the “modern” then one wonders how much it differs from the “medieval.” But let’s not linger too long over the obvious. Bibi rants on:


Militant Islam has many branches, from the rulers of Iran with their revolutionary guards to al-Qaeda… but they’re all rooted in the same soil. It’s not whether this fanaticism will be defeated, but how many lives will be lost before it’s defeated. Nothing could emperil my country more than arming Iran with nuclear weapons. To imagine what the world would be like with a nuclear Iran, imagine what the world would be like with a nuclear al-Qaeda. There’s no difference.”


The Israeli Prime Minister may have been addressing the UN General Assembly, but he was really talking to the Americans, whose fear and loathing of the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks can always be counted on to raise them to new levels of hysteria. Outside that context, however, equating the Iranians with Al Qaeda makes about as much sense as likening the late unlamented Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden – and, hey wait, didn’t we hear that equation made endlessly in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq? Yet this was not a time for subtlety from the Israeli Prime Minister – the cartoon “bomb” ended all hope of that – but for the crudest sort of propaganda, which is, of course, war propaganda.


Imagine if Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who addressed the UN that day minutes before Netanyahu took the stage, had said: “Militant Judaism has many branches, from the Washington offices of AIPAC to the center of Jewish power in Tel Aviv – but they’re all rooted in the same soil” of intolerance? Picture him conjuring images of violent Jewish “fanaticism” – not a hard task, given what is happening in Israel today. If he had done so, Abbas would have been denounced in every Western capital as the 21st century incarnation of Hitler.


Netanyahu went on to cite the nonexistent “record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons” – an odd claim, since Iran hasn’t attacked a single one of its neighbors since the Battle of Thermopylae. The country did fight one war in modern times, when it was attacked by Iraq, which was being backed by the United States. However, it’s necessary to remember that war propaganda has no need of facts: only emotionally-charged evocations of rage – and fear:


Given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine an Iran with nuclear weapons. Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who’d be safe in Europe? Who’d be safe in America? Who’d be safe anywhere?”


That this alleged champion of “modernity” should base his case on fearmongering should come as no surprise: hasn’t fear been the leitmotif of all the “modern” ideologies of aggressive nationalism? Fear of the Other, of the barbarian at the gates – the “savage” who, at the first opportunity, will tear your throat out with his bare teeth – is what keeps ideologues like Netanyahu and his American co-thinkers in business.


Those Eye-ranians, says Bibi, aren’t like the rest of us, which is why deterrence won’t work. “Iran’s apocalyptic leaders” are awaiting the return of the Mahdi, a holy man, whose reappearance is supposed to occur after a devastating war:


Militant jihadists are not secular Marxists. Militant jihadists behave very differently. There were no Soviet suicide bombers.”


Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the Israelis also awaiting the return of Someone Special, a Messiah who will lead them out of the wilderness and establish the Kingdom of Jerusalem as His earthly domain? Militant jihadists may not be secular Marxists – but then again, militant Zionists aren’t, either. I would no more trust nuclear bombs in Bibi’s hands than I would in Ahmahdinejad’s – the difference being that the former is actually in possession of such weapons.


Which brings us to the absurdity of this lecture by the leader of the only nuclear-armed country in the region: here is a nation which refuses to even admit it acquired nukes long ago, and which disdains the Nonproliferation Treaty, making the case for war against a neighbor that has indeed signed the NPT and is abiding by its requirements.


That treaty gives Tehran the right to develop nuclear power. Furthermore, there is zero evidence Iran is embarked on a nuclear weapons program: our own intelligence community tells us they gave that up in 2003 and show no signs of resuming it. Their own religious and political leaders have denounced the possession of nuclear weapons as sinful: the Israelis, on the other hand, haven’t bothered reassuring us they would never use the nuke they won’t admit they have.


In a rational world, Israel would be in the dock, answering for its unwillingness to come out of the nuclear closet and admit what the whole world knows by now. Indeed, Bibi could give us some insight into exactly how Israel stole acquired the materials to build its formidable nuclear arsenal – since, according to recently declassified documents, he was directly involved.


In the world in which we are living, however, in which the innocent are put on trial and the guilty sit in judgement, the situation is quite different. In that world, the leader of a tiny nation entirely dependent on US largesse takes to the UN podium to issue his marching orders to Washington. Here is my “red line,” says Bibi – daring not only the Iranians but also the Americans to cross it.


Think of Netanyahu’s UN oration as just another Romney campaign speech, in which the GOP presidential candidate says Tehran must not be allowed to get “one turn of the screwdriver away” from joining the nuclear club. According to Netanyahu, Iran is nearly at that point today, and will have a nuclear weapon in less than a year if the US fails to act.


This is technical nonsense, but then again the truth has nothing to do with war propaganda: to the average American, the mere possession of weapons-grade uranium means all the Iranians have to do is plug it in and hurl it, slingshot style, in the general direction of Israel. This is an impression Israeli propagandists would dearly love to inculcate in the American public, and they have the great advantage of relying on general ignorance of the technical details. Good luck explaining to Mr. Average American why it would take a good four years after they’ve weaponized their nuclear material for the Iranians to create a useable nuke.


The ticking-bomb theme, which has been used to justify everything from torture to the invasion of Iraq, permeates Israeli propaganda in the US and was a cental theme of Bibi’s speech. His message was clear: “the hour is getting late.” We must act without giving too much thought to the possible consequences. Don’t delay, don’t think, act now – before the fraud is exposed, and we discover that – as in the case of the Iraqis – those “weapons of mass destruction” were just a figment of our easily manipulated collective imagination.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/09/27/bibis-crazy-un-speech/


How The Government’s Lies Become Truth

Paul Craig Roberts

Institute for Political Economy

September 29, 2012


In my last column, “A Culture of Delusion,” I wrote that “Americans live in a matrix of lies. Lies dominate every policy discussion, every political decision.” This column will use two top news stories, Iranian nukes and Julian Assange, to illustrate how lies become “truth.”


The western Presstitute media uses every lie to demonize the Iranian government. On September 28 in a fit of unmitigated ignorance, the UK rag, Mail Online, called the president of Iran a “dictator.” The Iranian presidency is an office filled by popular election, and the authority of the office is subordinate to the ayatollahs. Assange is demonized alternatively as a rapist and a spy.


The western media and the US Congress comprise the two largest whore houses in human history. One of their favorite lies is that the Iranian president, Ahmadinejad, wants to kill all the Jews. Watch this 6 minute, 42 second video of Ahmadinejad’s meeting with Jewish religious leaders. Don’t be put off by the title. Washington Blog is making a joke. http://www.globalresearch.ca/horrifying-graphic-video-of-iranian-leader-savagely-abusing-jews/


Last week the news was dominated by the non-existent but virtually real Iranian nuclear weapons program. The Israeli prime minister, Netanyahu, blatantly intervened in the US presidential election, demanding that Obama specify the “red line” for attacking Iran.


Netanyahu believes his maximum leverage over Obama, the president of the “world’s only superpower,” is just prior to the election. Israel cannot attack Iran on its own without the risk of Israel’s destruction. But Netanyahu reasons that if he attacks Iran the week before the US election, Obama will have to join in or lose the Jewish vote for not supporting Israel in states such as Florida, which has a large Jewish population and many electoral votes. If the election is close, Netanyahu, a person consumed by arrogance and hubris, might exercise his threat and attack Iran, despite the opposition of former chiefs of Israeli intelligence and military, the opposition party, and a majority of the Israeli people.


In other words, the outcome of the “superpower’s” presidential election might depend upon whether the sitting president of the “superpower” is sufficiently obedient to the crazed Israeli prime minister.


That the outcome of the US presidential election could depend upon the agenda of the prime minister of a tiny country that exists only because of US financial, military, and diplomatic support, especially the UN veto, should disturb those Americans who think that they are the “indispensable people.” How indispensable are you when you have to do what the Israeli prime minister wants?


The US media makes certain that this question never enters american minds. Americans have been told that if Iran doesn’t have nukes, it has a nuke weapons program. This is what the politicians of both parties, the media, and the Israel Lobby tell them. Americans are told this despite the facts that the CIA and the National Intelligence Estimate stick to the conclusion that Iran abandoned its flirtation with a nuclear weapon in 2003 and the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors on the ground in Iran report no evidence of a nuclear weapons program and no evidence of any diversion of enriched uranium to a weapons program.


Moreover, what could Iran do with a nuclear weapon, other than use it against an aggressor? Any offensive use would result in Iran’s destruction.


Why do Americans believe Iran has nukes or is making nukes when the CIA says they are not? The answer is that Netanyahu says so, and the elected members of the US government in the House, Senate, and White House are afraid to contradict the Israeli prime minister, as are the American print and TV media. Some “superpower” we are! The “indispensable people” have to grovel in the dirt before Netanyahu. Americans are not even aware of their shame.


Iran, unlike Israel, signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Signatories to the treaty have the right to nuclear energy. Nuclear energy requires a low level of enrichment, 5% or less. The minute Iran announced a nuclear energy program, the Israeli government and its prostitutes in Washington lied that Iran was building a bomb. For exercising its legal rights under the treaty, Iran has been painted as a rouge criminal state and demonized.


A nuclear weapon requires 95% enrichment. To get to 5% from scratch and then to 95% is a long drawn out process. I think I first started hearing Israeli government claims of an Iranian nuke back in he 1990s of last century.


When Iran announced that, in view of the sanctions imposed by the US, sanctions that affect medical supplies, Iran was going to enrich uranium to 20% in order to supply itself with medical isotopes, the Israeli allegations that this would lead to a bomb resulted in Iran saying that the Iranian government was content for France or some other country to supply their medical isotopes and would not pursue enrichment beyond energy requirements. The US and Russia were also mentioned as suppliers.


According to the NY Times on September 29, 2011, “the Iranian president told the Washington Post and later, in basically the same terms, the New York Times: ‘if you [the United States and Europe] give us uranium grade 20 percent now, we will stop production.’” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-edvaez30.html?_r=0


On Israel’s orders Washington vetoed the Iranian concession. Solving the problem is not what the Israeli government wants. The problem has to be kept alive so that it can be used to foment an attack on Iran.


The Iranian nuke is one of those grand hoaxes, a lie designed to hide the real agenda.


What is the real agenda?


The real agenda hiding behind the hysterical concern about an Iranian nuke, is the rightwing Israeli government’s design on the water resources of southern Lebanon.


Twice the Israeli government sent the Israeli army into southern Lebanon to occupy and eventually annex the territory. And twice Hizbollah defeated and drove out the vaunted Israeli army.


The few thousand Hizbollah fighters were able to defeat the Israeli army, which is equipped and supplied by US taxpayers’ dollars while Americans are foreclosed out of their homes and left unemployed as Washington applauds the offshoring of their jobs, because Syria and Iran provide Hizbollah with financial support and weapons that destroy Israeli tanks.


Syria, of course, is currently resisting its destruction by Israel and its american puppet state. The overthrow of Syria hasn’t gone well, because the Russians and Chinese didn’t go along with it, like they stupidly did in Libya. But the far rightwing Israeli government has concluded that with american prestige involved in the overthrow of the Assad government in Syria, the deed will be done.


That leaves Iran. The Israeli government knows that it cannot be forthright and say that it wants Americans to go to war with Iran so that Israel can steal southern Lebanon. But if fear over nonexistent nukes can muster the Western populations to support an attack on Iran, Iran can be eliminated as Hizbollah’s supplier, and Israel can steal the water from Lebanon.


There is no discussion whatsoever of the real agenda anywhere in the US print and TV media. I doubt there is any discussion anywhere in Europe, which is a collection of american puppet states.


Will we get World War III for Christmas? Possibly, if the US election is close as it approaches. If the election is too close to call, Netanyahu might throw the dice and rely on Obama following his lead. Iran will be attacked, and the consequences are unknowable.


Let’s turn to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Like Iran, Assange has been demonized, not on the basis of facts but on the basis of lies.


Washington, which poses as a purveyor of human rights, has been mistreating if not torturing Bradley Manning since May 2010 without bringing him to trial in an effort to make Manning say that he and Assange constitute a spy team working against the US.


Assange is a celebrity, because Wikileaks publishes the news leaked to the organization that the Presstitute media suppresses. While in Sweden, Assange was picked up by two celebrity-hungry women who took him home to their beds. The women later bragged of their conquests on social media, but apparently when they found out that they were rivals, they turned on the “two-timer” Assange and made charges. One claimed that he had not used a condom as per her request, and the other claimed that she had offered one helping but he had taken two.


Whatever the accusations, the Swedish prosecutorial office investigated and dismissed the case.


Despite this known fact, the Western Presstitute media reports that Assange is a fugitive evading rape charges by hiding in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. Even RT, an alternative media voice, has fallen for this disinformation.


After Assange was cleared in Sweden, a female prosecutor has tried to reopen the case. There is no evidence for her to bring charges, so she demanded that England arrest Assange and extradite him to Sweden to be questioned.


Normally, people are not subject to extradition for questioning. Only people who have been formally charged are extradited. But this detail wasn’t of interest to the Presstitute media or to the British courts which ruled as Washington desired.


Opinions vary as to whether the female prosecutor who wants Assange for questioning is an ideological feminist who believes no heterosexual sex is legitimate or whether she is in the pay of Washington. But experts agree that once Assange is in Sweden he is certain to be turned over to Washington, which will demand his extradition on trumped up charges. Extradition on trumped up charges is difficult in England but easy in Sweden.


Assange offered to be questioned in London, but the female prosecutor refused. Now the Ecuadoran Embassy is offering to send Assange to the Ecuadoran Embassy in Sweden to be questioned, but Washington, London, and the Swedish prosecutor have refused. They want Assange without the protection of the asylum that Ecuador has granted him.


Washington has how made this obvious. John Glaser writing in Antiwar.com, September 26, 2012, reports: “Newly declassified documents have revealed that the US military designated WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange an enemy of the state, who can be killed or detained without trial.” http://news.antiwar.com/2012/09/26/declassified-documents-reveal-us-military-designated-assange-enemy-of-state/ See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/27/wikileaks-investigation-enemy


Assange is Washington’s enemy, because he let the truth get out. WikiLeaks is a journalistic enterprise, not a spy enterprise. It publishes information, some of which is leaked to it by whistleblowers, just as the Pentagon Papers were leaked to the New York Times. The information leaked to WikiLeaks has embarrassed Washington, because it shows Washington to be two-faced, a manipulator of other countries’ governments and medias, and overflowing with mendacity.


In other words, Washington is not the light upon the hill but the gates of Hell or Mordor.


Assange had best be careful. If he again speaks to supportive crowds from a balcony of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, he is likely to be shot down by a CIA sniper.


Approved by Obama, of course. Or his successor.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/29/how-the-governments-lies-become-truth/


HOME / INICIO