Google Ads

Showing posts with label Evo Morales. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evo Morales. Show all posts

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Consensus, not conflict, is the key for Rafael Correa

By David Roberts




Following last week's attempted "coup" in Ecuador (we use the speech marks because it is far from clear if the protest over bonuses by some disgruntled sections of the military and police ever seriously threatened, or was even intended to bring down the government, and President Rafael Correa's claim that he was "kidnapped" in a hospital and threatened with death seems dubious to say the least) some fear the left-leaning leader may be inclined to clamp down on the opposition and impose a more radical and/or authoritarian form of government similar to what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela after the coup attempt there in 2002.



The initial signs are not so positive, with Ecuador's foreign minister Ricardo Patiño saying "what we can expect after an episode like this is the radicalization, the strengthening of the revolution." If Correa does take that path, using the coup attempt as a pretext, it would be a big mistake. Although considered a close ally of Chavez, along with Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, the Ecuadorian president has to date governed in a much less confrontational manner than the Venezuelan leader. What Latin America needs less of is the kind of polarization of society seen in Venezuela, and one thing the region needs more of is stronger democratic institutions, the need for which is evidenced by the eroding of certain democratic freedoms in Venezuela (for example the closure of opposition TV channels), and events like last year's coup in Honduras and last week's unrest in Ecuador.



Leaders such as Chavez, Morales, Ortega and to a certain extent Correa - who has actually overseen a fair degree of stability in what is a notoriously volatile country - need to realize that once in office, a government has to be the government of all the people, and not just those who voted that government into power, or the factions who support it. Consensus, not confrontation, is the key to good government. As Brazil's outgoing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told Morales last year in explaining his own success:



"Evo, the political lesson and the lesson for life here is important. I don't govern only for the poor or the workers. They're my priority, but I govern for all the people."



But given the history of political instability in Ecuador, and realizing how fragile his own situation is, hopefully Correa will be wise enough to tread carefully and avoid excessive confrontation, despite his own inclinations. Since the protests, his government has announced pay rises for the police and military, albeit claiming the move was not related to last week's incidents.



Which brings us conveniently to Brazil, where Dilma Rousseff looks set to continue along a similar road to that taken by Lula in his two terms in office, assuming she wins the presidential run-off vote at the end of October. Whether she will enjoy the success that Lula has had, both in terms of the domestic economy and positioning Brazil on the world stage, obviously remains to be seen. The odds, however, must weigh heavily in Rousseff's favor given the solid base that Lula - once considered a leftist hothead himself - has laid and the positive forecasts for Brazil's economy, buoyed further by the healthy majority she is expected to enjoy in congress.



But Rousseff's Brazil will, of course, face massive challenges, such as in the areas of infrastructure (especially with the World Cup and Olympics coming up), in tackling corruption, in reducing further the unacceptably high poverty rate and in improving wealth distribution.

bnamericas

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Washington Still Has Problems With Democracy in Latin America

By Mark Weisbrot - CEPR:


Imagine if Barack Obama, upon taking office in January 2009, had decided to deliver on his campaign promise to “end business as usual in Washington so we can bring about real change.”


Imagine if he had rejected the architects of the pro-Wall Street policies that led to the economic collapse - such as Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and the stable of former Goldman Sachs employees running the Treasury Department - and instead appointed Nobel Prize-winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz to key positions, including the Federal Reserve chairmanship.


Instead of Hillary Clinton, who lost the Democratic presidential primary because of her unrelenting support for the Iraq war, imagine if he had chosen Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) for secretary of state, or someone else interested in fulfilling the popular desire to get out of Afghanistan.


Imagine a real health-care reform bill instead of the health-insurance reform we got - one that didn't give the powerful pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies a veto.


It goes without saying that Obama would be vilified by the major media outlets. The seething hostility of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be matched by more mainstream news organizations, which would accuse the president of polarizing the nation and engaging in dangerous demagoguery.


With most of the establishment media and institutions against him, Obama would face a constant battle for political survival - although he might well triumph through direct, populist appeals to the majority of voters. This is what a number of left-of-center Latin American leaders have done:


In Ecuador, President Rafael Correa was reelected by a large margin in 2009, despite strong opposition from the country’s media.


In Bolivia, Evo Morales has brought stability and record growth to a country with a tradition of governments that didn’t last more than a year. And he has done so in spite of the most hostile media in the hemisphere, as well as unrelenting, sometimes violent opposition from Bolivia’s traditional elite.


And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has survived a military coup attempt and other efforts to topple his government, winning three presidential elections, each one by a larger margin.


All these presidents took on entrenched oligarchies and fought hard to deliver on their promises.


Morales, the first indigenous president in a country with an indigenous majority, re-nationalized fossil-fuel industries, created jobs through public investment, and won approval of a more democratic constitution. Correa doubled spending on health care and canceled $3.2 billion in foreign debt that he declared illegitimate. Under Chavez, who took control of his country’s oil industry, poverty was cut in half, and extreme poverty dropped by more than 70 percent.


These presidents faced another obstacle to delivering on their promises that Obama would not: the opposition of the most powerful country in the world. The same was true of former Argentine President Nestor Kirchner, who had to battle the Washington-dominated International Monetary Fund to implement his economic policies, which made Argentina the fastest-growing economy in the hemisphere for six years.


Chavez, of course, has been the most demonized in the U.S. media. That is not because of what he has said or done, but because he is sitting on 100 billion barrels of oil. Washington has a particular problem with oil-producing states that don't follow orders - whether they are dictatorships (Iraq), theocracies (Iran), or democracies (Venezuela).


All of these leaders had hoped Obama would pursue a different, more enlightened Latin American policy, but that hasn’t happened. It seems that Washington, which was comfortable with the dictators and oligarchs who ran the show in the region for decades, still has problems with democracy in its former “back yard.”


Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He has written numerous research papers on economic policy, especially on Latin America and international economic policy. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000) and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also co-writer of Oliver Stone’s current documentary, “South of the Border,” now playing in theaters. He can be reached at weisbrot@cepr.net.





July 19th 2010


venezuelanalysis


Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Hugo Chavez Frias: "We are not Anti-American, We are Anti-Imperialism"

By Cindy Sheehan:


My request to interview President Hugo Chavez Frias of Venezuela was finally granted on March 2nd while we were down in Montevideo, Uruguay with President Chavez for the inauguration of the new left-ish president and freedom fighter, Jose Mujica.

The reasons I went down to Venezuela with my team of two cameramen were two-fold.

First of all, I just got tired of all the misinformation that is spread in the US about President Chavez and the people’s Bolivarian Revolution. In only one example, the National Endowment for Democracy (another Orwellian named agency that receives federal money to supplant democracy) spends millions of dollars every year in Venezuela trying to destabilize Chavez’s democratically elected government.

The other reason we went to Venezuela was to be inspired and energized by the revolution and try to inspire and energize others in the states to rise up against the oppressive ruling class here and take power back into our own hands.

Empowerment of the poorest or least educated citizens of Venezuela is the goal of the Bolivarian Revolution. President Chavez said in the interview that “Power has five principles” and the first one is Education and he calls Venezuela a “big school.” Indeed since the revolution began 11 years ago, literacy rate has risen significantly to where now 99% of the population is now literate.

People Power is another principle of power and we witnessed this in a very dramatic fashion in the barrio of San Agustin in Caracas. San Agustin was a shantytown built on the sides of some very steep and tall hills—the only way the citizens could get to and from their homes was to climb up and down some very steep and treacherous stairs. Well, two years ago, the neighborhood formed a committee and proposed that the government build a tram through the hills and on January 20th, the dreams of the citizens of San Agustin became a reality and the Metro Cable was christened. Not only did the residents get a new tram, but many of the shacks were torn down and new apartments were built. Residents had priority for low, or no, interest loans to buy the apartments.

Even though I am very afraid of heights, I rode the Metro Cable to the top of the hill and we were awarded with amazing views of Caracas and the distant mountains. All the red, gleaming tramcars are given names of places in Venezuela or revolutionary slogans. But our “treat” was still ahead of us when we made our way down the side of the hill by those steep and treacherous stairs. In combination with the stairs and the heat, by the time we were at the bottom, my legs were shaking like Jello and my heart was thumping. I could not even imagine walking up those stairs! Young children, pregnant women, pregnant women with young children, old people, etc, had to go up and down the stairs to get to an from their homes! With the installation of the tram, the lives of the people of San Agustin were improved immeasurably and it is all due to the education and sense of empowerment that comes from organizing and ultimate victory.

The Metro Cable serves about 12,000 people per day at a cost of ten cents per round trip ticket—and all of the employees come from the barrio.

After the trip up the hill and steep climb down, we met with the community organizers after a traditional Venezuelan lunch of beans, rice, fried plantains and a little bit of meat for the meat eaters. Note: the “traditional” Venezuelan lunch is identical to the traditional Venezuelan breakfast and is very yummy.

About 98% of the organizers were women who spoke very articulately and passionately about how their lives have improved since Chavez arose to power from the people’s revolution and how they would defend Chavez and the revolution with their very lives.

Knowledge is power and perhaps that’s why before the Revolution, only primary school was free and fees were charged for secondary education. Now in Venezuela, school is free all the way through doctoral studies. We see how the ruling class in our own country is gutting education and are tying to make it as difficult as possible to get a University education. A smart and thinking public is a dangerous public.

There is so much to write about our trip and about the Bolivarian Revolution that this will have to be a series of articles by necessity. We learned so much!

Also, my complete interview with President Chavez will be available soon in audio and video and then a full-length documentary entitled:TODOS SOMOS AMERICANOS (We are all Americans) will hopefully be available and premiere by June 1st.

There is a very touching scene at the end of my interview with President Chavez when President Evo Morales of Bolivia comes in the room. President Morales was also in Montevideo for Mujica’s inauguration.

I asked both the presidents if they had any words of inspiration for the people of the US. They both emphasized the need for grassroots unity, but they especially wanted to stress their affection for the people of the US.

With President Morales standing by his side and nodding vigorously, President Chavez said: “We are NOT anti-American, we ARE anti-Imperialism.”

Yo tambien, mis hermanos.

March 8th 2010

venezuelanalysis

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

U.S. bases threaten Latin America, confirms Evo

COCHABAMBA, November 9.— Bolivian President Evo Morales affirmed that the installation of U.S. military bases in Colombia is an open provocation to Latin America and, particularly, to those countries that are starting to bring dignity to their peoples and governments.

According to PL, Evo told the press that U.S. bases in Colombia are a threat to revolutionary social movements in the region and the governments of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), and against Colombia itself, given the total impunity and immunity enjoyed by U.S. soldiers who are not charged according to the laws of the country if they commit a crime against that nation.

For Morales, the empire is looking to establish worldwide hegemony and crush revolutionary countries that are fighting for their liberation, independence and development. He refuted the claim that said bases have the essential mission of combating drug-trafficking, as the governments of the two signatory countries have tried to justify.

In the face of this danger, he called on all social sectors who believe in dignity and sovereignty for Colombia and Latin America to organize and fight against the presence of these bases in the region.

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Saturday, October 17, 2009

A Nobel Prize for Evo Morales

Reflections of Fidel
A Nobel Prize for Evo
(Taken from CubaDebate)


IF Obama was awarded the Prize for winning the elections in a racist society despite being African-American, then Evo deserves it for winning in his country despite being an indigenous man, and moreover for keeping his promises.

It was the first time in the two countries that someone from each of their respective ethnic groups became president.

More than once, I noted that Obama was an intelligent, educated man in a social and political system in which he believes. He aspires to extend health services to almost 50 million U.S. people, to pull the economy out of the profound crisis it is experiencing, and to improve the image of the United States, deteriorated due to its genocidal wars and torture. He does not conceive of or desire, nor can he change, his country’s political and economic system.

The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to three U.S. presidents, a former president and a presidential candidate.

The first was Theodore Roosevelt, elected in 1901, the man of the Rough Riders that landed their riders – without their horses -- in Cuba for the U.S. intervention in 1898 to prevent our country’s independence.

The second was Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who took the United States into the first war to divvy up the world. In the Treaty of Versailles, he imposed such harsh conditions on defeated Germany, that it laid the foundations for the emergence of fascism and the breakout of World War II.

The third is Barack Obama.

Carter was the former president who, several years after ending his mandate, was awarded the Nobel Prize. Without a doubt, one of the few presidents of that country incapable of ordering the assassination of an adversary, as others did; he returned the Canal to Panama, created the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, and avoided falling into large budget deficits or squandering money for the benefit of the military-industrial complex like Reagan did.

The candidate was Al Gore when he was already vice president, the U.S. politician who knew the most about the terrible consequences of climate change. He was the victim of electoral fraud when he was a presidential candidate and had victory snatched away from him by W. Bush.

Opinions about the awarding of this prize have been very much divided. Many are based on ethical concepts or reflect evident contradictions in the surprising decision.

They would have preferred that prize to be the fruit of a task fulfilled. The Nobel Peace Prize is not always awarded to people who deserve that distinction. Sometimes individuals have received it who are resentful, arrogant or even worse. Lech Walesa, upon hearing the news, said disdainfully, "Who, Obama? It’s too fast. He hasn’t had time to do anything."

In our press and on CubaDebate, honest and revolutionary comrades have been critical. One of them said, "In the same week that Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the U.S. Senate passed the largest military budget in history: $626 billion". During the television newscast, another journalist commented, "What has Obama done to achieve such a distinction?" Others asked, "And what about the war in Afghanistan and the increase in bombings?" Those are viewpoints based on reality.

In Rome, the filmmaker Michael Moore made a lapidary statement: "Congratulations, President Obama, on the Nobel Peace Prize; now, please, earn it."

I am sure that Obama would agree with Moore’s statement. He possesses sufficient intelligence to understand the circumstances surrounding the case. He knows that he has not yet earned that prize. That morning, he stated, "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize."

It is said that there are five members on the famous committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize, all of them members of the Swedish Parliament. A spokesperson said that it was unanimous. One question fits here: did they or did they not consult the winner? Can a decision of this type be made without first notifying the winning individual? This cannot be judged morally in the same way if the person knew or did not know beforehand about the awarding of the prize. It is also fitting to affirm that about those who decided to award it to him.

Perhaps it is necessary to create a Nobel Prize for Transparency.

Bolivia has major gas and oil deposits and holds the largest known reserves of lithium, a mineral greatly needed in our era for storing and using energy.

Evo Morales, a very poor indigenous farmer, traveled throughout the Andes, together with his father, before he was six years old, shepherding the llamas of an indigenous group. They led them for 15 days to reach the market where they sold them to buy food for the community. Responding to a question of mine about that unique experience, Evo told me that at the time, "they stayed in the 1,000-star hotel," a beautiful way of referring to the clear skies of the mountains where telescopes are sometimes placed.

During those hard years of his childhood, the alternative for the farmers in the community where he was born was to cut sugar cane in the Argentine province of Jujuy, where part of the Aymara community sometimes took refuge during the sugar cane harvest.

Not very far from La Higuera, where Che, wounded and disarmed, was murdered on October 9, 1967, was Evo, who was born on the 26th of that same month in 1959, not yet 8 years old. He learned to read and write in Spanish, walking to a little public school five kilometers from the hut where, in a rustic room, he lived with his brothers and sisters and parents.

During his eventful childhood, wherever there was a teacher, Evo was there. From his race, he acquired three ethical principles: not to lie, not to steal, and not to be weak.

When he was 13, his father permitted him to move to San Pedro de Oruro to go to high school. One of his biographers tells how he was better in geography, history and philosophy than in physics and mathematics. The most important thing is that Evo, to pay for his studies, would wake up at 2 a.m. to work as a baker, construction worker, or in other physical labor. He attended classes in the afternoon. His classmates admired him and helped him. From the very start, he learned to play wind instruments and was a trumpet player in a prestigious band in Oruro.

When he was still an adolescent, he organized his community’s soccer team, and was its captain.

Access to the university was not within his reach, being an Aymara Indian and poor.

After his last year of high school, he served his mandatory military term and returned to his community, located high up in the mountains. Poverty and natural disasters forced his family to migrate to the subtropical region of El Chapare, where they were able to obtain a small land parcel. His father died in 1983 when he was 23 years old. He worked hard on the land, but he was a born fighter; he organized all of the workers, created labor unions and with them filled the vacuums to which that the state was not paying attention.

The conditions for a social revolution in Bolivia had been created over the last 50 years. On April 9, 1952, before the start of our armed struggle, the revolution broke out in that country with the Nationalist Revolutionary Movement of Víctor Paz Estenssoro. The revolutionary miners defeated the forces of repression and the MNR took power.

Revolutionary objectives in Bolivia were far from being met. In 1956, according to well-informed people, the process began to fall apart. On January 1, 1959, the Revolution was victorious in Cuba. Three years later, in January 1962, our country was expelled from the OAS. Bolivia abstained. Later, all of the governments except for Mexico broke off relations with Cuba.

Divisions in the international revolutionary movement made themselves felt in Bolivia. Still to come were 40 years more of blockading Cuba, neoliberalism and its disastrous consequences, The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and the ALBA; still to come, above all, were Evo and the MAS in Bolivia.

It would take to long to sum up that rich history on a few pages.

All I will say is that Evo was able to overcome the terrible and slanderous campaigns of imperialism, its coups d’état and interference in internal affairs, and to defend Bolivia’s sovereignty and the right of its millenary people to have respect for their customs. "Coca is not cocaine," he exclaimed to the largest marijuana producer and largest consumer of drugs in the world, whose market has maintained the organized crime that costs thousands of lives every year in Mexico. Two of the countries where the yanki troops and their military bases are located are the largest producers of drugs on the planet.

Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador are not falling into the deadly trap of drug trafficking; they are revolutionary countries that, like Cuba, are members of the ALBA. They know what they can and should do to bring health, education and well-being to their peoples. They do not need foreign troops to combat drug trafficking.

Bolivia is going forward with a program of its dreams under the leadership of an Aymara president who has his people’s support.

In less than three years, he eradicated illiteracy: 824,101 Bolivians learned to read and write; 24,699 did so in the Aymara language and 13,599 in Quechua; it is the third country to be free of illiteracy after Cuba and Venezuela.

Free medical attention is provided to millions of people who had never received it. It is one of seven countries in the world that in the last five years has most reduced its infant mortality rate, with the possibility of reaching the Millennium Goals before 2015, and it is the same case with maternal deaths, in a similar proportion. Restorative eye surgery has been performed on 454,161 people, 75,974 of them Brazilians, Argentines, Peruvians and Paraguayans.

An ambitious social program has been established in Bolivia: all of the children in public schools from first to eighth grade receive an annual donation to help pay for their school materials, benefiting almost two million students.

More than 700,000 people over the age of 60 receive a voucher for the equivalent of some $342 annually.

All pregnant women and children under the age of 2 receive assistance of approximately $257.

Bolivia, one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, has placed under state control the country’s principal energy and mineral resources, respecting and compensating each one of the interests affected. It marches along carefully, because it does not wish to retreat a single step. Its hard currency reserves have been growing. Evo has no less than three times what the country had at the beginning of his administration. It is one of the countries that makes the best use of foreign cooperation and firmly defends the environment.

In a very short time, he has been able to establish the Biometric Electoral Register, and approximately 4.7 million voters have been registered, almost one million more than on the last electoral register, which in January 2009 had 3.8 million.

On December 6, there will be elections. It is a sure thing that the people’s support for their president will grow. Nothing has been able to stop his growing prestige and popularity.

Why isn’t he awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

I understand his big disadvantage: he is not a U.S. president.



Fidel Castro Ruz
October 15, 2009
4:25 p.m.

Translated by Granma International

granma.cu

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Calls at UN for anti-Cuba blockade to be lifted





Leaders speak in
favor of reforming the organization



NEW YORK, September 23.— Brazilian President Luiz
Inácio Lula da Silva stated that without a political
will, obsolete measures such as the U.S. blockade of
Cuba will continue to exist. The dignitary was the
first speaker at the 64th Session of the UN General
Assembly, which took place today.


For his part, Uruguayan President Tabaré Vázquez,
stated that as Americans, "we feel the ethical duty
and political responsibility of likewise reiterating
in this international forum that we will persevere
in our efforts toward American integration without
exclusions, exceptions, or blockades like the one
affecting Cuba."


Likewise, Bolivian leader Evo Morales stated that
in order to change the world, "we will first have to
change the UN and end the blockade of Cuba."


Meanwhile, during yesterday’s session, U.S.
President Barack Obama called for a "new era of
commitment" to the world and promised to work
alongside other nations while defending his own
country’s interests.


"The time has come for the world to move in a new
direction. We must embrace a new era of engagement
based on mutual interest and mutual respect," said
Obama during his speech before the Assembly.


Meanwhile, French President Nicolas Sarkozy
proposed reaching an agreement on a provisional
reform of the Security Council before the end of the
year. "The crisis is forcing us to demonstrate
imagination and boldness," he said, stating that,
"in politics, the economy and environmental policy,
the need for global government is imperative," EFE
reports.


Libyan leader Muammer Gaddafi also called for a
reform of the UN, by transforming the General
Assembly into its central apparatus and transferring
the prerogatives of the Security Council to that
authority.


He also commented that, according to the UN
Charter, all countries are equal, irrespective of
their size, but the vast majority of them are not
represented on the Council.


UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Libyan
diplomat Ali Treki, General Assembly president for
the next period, both called for a reinforcement of
multilateralism.


For the former, this is the time to act with a
spirit of renewed multilateralism, to create "a
United Nations of genuine collective action".


Among the most important issues facing the
international organization, Ban mentioned nuclear
disarmament and the battle against poverty and
climate change.


Meanwhile, Treki alerted delegates to current
challenges related to peace and international
security. He identified the challenges of conflicts
among states, civil wars, weapons of mass
destruction, terrorism, organized crime, the
deterioration of the environment, extreme poverty
and the spread of infectious diseases.


The Libyan diplomat called on members to work for
the revitalization of the General Assembly and "a
more representative and reformed Security Council."
He also reaffirmed a commitment to the environment
and a non-selective approach to the issue of human
rights.



Translated by Granma International


granma.cu