The Summit of the Americas: A Cuban conundrum for Colombian President Santos

by COHA Staff

From April 9 to 15, 2012, the Organization of American States (OAS) and other multilateral bodies will host the Sixth Summit of the Americas, which will take place in Cartagena, Colombia. Bogota is absorbed by this major meeting of hemispheric heads of state; according to the Spanish website Infodefensa.com, Colombia will deploy up to five thousand police officers, six planes and helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), to ensure the event goes on without a hitch.[1]

Unfortunately, the Juan Manuel Santos administration has been deeply concerned that the event’s occurrence would be flawlessly staged, while at the same time it has had to face a diplomatic incident leading up to what Latin America correctly has conceptualized as an extremely important summit. Cuba, which is the only state in the Western Hemisphere that is not a de facto member of the OAS, declared its interest in attending what is certain to be a very substantive meeting of the heads of state.

This possibility became a concern for Washington, which has been at diplomatic odds with the Castro government (first Fidel and then Raul) for decades. Tensions regarding the OAS-led summit further flared up even more when Ecuador, a member of the ALBA bloc (Alianza Bolivariana para las Americas – Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas), let it be known that the ALBA bloc could possibly boycott the meeting if Havana was not allowed to participate.

This situation led to President Santos being placed in an untenable position (he would have to invite Castro to avoid an ALBA boycott but, in turn, this would have angered Washington, who would undoubtedly decide to boycott the meeting), so the Colombian head of state decided to travel to Havana to meet with the Cuban leadership. He met with Raul Castro closed doors and had the onerous chore of having to ask Castro to reconsider his intention to go to Cartagena, in order to avoid an incident with the US delegation. This incident, if it had progressed, would have presented Santos with a guaranteed diplomatic conundrum, but thankfully, this situation did not escalate. The ALBA bloc, including Venezuela, will attend the meeting in lieu of a boycott, and Castro won’t attend.[2]

Cuba, the OAS and the Santos Trip

Cuba and the OAS historically have had a troubled relationship. The island state, with its pre-revolution regime, was one of the original OAS members. The OAS was founded in 1948 as successor to the Pan American Union. After the Cuban 1959 revolution was staged, the John F. Kennedy administration pushed for the continent to politically and economically isolate Cuba after its military relationship with Soviet Moscow was acknowledged by Fidel.

The OAS suspended the Caribbean island from January 1962 until June 2009. It would take nearly five decades for there to be sufficient momentum on the continent for a major policy shift to be made regarding Cuba. In the end, even though Cuba’s membership was validated, Havana decided to dismiss its prospects for full participation and chose not to return to the OAS at this time.

This historical development occurred due to the rise of regimes in the region which have been vociferous in their criticism of US foreign policy (as can be found in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), along with the rise of powerhouses like Brazil.

In 2002, Mexico held a major international conference on financing for development, called by then-United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan.[3] Then-US President George W. Bush was scheduled to attend, but a diplomatic impasse developed when Fidel Castro, the historical Cuban head of state, decided to attend as well. In order to avoid the embarrassment that was sure to follow, then-Mexican President Vicente Fox privately called Castro and asked him not to come, and the Cuban leader appeared to agree to this. However, even though the conversation between the two leaders was supposed to have been private, Castro actually taped their phone conversation and then made it public. In a famous line, Fox tells Castro that “puedes venir pero comes y te vas” (“you can come, but you eat and then you’ll leave”).[4]

Another causative Cuba-related diplomatic incident occurred in 2009, when Trinidad and Tobago hosted the Fifth Summit of the Americas, and there was a clash between Washington and Caracas over Havana. Even before the summit, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez declared that it would be clear that “we’re going to Trinidad and Tobago to put that issue on the table […] from the moment the curtain goes up, Cuba will appear on the stage.”[5] Throughout the Summit, there also was concern that Chavez and his allies would follow the final declaration at the end of the meeting with one of their own as a way to protest the US embargo against Cuba.

Ironically, in spite of the tension surrounding the meeting, Obama met with Chavez, which was immortalized in an iconic photograph.[6] The US leader also stated that “the US seeks a new beginning with Cuba […] I know there is a longer journey that must be traveled to overcome decades of mistrust, but there are critical steps we can take toward a new day.”[7]

As preparations for the Cartagena summit began to take shape, rumors began to circulate that Cuba would insist in attending the summit. At first, Bogota remained neutral on this development. For example, in early February, Colombian Foreign Minister Maria Angela Holguin stated to the press that “it is not up to Colombia to invite Cuba to the Summit of the Americas.”[8]

Bogota’s position was in response to declarations made by Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa, who said that “from now on I propose that if Cuba is not invited to the Summit of Americas, no member of ALBA is to attend the summit.”[9] Correa’s statements gained some momentum as fellow ALBA members like Venezuela and Bolivia also seemed to be considering a boycott of the summit if Castro was not invited. ALBA has 11 members, all of which are OAS members (which has 34), hence a boycott would have a significant impact on the summit as it would cut the number of attending heads of state by a third. Washington has made it clear that it will not attend the meeting if Castro is present.

William Ostick, a spokesman for the State Department, said that “today’s Cuba has in no way reached the threshold of participation […] there must be significant improvements in political liberties and democracy in Cuba before it can join the summit.”[10] If Washington carries out this threat, this will continue to diminish the multilateral and institutional ties it has with the rest of the continent, at a time when we are witnessing the creation of regional bodies to which US does not belong, like UNASUR (Union de Naciones Suramericanas – Union of South American Nations) and CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños -- Community of Latin American and Caribbean States).

To prevent the hemispheric rift from growing, in early March, President Santos traveled to Cuba to ask point blank Raul Castro not to travel to the Cartagena Summit. Given the 2002 precedent, it is understandable that Santos decided to travel to Havana instead of calling Raul Castro. As part of the aftermath, President Chavez stated that there seems to be a consensus among the ALBA bloc to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, he warned that, from the bloc’s point of view, this should be the last summit in which Cuba does not participate.[11]

Cuba and the US: No Breakthroughs On the Horizon?

In recent years there has been a rising momentum to improve relations between Washington and Havana. When President Obama was campaigning, he pledged that he would close down the detention center in the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, located in Cuba. Unfortunately he has yet to do so.

Other more ambitious initiatives included lifting the decades-old embargo on the island. Obama managed to gain enough support to lift some travel restrictions so Cuban Americans can more easily travel to the island or send money to their relatives there,[12] but the trade embargo relentlessly remains, and will continue to do so as long as the political weight in Miami continues.

Regarding the continued tensions between the two countries, in February of this year, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont traveled to the island and privately met with Raul Castro to pledge for the release of US contractor Alan Gross, who is serving a 15 year sentence for espionage and “smuggling illegal communications equipment and attempting to set up an Internet network that could escape government detection.”[13]

On the other hand, the US has controversially imprisoned five Cuban citizens (known as the Cuban Five), for allegedly being spies for Havana. One of the Cubans, Rene Gonzalez, was released this past October 2011 after serving 13 years in prison.[14] The global negative reaction to this political trial further undermined U.S. stature in the region.

Summits of the Americas, a Historical Source of Criticism

If anything, the tensions over whether Cuba should or will attend the Summit of the Americas adds some flavor to a hemispheric gathering that is usually critiqued for its irrelevancy. The first Summit was carried out in Miami in 1994; at the time, the OAS had former Colombian President Cesar Gaviria as Secretary General. While the 1994 summit was an important milestone regarding the initiatives for hemispheric integration, it was critiqued by Latin American specialists as a simple gathering of heads of state without much substance.

Criticism of such high-level meetings and whether anything productive ever comes out of them has continued over the past two decades. In a recent interview between journalist Andres Oppenheimer and former Peruvian President Alan Garcia, the two-time head of state downplayed the importance of these Summits. The Peruvian politician stated that such high-level encounters “[are] a dialogue for the deaf,” and that each leader “goes with a prepared speech, to read it, and to blame someone else of [his country’s] problems, usually Uncle Sam or the ‘horrendous’ international financial system.”[15]

To be fair, it is noteworthy to state that such meetings have brought about important initiatives. For example, in April 2001, during the Third Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City, the heads of state decided to push for a new pro-democracy treaty, which would become known as the Inter-American Democratic Charter. As the Charter states, the hemispheric leaders decided to create:

“A democracy clause which establishes that any unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order in a state of the Hemisphere constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to the participation of that state’s government in the Summits of the Americas process.”[16]

Washington has never been slow to point to this clause when it comes to promoting and protecting its interests in the Western Hemisphere.

The Agencies of the OAS: Working in Obscurity

At a time when the OAS continues to be critiqued regarding how it serves Washington’s interests, it is noteworthy to highlight how the OAS has fielded a number of autonomous agencies that carry out important and relevant work for hemispheric issues. When the OAS is criticized, this is usually targeted at the Secretariat and the General Assembly, but there are various agencies that operate under the OAS umbrella, like the Pan American Health Organization, Inter-American Commission of women,[17] Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Committee against Terrorism[18] and the Inter-American Defense Board[19] ( IADB; and its military educational wing, the Inter-American Defense College –IADC).

The IAD Board (created in 1942, which makes it older than the OAS), and the IAD College (created in 1962), throughout their existence, have been accused of being at best, irrelevant, and at worst, a “mooseclub.” In a Strategic Forum report entitled “Reforming the Inter-American Defense Board,”[20] John A. Cope, Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) at the National Defense University (NDU), perfectly conceptualizes the issues with the IADB, explaining that:

“The reluctance of diplomats to tap the Board’s expertise, even when considering regional defense and security issues, and the IADB’s unwillingness to subordinate itself in practice to the Committee on Hemispheric Security of the OAS Permanent Council or the Secretariat for Multidimensional Security, present a serious impasse.” (P.2)

Cope also adds that, beyond senior officials, most OAS staff members have little awareness of IADB activities (P.2) and that “the IADB structure evokes an earlier period in Latin American and Caribbean history when military institutions were largely autonomous and regularly played a significant role in politics. The legacy of civil-military tension still influences thinking and actions at both the OAS and IADB.” (P. 3)

Conclusions

It appears that Cuba will not attend the summit in Cartagena after all, and the Cuban government is blaming Washington for its likely absence. Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez has stated that the US government has acted with “disdain and arrogance” over Havana’s intentions to participate in Cartagena.[21] The Cuban official also stated that:

“The exclusion of Cuba is probably the most notorious, most evident symbol that (these summits) are made in the image of the owner, which is the government of the United States, and they are instruments to exercise domination in a manner not at all democratic”

Indeed, the upcoming Cartagena summit has proved to be a big headache for President Santos. The Colombian leader successfully achieved a diplomatic solution for the Cuba question. At the end of the day, Santos did manage to avoid a humiliating personal defeat as he was put between a rock and a hard place by Hillary Clinton’s completely obdurate and senseless actions on Cartagena, all aimed at improving Obama’s political prospects in November. But its outcome hardly represented a brilliant victory for Santos’ image as a brave and principled new voice for Colombia and his own amazing hegira from being a defense ministry goon to earning the right to a completely renovated reputation.

After all, while Bogota no longer can be found on the wrong end of the leash regarding its diplomatic relationship with the US, the events leading up to the Cartagena summit so far are hardly a victory for him. By carrying out Washington’s wishes regarding Castro’s presence at this major gathering, the Santos presidency appears to continue being under Washington’s sphere of influence as it was during the Cold War. It seems that, when it comes to hemispheric gatherings, the US continues to reserve the right of determining who makes up the guest list. In 2012, it is correct for Latin American and Caribbean governments to advocate that they should no longer feel destined to be eternally under Washington’s narcotic policy spell.

To review sources, please click here

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy makers." For more information, visit http://www.coha.org/ or email coha@coha.org

April 5, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

The Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA) Expands its Allies in the Caribbean

ALBA Expands its Allies in the Caribbean

 

By KEVIN EDMONDS - NACLA:

 

The weekend of February 4^th and 5^th saw the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA) convene their 11^th summit in Caracas, Venezuela.  ALBA began as an alternative vision to the reckless neoliberal agenda promoted by Washington throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.

In 2004, Venezuela and Cuba sought to establish a regional alliance which would be committed to an agenda of poverty eradication, sustainable development and social justice founded upon the values of co-operation, equality, and solidarity.  The regional integration promoted by ALBA importantly stresses policy flexibility, fair trade, and recognition of the unique circumstances faced by the small Caribbean economies.

As many expected, the weekend summit contained the standard denunciations of American imperialism and the need for deeper economic integration – but surprisingly ended with St. Lucia and Suriname expressing their desire for full membership in the organization, with Haiti also joining ranks as a permanent observer.

While St. Lucia and Suriname cannot fully join the organization without following the necessary political processes in their respective countries, the two nations were admitted to the meeting as “special guest members”— a prior step to their full entry.  St. Lucia, Suriname, and Haiti would join their fellow CARICOM neighbours Dominica, who joined the regional organization in 2008, and St. Vincent and Antigua who became members in 2009.

Professor Norman Girvan of the University of the West Indies, a leading scholar in Caribbean political economy sees the recent regional shift towards ALBA as the result of the organization providing a more dynamic alternative to CARICOM, remarking that “(ALBA) poses the urgency of revitalising CARICOM and if CARICOM continues to be relatively moribund in its economic integration aspect then inevitably ALBA will become an attractive alternative for more and more CARICOM states.”

Furthermore, Petrocaribe— an alliance which allows Caribbean nations to purchase oil from Venezuela in a preferential agreement, has proved to be an attractive option for the cash strapped governments.  The oil can be paid for over a 25 year period, at a 1 percent interest rate.

According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, in comparison to the traditional methods of purchasing oil in the region, Petrocaribe provides significant savings to the participating countries, providing an importance source of finance which respective governments can use to invest in social development programs.  David Jessop, the Director of the Caribbean Council stated that “If it were not for the energy lifeline that it [Venezuela] has provided to every Caribbean nation other than Trinidad and Barbados, much of the region would by now be in economic free fall.”

It is precisely because the Caribbean has been hit so hard by the forces of globalization that many CARICOM members are looking to establish deeper alliances with Caracas and Havana instead of Washington— and for good reason.

The forceful intervention by Washington on behalf of the financial interests of multinational fruit companies like Chiquita in the nearly 20 year long “banana war” at the World Trade Organization fundamentally changed the economies of St. Lucia, Dominica and St. Vincent for the worse.  Furthermore in Haiti, the reintroduction of a sweatshop model of development called HOPE II, is little more than a recycled version of Ronald Reagan’s failed Caribbean Basin Initiative of the 1980’s which perversely sees the country’s poverty as its greatest asset.  Based upon the poverty inducing actions of the United States in the region, it makes one wonder how the Caribbean did not explore this alternative alliance to neoliberal globalization earlier.

Speaking on the economic realities which sparked St. Lucia’s decision to explore membership in ALBA, Prime Minister Kenny Anthony stated that “It is going to be critical and crucial that St. Lucia look for new opportunities of support and in particular for governments who are willing to assist the development of the country…So we have to be busy, we have to search for new sources of funding and it is in that context that we have to look at organisations like ALBA as an option.”

According to Professor Girvan, this makes perfect sense as ALBA is “mobilising resources on a much more significant scale... The ALBA bank and Petrocaribe funding are much larger than those mobilized by the CARICOM Development Fund and ALBA is moving ahead.  They keep launching into new projects for example, food security and agriculture that CARICOM has been talking a lot but doing very little.”

Looking at the record of assistance ALBA has already provided to its three initial Caribbean members, it provides a strong incentive to other CARICOM nations looking to join the bloc pragmatic reasons.

• 
  In Dominica, the government reports total financial assistance of $119 million East Caribbean dollars for 26 projects in housing, infrastructure, security and agriculture; benefitting over 1,000 families and 34,000 individuals; the latter figure being approximately 45 percent of the national population.
• 
  In Antigua, ALBA provided a $7.5 million U.S. dollar grant to refurbish the V.C. Bird International Airport, and another US$8 million to finance a major water infrastructure project. During 2011 Antigua and Barbuda had 125 students on scholarship in Cuba.
• 
  In St. Vincent, $10.275 million U.S. dollars has been provided as a grant by the government of Venezuela to finance housing for low-income or no-income beneficiaries, and $1.85 million East Caribbean dollars has been given for rural development projects related to eco-tourism, sporting facilities and fishing. 

Figures taken from: Is ALBA a New Model of Integration? Reflections on the CARICOM Experience by Norman Girvan.

Despite the many successes of ALBA in the Caribbean so far, the future of the organization hangs in a precarious position, as the October elections in Venezuela will do a great deal to determine both its strength and durability.  Nevertheless, the expansion of the group’s membership in the Caribbean, in addition to the newly formed Community of Latin American and Caribbean States signals an important shift away from American hegemony in the region – that it is no longer Washington’s “backyard” anymore – but rather a region which has been taken for granted and is now looking to put their priorities first for a change.  It is a change which is long overdue.

Part 2: Haiti

When looking at the vast array of reconstruction plans and promises of aid to rebuild Haiti, the old cliché "actions speak louder than words" rings true.  Two years later, the failed reconstruction of Haiti has shown that a great deal of the international community’s optimism which emerged after the earthquake was simply that—talk.  While this may be a harsh criticism of seemingly well-intentioned efforts, when contrasted to the actions of a small but determined group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, the majority of international efforts in Haiti are shameful.

The countries which comprise the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA) have always regarded Haiti as an important sister nation and partner in the fight against imperialism and neoliberal globalization.  At the inauguration of President Michel Martelly last May, Héctor Rodríguez, vice-president of the Social Area Council of Venezuela wasted no time in renewing ALBA’s cooperation to Haiti, stating, “We have a historical debt to pay to our brothers and sisters in Haiti, because they helped us liberate our Latin America.”  Rodríguez’s remarks referred to the assistance of then-Haitian President Petion to Simón Bolívar during the independence wars against Spain, where newly liberated Haiti provided soldiers, financial aid, and political asylum to the Latin American revolutionary.

The first week of February saw the 11 summit of the Bolivarian Alternative of the Americas (ALBA) convene in Caracas, Venezuela.  With Haiti in attendance as a permanent observer, Martelly’s attendance at the summit was a surprise to many, due to his reactionary political program domestically, his close relationships with the Haitian elite, and his determination that Haiti will achieve real and sustainable development through neoliberal policy and the construction of low-wage sweatshops.

Despite Martelly’s political positions, the impact of ALBA’s assistance to Haiti (primarily via Cuba and Venezuela) is too powerful for him to ignore—doing so would discredit him in the eyes of the Haitian people.  At a regional summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, which was founded last December, Martelly confirmed the vital role Venezuelan aid is playing in Haiti, saying that "The cooperation with Venezuela is the most important in Haiti right now in terms of impact, direct impact... We are grateful to President Chávez for helping us from the bottom of his heart.”

The principal reason why Venezuela and Cuba have been so effective in delivering assistance to Haiti is their engagement in developing infrastructure and professional capacity prior to the earthquake.  These countries had spent tremendous time and resources developing networks, relationships and infrastructure which would prove critical to the relief effort, and they had a proven capacity to work constructively with the ministries of the Haitian government and organizations of civil society.

Perhaps the most important example of solidarity in Haiti has been the deployment of Cuban medical brigades.  Cuban medical assistance to Haiti began after Hurricane George in 1998.

An agreement to establish a sustainable model of public healthcare was initiated between Fidel Castro and President René Préval.  The model would focus on the immediate provision of services and the construction of medical clinics throughout the country, and the beginning of training of Haitian doctors, nurses and technicians, both domestically and at the Latin American School of Medicine in Cuba (ELAM).  Seventy Haitian students were enrolled per year at ELAM; the first year of graduation was 2005.

By 2007, eight years after the Cuban medical cooperation began in earnest, Cuba had become the primary healthcare provider for nearly 75% of the population which has access to healthcare services, with over 14 million medical consultations.  Statistics from the Pan American Health Organization in 2007 indicated that the presence of the Cuban doctors had led to several dramatic improvements in several key public health indicators.

Improvements in Public Health in Haiti, 1999-2007

Health Indicator                                            1999        2007

Infant Mortality, per 1,000 live births                 80           33

Child Mortality Under 5 per 1,000                     135        59.4

Maternal Mortality per 100,000 live births          523         285

Life Expectancy (years)                                   54          61

**Figures taken from Emily J. Kirk and John M. Kirk’s One of the World’s Best Kept Secrets: Cuban Medical Aid to Haiti

On the eve of the earthquake, Cuba had trained 550 Haitian doctors at no cost, with another 567 medical students enrolled in Cuba.  These doctors, in addition to Cuban medical personnel, would provide the most widespread and successful medical campaign in post-earthquake Haiti.

In an incredibly important gesture at the United Nations Donor Conference in March 2010, Cuba pledged to rebuild a sustainable, public healthcare system in Haiti—over ten years and at a cost of $690.5 million.  Not wanting to be outdone by small, socialist Cuba, this ambitious and deeply needed plan for Haiti was virtually ignored by the international media.  Despite the rejection by the United Nations, Cuba’s medical efforts in Haiti continue, with collaborative assistance from Venezuela, Brazil and Norway.

Notwithstanding the cholera epidemic (introduced to Haiti due to the negligence of United Nations troops), many non-governmental organizations have left the country as their funds dried up.  Cuba is once again leading the charge to save lives.

Its medical brigades have established 44 cholera treatment units and 23 cholera treatment centers.  They have achieved a mortality rate of just 0.36% in the areas they serve, four times lower than thenational average.  Cuba’s medical assistance to Haiti was chosen by Project Censored as one of the top 25 underreported news stories in 2011.

With the signing of agreements with Venezuela in 2007 during President Hugo Chávez’s visit to the country, a series of significant projects were ushered in, including US$80 million for an oil refinery, US$56 million for three electricity plants, US$4 million for a liquid gas plant, and US$3 million for a waste collection program.

Venezuela has also provided significant financial assistance to Haiti through the terms of the Petrocaribe program.  Under the program, Haiti became a participant in a preferential trade agreement, where they could pay for Venezuelan oil over a 25-year period, with 1 % interest rate.

After the earthquake Venezuela once again stepped up to help Haiti, by pledging US$2.4 billion in reconstruction and relief aid, the largest financial contribution among 58 donors,according to the U.N. Office of the Special Envoy for Haiti.  In another significant act of solidarity, in June 2010, the Venezuelan government also cancelled all of Haiti’s debt with Petrocaribe—amounting to the cancellation of almost US$400 million.

The February 2012 ALBA summit in Caracas produced a further roadmap to Haiti’s recovery, focusing on Haiti’s sustainable reconstruction, building infrastructure, and increasing independence in the areas of energy, agriculture, healthcare and education.

Due to decades of unfair trade and aid policies, Haiti currently imports nearly 80% of its main food staple, rice.  Venezuelan assistance is helping to restore the devastated rice industry in Haiti’s Artibonite Valley by providing technical assistance and financial aid to Haitian farmers.  According to President Martelly, the benefits of Petrocaribe include, “a deal where we repay the amount owed with rice, so this is good for us.  Because the main thing for us is to create jobs.”

Implementing assistance programs which develop rural linkages in Haiti and encourage domestic industrial growth is something that is unfortunately missing from many of the reconstruction plans of non-ALBA countries.  For example, despite many announcements of reform, current USAID food assistance policies prohibit the procurement of foodstuffs from local sources.

This means that US food aid (food grown and subsidized in the United States) is dumped into Haiti, destroying the agricultural industry.  By comparison, Venezuela is creating incentives for Haitian farmers to cultivate rice once again in an effort to develop food security and employment opportunities.

In contrast to the aid provided by the United States and other major donors, President Martelly has stated that Venezuela’s aid comes without excessive conditions and bureaucratic controls.  "Sometimes for a simple project, it might take too long for the project to happen," he remarked.  "If you're asking me which one flows better, which one is easier, I'll tell you Venezuela."

The foreign ministers of ALBA countries will meet at a summit to be held in Jacmel, Haiti in March.  It would be naive to assume that the United States will let Haiti join ALBA or establish deeper ties without a fight.

U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks have revealed that the United States government and the large oil companies fought to prevent Haiti from joining Petrocaribe under the administration of President Préval.  The United States and big oil exerted significant political pressure upon Préval, fearing the loss of traditional geopolitical dominance, not to speak of handsome profit margins from fuel delivery (Haiti received its first shipment of Petrocaribe fuel in March 2008.)

Haiti’s entry into full membership of ALBA would unleash untold pressure upon whatever Haitian government attempts to do so.  Whether President Martelly’s gestures are acts of political posturing or a signal of genuine intention to join ALBA, it is too early to tell.  What is clear is that ALBA has offered extensive and unconditional support to the Haitian people, in contrast to many hollow promises of the international community.  It has provided a model of solidarity and sustainability which should be emulated in the reconstruction of Haiti.

Source: NACLA

March 6th 2012

venezuelanalysis

Cari-Crisis... again

By Norman Girvan:


“Crisis” is one of those words that is used so much that it has practically lost its meaning. And if there were a competition among regional organisations on which was most often said to be “in crisis”, my bet would be on CARICOM winning by a wide margin.


In the run-up to the half-yearly meetings of CARICOM leaders, we have become accustomed to a flurry of reports, studies, speeches and media commentaries bemoaning the sorry state of the regional movement and promising renewed attention to the dying patient.

Latest in the procession are two reports in the regional media appearing this week, just a fortnight before the March 8-9 “Intersessional meeting” of CARICOM heads of government in Suriname.

Veteran regional columnist Rickey Singh is quoting at length from a letter said to be sent by Prime Minister Ralph Gonsalves of St Vincent and the Grenadines to newly installed CARICOM Secretary General, Irwin LaRocque. The letter is said to offer a “blunt assessment” of CARICOM.

According to the Prime Minister, "CARICOM's current mode of marking time at an historical moment of overwhelmingly awesome challenges for our region which compelling demands a more profound integration, is mistaken…"; and further that "Minimalism in integration has its attractions but in our regional context, it can be fatal to our people's well-being.”

One must commend Prime Minister Gonsalves for caring sufficiently about CARICOM to take the trouble to craft this letter, and for his candour. But one is hard put to find anything in the extensive passages quoted that hasn‘t been said before.

Neither is there any hint of what specific actions Mr Gonsalves is proposing in order to salvage the regional enterprise.

I also wonder if the prime minister is aiming his guns at the right target. Seems to me he should be addressing his fellow heads of government directly; and with concrete proposals about how to move out of the present malaise. As everyone knows, the way that CARICOM is structured endows the secretary general with very limited authority to act on his own. More of a “secretary” he, than a “general”.

In any case, the expectations that accompanied Secretary General LaRocque‘s appointment six months or so ago, have all but dissipated. Seems to be business as usual!

Prime Minister Gonsalves concedes that he himself took part in a collective decision in 2011 to put the Single Economy “on pause” -- a decision which, ironically, was taken at a Special Retreat hosted by then President Jagdeo of Guyana, which had precisely the opposite objective.

So what reason do we have to believe that the latest letter, sincere though it may be, will make one iota of difference this time around?

The second news item, coming out of Bridgetown on February 22, tells us that a “Project Management Team” has warned that without a “fundamental change”, CARICOM could expire slowly over the next few years as stakeholders begin to vote with their feet…

Well, well. I wonder which planet these gentlemen inhabit.  Don‘t they know that stakeholders have been “voting with their feet” for some time? Whatever happened to the Caribbean Business Council, brainchild of former Barbados Prime Minister Owen Arthur? How active are the Caribbean Chamber of Commerce, the Caribbean Association of Industry and Commerce, the Caribbean Congress of Labour, the Caribbean Policy Development Centre?  These organisations have just about given up on the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME).

1. Don‘t they know that the OECS is prioritising their own union?   That three CARICOM countries have joined ALBA, with two more in the queue?  That Guyana and Suriname are founding members of the Union of South American States (UNASUR), and looking southwards?  That Belize looks as much -- if not more -- to Central America as to the Caribbean?  Isn‘t it already “every man for himself”?

I have some other news for the Project Management Team: it’s all been said before.

For instance, here is what the present writer wrote seven years ago:

“The pessimistic scenario is for fragmentation of the Community and eventual abandonment of the CSME as an objective. This could result with loss of momentum in the integration movement due to the difficulties discussed in this paper, the growth of ‘implementation fatigue’ among governments and of ‘implementation cynicism’ in the regional public, waning political support for integration, and increased economic divergence.”

Long before that -- twenty years ago, in fact, there was Time For Action - Report by the Independent West Indian Commission -- -which spoke at length about the “Implementation Deficit” as the Achilles Heel of CARICOM.  More recently, one can point to any amount of studies, comments and warnings by regional media commentators, business leaders, academics, statesmen, leaders and former leaders. These have grown in the light of the still incomplete project to complete the CARICOM Single Market -- supposedly inaugurated by the governments in 2006 -- and the frequent missed targets for completing the CARICOM Single Economy, first set for the end of 2008.

So what‘s new?  Well, if the “Project Management Team” is supported by external donors, and has some foreign consultants among them, its report may be taken more seriously.  A cynical view might be that “Aid-driven integration” and “colonial mentality” could succeed, where all else has failed.  Even so, I wonder if the PMT is being correctly reported in their conclusion that “Hopes for arresting the crisis depend on a willingness on the part of Heads of Government to bite the bullet on the elusive issue of ‘fundamental changes’ in the management structure and operational modalities of the Georgetown-based CARICOM Secretariat.”

I have to ask if this isn‘t putting the cart before the horse.  The CARICOM Secretariat is a means to an end, not an end in itself.  How can decisions be taken on its structure outside of the context of larger decisions about the course that integration should take over the next 5-10 years; the priorities; the road map; the method of governance of the Community and the degree to which regional organs will be legally endowed with the authority to exercise “collective sovereignty”, in order to solve the recurrent problem of “implementation deficit”?

In reality, the “bullet” that needs to be “bitten” is the necessity to share sovereignty in designated areas of regional action, and to put structures of governance in place to give this practical effect.  Anyway you look at it, a revision of the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas is inescapable.  And possibly a revision of several national constitutions as well.

A tall order, perhaps.  But to pin hopes on a reformed secretariat outside of this framework looks to me like a recipe for wasted investment, heightened frustration and continued decline.

So people, as the Suriname meeting approaches, dream of the best, but expect more of the same.  Don‘t hold your breath. You might be waiting to exhale for a long time.


February 25, 2012
caribbeannewsnow

Britain and Bolivarian Alternative for Latin America and the Caribbean (ALBA): Another Falklands War?

Britain and ALBA: Another Falklands War?

By Rebecca Theodore


Lights! Camera! Action! Yes! A new light is shining on the oil-bearing geological formations in the Falkland Islands’ waters. Light is immediately understood as ‘the true source of all things and the base on which the physicality of the material world is built.’

However, the new light that is shining on British energy companies Rockhopper Exploration, Falkland Oil & Gas, Borders & Southern, Argos Resources and Arcadia et al, flickers rising tension between Britain and Argentina. It is not the light that saturates the living radiance of nature. It is the light of war.

It is a different light that illumines borders and margins when three decades ago, then British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher dispatched the first warships to the Falklands after Argentina’s ruling military government invasion. Argentina surrendered to Britain, but the importance of the Falklands to both Britain and Argentina now echo heated discussions because of the discovery of ‘black gold’ in the surrounding waters.

The Falkland Islands are a British overseas territory in the south-west Atlantic Ocean, where fishing and sheep farming are the main economic activities. Isolated and meagerly populated, it is the subject of a sovereignty dispute between Britain and Argentina. Despite being soundly beaten in 1982 by the British, Argentina maintains that the Falklands and the surrounding waters are theirs, even including them in the Argentine constitution.

The episode seems strange for the Falkland islanders themselves, who have freely chosen, through self-determination, to be an overseas territory of the UK and not a colony of Argentina. With British exploration set to begin in full swing, environmentalists also worry of the challenge it poses to the Falkland Islands government to protect the eco-system since the islands are a breeding ground for millions of penguins.

Now that the Falkland Islands are said to have one of the world's largest reserves of oil, mainly in the north, south and east basin and with British geological surveys estimating the oil at about 60 billion barrels; oil, money and drama not only excite the appetites of the British but that of a leading multitude as well.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s aggressive speech style has invoked the power of the Peróns on the issue, created a rift in Argentinian politics, and continues to fuel the patriotic ambitions of her people to reclaim the island archipelago. The EU, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Brazil, Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega and the rest of Latin America have all been seemingly supportive in the duel as well.

With Chavez loudly proclaiming that ‘the time for empire is over,’ he demands the UK hand back the Falklands to Buenos Aires, and condemns Britain for flouting international law by permitting drilling in the surrounding waters.

While Argentina simmers with anger at the possibility of the Falklands becoming an energy source for Britain, on the other side of the dubious coin, an attack by Argentina on the Falklands, would also be considered an attack on the EU, because Britain is part of the EU. This means that France and Germany would have to support a British effort to defend the Falklands in the event of war because Europeans would not accept to lose the Falklands and the oil to the Argentinians.

In fact, as proponents lament, the islands may eventually fall, either directly or indirectly, under the influence of Europe, especially if they emerge as a source for energy. This move would completely erode the monopoly of OPEC (The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) in determining the price and the growing demand for oil and instill optimism in traders buying shares in Rockhopper Exploration.

Despite Britain’s close coalition with the US, the Obama Administration is determined not to be drawn into the conflict. It has also declined to back Britain’s claim that oil exploration near the islands is sanctioned by international law, saying that the dispute is strictly a bilateral issue choosing instead to back Argentina’s calls for negotiation at the United Nations.

The cause of the commotion is not the islands themselves, but the oil reserves within the Falklands’ territorial waters. This makes the islands a very big deal because whoever owns them would own one of the world’s largest oil reserves. With the rise in oil prices and the worldwide search for new oil and gas services, it has now become more than commercially viable for drilling to begin.

Britain’s large-scale drilling of oil in the Falklands, and its establishment of a military fortress in the south Atlantic provokes a dramatic response from Argentina. Argentina on the other hand, is flying the Argentine flag over Government House in the Falkland Islands' capital, Port Stanley, claiming territorial stake to the islands, which it calls the Malvinas, because it inherited them from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s.

Whether the light shines as a unifying cause in South America, or fans the flames of war into a major political conflict between Britain and Argentina, the outcome is well worth watching. In the meantime, the action for the British is: “Drill, baby, drill.”

February 7, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

The Caribbean: Where tyrants and terrorists prowl at ease!

By Rebecca Theodore

Like something from the planet Krypton, a blinding flare and surreal atmospheric light disguise the cerulean beauty of the Caribbean Sea. Fear revels in the image of a radioactive glow and mushroom clouds soar in swirling winds. Oceans can no longer separate sovereign nations from massive meltdowns. A despot prowls at ease in my backyard. He denounces American imperialism and calls for a new world order free of US leadership.

Behold the tyrant! Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I watch the flaming lights blazing across the Caribbean skies and a thousand voices sound the dreadful happenings.

Iran is intensifying bilateral relations with ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of our America) in the Caribbean. Amidst escalating threats in the Strait of Homuz, a dispute between Teheran and the West over the manufacture of atomic weapons, Iran is feeding uranium into its first and only nuclear power plant and strengthening ties with Venezuela and other Latin American countries. Foreign terrorists have national identity cards that identify them as Venezuelan citizens.

“Lord have mercy,” they cry. There is a lethal, anti-Semitic, aspiring genocidist, loose in the Caribbean. Has President Obama failed in his efforts to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program? Why are we vulnerable after billions have been spent to fight insurgents and terrorist in the Middle East?

And they utter profanities against the ghost of Einstein.

American embassies, consulates, corporate headquarters, energy pipelines and Jewish-sponsored community centers and citizens are ready targets but American officials are asleep at the wheel.

“If countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” is their only pronouncement but, regrettably enough, that fist is tightly clenched.

There is no extended hand.

As yellow smoke whirls into light, Iran cajoles in its Hezbollah presence in Latin America, and ALBA nations are rapidly becoming aides in the acquisition of nuclear weapons of the apocalypse. Dominica, St Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda are conceding their freedoms in the political and economic domains and are no longer free negotiators within the assemblies of CARICOM.

But they don’t care.

Venezuela has at last ruptured CARICOM’s hymen from behind. The bandage of trust bleeds. The birth of a modern ‘Frankenstein monster’ yields into being.

A “doppelganger!” I learnt from the papers that Chavez and Ahmadinejad share joint paternity.

Out from the murky, quivering flames Ahmadinejad hastens the return of the Twelfth Imam in genocidal tempest right on America’s southern doorstep.

Will Islamic terrorist bombs rain in Atlanta, Washington and New York as well?

And in the midst of flames tossing against the firmament, I lay speechless. Nuclear energy was once the hope of humanity's future. The atom promised a boundless supply of power and possibly world peace but now faces are placed on stories of leukemia, breast cancer, stillbirths, and government deception.

I look out my window. It’s swampy, almost glaucous, and military advocates, peace activists and disillusioned scientists stare in amazement. The batteries of life are spent. Scientific discoveries of nuclear weapons are our own demise. Our pristine Caribbean home is now a nuclear waste dump.

Herein lies the harsh realities of the ideal.

January 9, 2012

caribbeannewsnow

Venezuela's deadly pact with Latin American and Caribbean states

By Rebecca Theodore


Beware! The manipulative game of bartering oil for social welfare and aid to solve the economic woes of many Latin American and Caribbean states by Venezuela’s despot Hugo Chavez lingers.

Despite original predictions of its unsustainability, the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) is quickly spreading throughout the region like wildfire, leaving in its wake a voice that cries out loud against reason and a political movement that tears the commercial veil of the Caribbean, Latin America, and the US asunder, being pulled and tossed in directions unknown by ideologically contrasting powers.

As games rely on the technical representation of an idea that either player can manipulate to victory, the allure for cheap oil for many Latin American and Caribbean countries now see them turning their backs on the US, choosing instead to associate themselves with governments overtly committed to building socialism. Faced with serious balance-of-payment problems, the bait entangled in a form of economic integration is appealing.

Thus, in their bold attempts for economic recovery and in choosing to align with Chavez, Latin American and Caribbean states are also lamenting the fact that Washington only supports democracy if and only if it contributes to their strategic and economic interests.

While assenting factors advocate that ALBA focuses on social cooperation and the use of economic growth to solve the people's problems, including unemployment and illiteracy, opponents on the other hand argue that this leftist trade bloc, funded by Venezuelan oil money and Cuban and Bolivarian ideology is nothing but a front for a broader socialist and anti-American agenda in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Deemed a destabilizing effect on the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) by Jamaica’s Prime Minister Bruce Golding from its infancy, the socialist movement (ALBA) is spreading across the region like a deadly epidemic, with countries such as Nicaragua, Ecuador, Honduras, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Haiti, Dominica, Antigua and Barbuda, Guatemala, Mexico, Belize, and the Dominican Republic signing up as innocent lambs to the slaughter.

There is no doubt that this move yields ominous concerns, as dependence on foreign direct investment and tourism as a major propellant of development is curtailed. Concerns that the old order of power in Latin America and the Caribbean may also be permanently threatened.

As a lion disguised in sheep’s clothing, it must be seen that ALBA’s repute as an economic alliance for Latin American and Caribbean solidarity is only based on Chavez’s ideological hallucination -- an ideology that is not only masked in vengeance and hatred against the US to undermine the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) but also one that transgresses the practice of international law and bestows on Chavez the attention which he no doubt desperately craves in world politics.

Proposal for a joint ALBA military force by Venezuela and Nicaragua to replace the Inter-American Defense Board joint military aid, as well as intelligence and counterintelligence cooperation to combat the illusive terrorism and permanent aggression threat by the United States continues to be the theme of Chavez’s inflated rhetoric.

As more and more Latin American and Caribbean countries are depositing agreed amounts of their respective national currencies into a special SUCRE (Single Regional Compensation System) fund, it seems the SUCRE is rapidly replacing the US dollar as a medium of exchange with a Regional Monetary Council, and a Central Clearing House, hence decreasing US control of Latin American and Caribbean economies and fortifying Chavez’s long time insane ambition of the SUCRE becoming an international reserve currency much like the euro.

While the US sits idly by, choosing instead to label it an ‘oil conspiracy’, ignoring the Monroe Doctrine approach, which regarded the Caribbean as its backyard, emboldening its neighbours and internal groups to challenge its sovereignty, a new form of 21st century socialism now governs the economic and political policies of Latin America and the Caribbean.

It is a dramatic development, a difficult encounter and a concern of gigantic historical and commercial proportions.

March 17, 2011

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

Behind the Coup in Ecuador: The Attack on ALBA

The latest coup attempt against one of the countries in the Bolivarian Alliance For The People of Our America (ALBA) is an attempt to impede Latin American integration and the advance of revolutionary democratic processes. The rightwing is on the attack in Latin America. Its success in 2009 in Honduras against the government of Manuel Zelaya energized it and gave it the strength and confidence to strike again against the people and revolutionary governments in Latin America.

The elections of Sunday, September 26th in Venezuela, while victorious for the Venezuelan United Socialist Party (PSUV), also ceded space to the most reactionary and dangerous destabilizing forces at the service of imperial interests. The United States managed to situate key elements in the Venezuelan National Assembly, giving them a platform to move forward with their conspiratorial schemes to undermine Venezuelan democracy.

The day after the elections in Venezuela, the main advocate for peace in Colombia, Piedad Córdoba, was dismissed as a Senator in the Republic of Colombia, by Colombia’s Inspector General, on the basis of falsified evidence and accusations. But the attack against Senator Córdoba is a symbol of the attack against progressive forces in Colombia who seek true and peaceful solutions to the war in which they have been living for more than 60 years.

And now, Thursday, September 30th, was the dawn of a coup d’etat in Ecuador. Insubordinate police took over a number of facilities in the capital of Quito, creating chaos and panic in the country. Supposedly, they were protesting against a new law approved by the National Assembly on Wednesday, which according to them reduced labor benefits.

In an attempt to resolve the situation, President Rafael Correa went to meet with the rebellious police but was attacked with heavy objects and teargas, causing a wound on his leg and teargas asphyxiation. He was taken to a military hospital in Quito, where he was later kidnapped and held against his will, prevented from leaving.

Meanwhile, popular movements took to the streets of Quito, demanding the liberation of their President, democratically re-elected the previous year by a huge majority. Thousands of Ecuadorans raised their voices in support of President Correa, trying to rescue their democracy from the hands of coup-plotters who were looking to provoke the forced resignation of the national government.

In a dramatic development, President Correa was rescued in an operation by Special Forces from the Ecuadoran military in the late evening hours. Correa denounced his kidnapping by the coup-plotting police and laid responsibility for the coup d’etat directly upon former President, Lucio Gutiérrez. Gutiérrez was a presidential candidate in 2009 against President Correa, and lost in a landslide when more than 55% voted for Correa.

During today’s events, Lucio Gutiérrez declared in an interview, “The end of Correa’s tyranny is at hand,” also asking for the “dissolution of Parliament and a call for early presidential elections.”

But beyond the key role played by Gutiérrez, there are external factors involved in this attempted coup d’etat that are moving their pieces once again.

Infiltration of the Police

According to journalist Jean-Guy Allard, an official report from Ecuador’s Defense Minister, Javier Ponce, distributed in October of 2008 revealed “how US diplomats dedicated themselves to corrupting the police and the Armed Forces.”

The report confirmed that police units “maintain an informal economic dependence on the United States, for the payment of informants, training, equipment and operations.”

In response to the report, US Ambassador in Ecuador, Heather Hodges, justified the collaboration, saying “We work with the government of Ecuador, with the military and with the police, on objectives that are very important for security.” According to Hodges, the work with Ecuador’s security forces is related to the “fight against drug trafficking.”

The Ambassador

Ambassador Hodges was sent to Ecuador in 2008 by then President George W. Bush. Previously she successfully headed up the embassy in Moldova, a socialist country formerly part of the Soviet Union. She left Moldova sowing the seeds for a “colored revolution” that took place, unsuccessfully, in April of 2009 against the majority communist party elected to parliament.

Hodges headed the Office of Cuban Affairs within the US State Department in 1991, as its Deputy Director. The department was dedicated to the promotion of destabilization in Cuba. Two years later she was sent to Nicaragua in order to consolidate the administration of Violeta Chamorro, the president selected by the United States following the dirty war against the Sandinista government, which led to its exit from power in 1989.

When Bush sent her to Ecuador, it was with the intention of sowing destabilization against Correa, in case the Ecuadoran president refused to subordinate himself to Washington’s agenda. Hodges managed to increase the budget for USAID and the NED [National Endowment for Democracy] directed toward social organizations and political groups that promote US interests, including within the indigenous sector.

In the face of President Correa’s re-election in 2009, based on a new constitution approved in 2008 by a resounding majority of men and women in Ecuador, the Ambassador began to foment destabilization.

USAID

Certain progressive social groups have expressed their discontent with the policies of the Correa government. There is no doubt that legitimate complaints and grievances against his government exist. Not all groups and organizations in opposition to Correa’s policies are imperial agents. But a sector among them does exist which receives financing and guidelines in order to provoke destabilizing situations in the country that go beyond the natural expressions of criticism and opposition to a government.

In 2010, the State Department increased USAID’s budget in Ecuador to more than $38 million dollars. In the most recent years, a total of $5,640,000 in funds were invested in the work of “decentralization” in the country. One of the main executors of USAID’s programs in Ecuador is the same enterprise that operates with the rightwing in Bolivia: Chemonics, Inc. At the same time, NED issued a grant of $125,806 to the Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE) to promote free trade treaties, globalization, and regional autonomy through Ecuadoran radio, television and newspapers, along with the Ecuadoran Institute of Economic Policy.

Organizations in Ecuador such as Participación Ciudadana and Pro-justicia [Citizen Participation and Pro-Justice], as well as members and sectors of CODEMPE, Pachakutik, CONAIE, the Corporación Empresarial Indígena del Ecuador [Indigenous Enterprise Corporation of Ecuador] and Fundación Qellkaj [Qellkaj Foundation] have had USAID and NED funds at their disposal.

During the events of September 30 in Ecuador, one of the groups receiving USAID and NED financing, Pachakutik, sent out a press release backing the coup-plotting police and demanding the resignation of President Correa, holding him responsible for what was taking place. The group even went so far as to accuse him of a “dictatorial attitude.” Pachakutik entered into a political alliance with Lucio Gutiérrez in 2002 and its links with the former president are well known:

“PACHAKUTIK ASKS PRESIDENT CORREA TO RESIGN AND CALLS FOR THE FORMING OF A SINGLE NATIONAL FRONT

Press Release 141

In the face of the serious political turmoil and internal crisis generated by the dictatorial attitude of President Rafael Correa, who has violated the rights of public servants as well as society, the head of the Pachakutik Movement, Cléver Jiménez, called on the indigenous movement, social movements and democratic political organizations to form a single national front to demand the exit of President Correa, under the guidelines established by Article 130, Number 2 of the Constitution, which says: “The National Assembly will dismiss the President of the Republic in the following cases: 2) For serious political crisis and domestic turmoil.”

Jiménez backed the struggle of the country’s public servants, including the police troops who have mobilized against the regime’s authoritarian policies which are an attempt to eliminate acquired labor rights. The situation of the police and members of the Armed Forces should be understood as a just action by public servants, whose rights have been made vulnerable.

This afternoon, Pachakutik is calling on all organizations within the indigenous movement, workers, democratic men and women to build unity and prepare new actions to reject Correa’s authoritarianism, in defense of the rights and guarantees of all Ecuadorans.

Press Secretary

PACHAKUTIK BLOQUE”

The script used in Venezuela and Honduras repeats itself. They try to hold the President and the government responsible for the “coup,” later forcing their exit from power. The coup against Ecuador is the next phase in the permanent aggression against ALBA and revolutionary movements in the region.

The Ecuadoran people remain mobilized in their rejection of the coup attempt, while progressive forces in the region have come together to express their solidarity and support of President Correa and his government.

Source: Chavez Code

October 6th 2010

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International

Venezuela: “Only Ecuadorans Can Neutralise Coup Attempt”

By Tamara Pearson - Venezuelanalysis.com:


Mérida, September 30th 2010 (Venezuelanalysis.com) – As a coup attempt takes place in Ecuador, Venezuela and regional organisations of Latin America have come out in solidarity with Ecuador, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called on the people and military of Ecuador to defend President Rafael Correa and their country’s democracy.

Ecuador is a close ally of Venezuela, and a fellow member of the progressive Bolivarian Alliance of the People of Our America (ALBA).

Early this afternoon the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry released an official statement condemning the coup attempt and expressing its solidarity with President Rafael Correa and the Ecuadoran people.

The statement said, “A few minutes ago President Hugo Chavez Frias talked with President Rafael Correa, who is being held in the National Police hospital in Quito. President Correa confirmed that what is taking place is a coup attempt, given the insubordination by a section of the National Police towards the authorities and the law”.

“Commander Hugo Chavez expressed his support for the constitutional president of our sister, the Republic of Ecuador, and condemned, in the name of the Venezuelan people and the Bolivarian Alliance of the People of Our America (ALBA), this attack against the constitution and the people of Ecuador,” continued the statement.

“The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela expresses its confidence that President Rafael Correa and the Ecuadoran people will overturn this coup attempt and, together with the people of Latin America and the Caribbean, we will be alert and accompanying them with solidarity in this historic moment,” the statement concluded.

Later this afternoon, Chavez talked on the telephone with Telesur, commenting on the coup attempt as he prepared to travel to Argentina to meet with other presidents of UNASUR and discuss the situation in Ecuador.

“According to what our ambassador [in Ecuador] has reported, the airports have been taken. It’s an operation that has been prepared. They are the forces of... the extreme right,” he said.

“The president [of Ecuador] is alone [in the hospital] with just an assistant and a few security members. Our ambassador Navas Tortolero tried to enter the hospital but they impeded him. There is a lot of police violence and its clear they received instructions from above.”

Correa “told me, ‘I’m ready to die, I’m not going to give up’,” Chavez said.

Chavez argued that a peaceful march needs to support the president, and the military needs to guarantee the peace. “Only Ecuadorians can neutralise the coup attempt... and can save democracy in Venezuela,” he said.

“Correa is a man of great dignity, we’ve seen him confront this situation despite his physical condition, his knee [which was operated on recently]... I have faith in President Correa, who has already suffered attacks from outside Ecuador in the sad case of Colombia’s incursion... he knows how to respond and how to plant peace in Ecuador,” Chavez said.

Chavez also commented that it was “strange that the military hasn’t appeared... their president is kidnapped... they aren’t letting him out, hopefully there’ll be a reaction... I’ve talked with Venezuelan military in Ecuador who tell me that the military there are in their barracks but they aren’t active... the situation is very very bad.”

Chavez called on the Ecuadoran military to “not allow them to massacre the Ecuadorian people” and to “rescue President Correa.”

“It’s a coup attempt against ALBA... the countries who have raised the banner of democracy... the [coup] masters... we know where they are, they are in Washington,” he concluded.

Already, Venezuelans are mobilising outside the Ecuadorian embassy in Caracas.

Regional Response

The Organisation of American States (OAS) is holding an emergency meeting and ALBA and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) are making arrangements to hold emergency meetings.

However, Chavez commented on Telesur that the OAS is “impotent” in the face of such situations. “Beyond chest beating”, nothing will come out of it, he argued, sighting the case of Honduras.

To date in the OAS meeting, all government representatives who have spoken, including those from the Dominican Republic, Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay, have said they reject the coup attempt.

Cuba, the European Union, the general secretary of the United Nations, Mexico, France, and Bolivia also declared their support for the democratically-elected Ecuadoran government.

The US ambassador to the OAS, Carmen Lomellin, stated, “We condemn any attempt to violate or alter the constitutional process and constitutional order in Ecuador”.

ALBA has also released a formal statement, manifesting “solidarity with the legitimate government of President Rafael Correa and with the sovereign people of Ecuador”.

Nestor Kirchner, general secretary of UNASUR, expressed his total support for and “absolute solidarity” with the Ecuadorian government.

Events in Ecuador

This morning police forces in Quito, Ecuador, took over strategic sites, including an airbase, airports and parliament. President Correa immediately went to the military base to work out a solution. Police claimed they were protesting a law passed on Wednesday that allegedly would reduce their work benefits.

Correa argued that his government had doubled police wages and that rather the law just restructured the benefits.

He also denounced that ex-President Lucio Gutierrez, who, following large protests, was removed from office by a vote of the Ecuadorian congress in 2005, was behind the protest and using it to justify a coup.

Police forces attacked Correa with tear gas and the president was hospitalised shortly after in a military hospital, which coup forces subsequently surrounded. Since then he has not been able to leave.

Supporters have gathered around the presidential palace, and the Ecuadoran government has declared a state of emergency.

In a nationally televised press conference, Ecuador’s top military officials declared their support for the constitutional order of Ecuador. The top commander, General Ernesto González, demanded the police cease their subversive activities. However, the military has yet to intervene to end the police’s occupations, and only Ecuadoran civilians have taken to the streets to confront the police.

The coup attempt is not the first against an ALBA country, countries which challenge US domination in Latin America. In June 2009, Honduras, an ALBA member at the time, was subject to a coup d’état that forced its president Manuel Zelaya from power. In 2004, a coup similar to the one in Honduras was carried out in Haiti with US backing. In 2002 Venezuela was also subject to a coup, but a huge mobilisation by Venezuelans combined with military support for Chavez, defeated the coup.

venezuelanalysis

Bahamas Blog International