'False accusations and major leaps of logic'-International Centre on Nonviolent Conflict by Michael Barker

In the last instalment of a recent exchange that was sparked by Green Left Weekly’s interview with Eva Golinger (GLW #716, June 28, 2007), Professor Steven Zunes accused me of having made a “series of false accusations and major leaps of logic” in my critical assessment of the links that the non-profit International Centre on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC) maintains with the United States’ leading democracy manipulators. (Online edition only: http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/727/37727). Taking into account that Zunes currently chairs the ICNC’s board of academic advisors, his distress over the facts I have revealed is understandable. Thus, in an effort to address all of Zunes’ unfounded concerns with my last article, I will work through each of the points he has raised concerning my critique of the ICNC.

Firstly, while the ICNC’s president, Jack DuVall, and the former head of the CIA, James Woolsey, briefly concurrently served on the board of directors of the Arlington Institute, Zunes claims that “they never once engaged in a one-on-one conversation”. This of course is hard for me to judge, but by highlighting this strange link I was by no means suggesting that DuVall and Woolsey were chums, rather I was pointing out that it was significant that someone at the Arlington Institute saw fit to have both of them on their board of directors at the same time. Moreover given the ICNC’s fleeting acquaintance with the CIA at the Arlington Institute, it is intriguing to observe that in late 2005 the ICNC’s founding chair, Peter Ackerman, became chair of the neo-conservative Freedom House, replacing none other than Woolsey (who had served in that same position since 2003).

In response to my critique of the ICNC, Zunes goes on to note that I was incorrect in noting that Ackerman was not a director of the Albert Einstein Institute “until recently”. He correctly points out that Ackerman relinquished this board position five years ago. I accept this point. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to have written that Ackerman was associated with the Albert Einstein Institute “until [fairly] recently”. Zunes adds that I did not explain why he [Zunes] was disingenuous for claiming that no operational ties existed between the ICNC and the Albert Einstein Institute. Yet, as he must realise, I simply stated that – given the obvious Ackerman link – he was being a little disingenuous (even if technically he was telling the truth) when he wrote that the ICNC “has never had a single operational meeting with anyone representing” the Albert Einstein Institute. Indeed, as I previously documented, in March 2005 the ICNC, “in collaboration with the Albert Einstein Institute” hosted a workshop for Venezuelans on non-violent conflict; furthermore, the ICNC’s current director of programs and research, Hardy Merriman, came to this position after working for three years at the Albert Einstein Institute with the institute’s founder Gene Sharp. Here it is interesting to briefly examine the sources of funds for the Albert Einstein Institute’s work.

Although a complete documentary record of the Albert Einstein Institute’s funding relationships is presently unavailable (online at least), a summary of its work between 1993 and 1999 provides a list of its supporters over this time period. The most ‘‘democratic’’ of these financial contributors included the US Institute for Peace (USIP), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (one of the NED’s four core grantees), and the German-based Friedrich Naumann Stiftung. The Albert Einstein Institute also received aid from two other key democracy-manipulating liberal philanthropists, the Ford Foundation and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. (For further information on the problems associated with liberal philanthropy see Joan Roelofs’ excellent 2003 book Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism.)

As a slight aside, it is worth noting that another (very) recent critique of liberal foundations’ co-optive strategies is INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence’s book, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded (2007). However, it is perhaps ironic that their book has this title because – as I and others have demonstrated in previous articles – revolutions are funded, that is so long as they serve imperial interests. Unfortunately, the aforementioned book is referring a forthcoming revolution in the US, which – as they correctly diagnose – will most certainly not be funded by liberal philanthropists or any other “democratic’’elites.

Sadly, the analyses presented by Roelofs and INCITE! are not new ones, but nonetheless they contain critically important ideas for any groups or individuals wishing to promote participatory democracy without elite interference. Indeed, one of the most important books exploring the detrimental influence of liberal foundations on progressive social change was Robert Arnove’s Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad (1980). In the introduction to this edited collection Arnove notes that: “A central thesis [of this book] is that foundations like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford have a corrosive influence on a democratic society; they represent relatively unregulated and unaccountable concentrations of power and wealth which buy talent, promote causes, and, in effect, establish an agenda of what merits society’s attention. They serve as ‘cooling-out’ agencies, delaying and preventing more radical, structural change. They help maintain an economic and political order, international in scope, which benefits the ruling-class interests of philanthropists and philanthropoids – a system which, as the various chapters document, has worked against the interests of minorities, the working class, and Third World peoples.”

Other important, but little mentioned, books that clearly document how the larger liberal foundations work hand-in-hand with the US foreign policy elites include Edward H. Berman’s 1983 The Ideology of Philanthropy: The Influence of the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, and Frances Stonor Saunders’ more recent (1999) title, Who Paid the Piper?: CIA and the Cultural Cold War. Another essay that has done much to raise awareness of such issues in the activist community is James Petras’ 1999 seminal article NGOs: In the Service of Imperialism.

While influential books like John Pilger’s The New Rulers of the World (2002) acknowledge how liberal foundations crafted the entire political arena – known as international relations – most mainstream books – like Pilger’s – do not subject the work of such foundations to any degree of sustained criticism. Thus, it is supremely ironic that progressive activists tend to underestimate (or at least do not write or talk about) the influence of liberal philanthropists, while simultaneously acknowledging the fundamental role played by conservative philanthropists in promoting neo-liberal policies. Indeed, contrary to popular beliefs amongst progressives, much evidence supports the contention that liberal philanthropists and their foundations have been very influential in shaping the contours of North American (and global) civil society, actively influencing social change through a process alternatively referred to as either channelling or co-option.

Returning to Zunes’ critique of my last article, he takes offence that I draw attention to the ICNC staff’s impressive military links – as outlined in my first GLW article. Again, he may have a point that the ICNC has no “current links” to the military, but I base my assertion upon the former links (and note that, if its staff do have current military ties, it is not expected that they would advertise them in their online biographies). To repeat my earlier statement on this subject: not including Duvall, three of ICNC’s six “principals of non-violence were trained within the heart of the military-industrial complex.
“ICNC vice-chair Berel Rodal was formerly director-general of the policy secretariat in Canada’s Department of National Defence; ICNC manager of educational initiatives Dr Maria J. Stephan, has worked ‘at the U.S. Department of Defense and with the international staff at NATO Headquarters in Brussels’; and Shaazka Beyerle (former vice-president turned senior advisor of ICNC) is a founding vice-president of the European Institute (another group that is well linked to the ‘democracy’ establishment).”

For those unfamiliar with the European Institute, this public-policy organisation presents a strange mix of liberals and warmongers which includes: board member R. Michael Gadbaw, who is a director of the NED/USIP-funded Partners for Democratic Change; director emeriti, Robert B. Zoellick, who was a signatory of the January 26, 1998 “Project for the New American Century” letter sent to President Clinton; and advisory board member, Robert E. Hunter, who is also chairman of the Council for a Community of Democracies and acts as a senior international consultant to the largest arms manufacturer in the world, Lockheed Martin.

Zunes raises concerns about my suggestion that his affiliation to the ICNC serves to “insulate many of its anti-democratic funders from serious criticism”, as he is apparently “not aware of any ‘anti-democratic’ entities or individuals who fund ICNC”. I concede it would have been more accurate had I stated his affiliation to the ICNC helps insulate its two anti-democratic funders from serious criticism. Only two people, according to the ICNC’s latest IRS 990 forms – Peter Ackerman and his wife Joanne Leedom-Ackerman – fund the ICNC. In fact, the ICNC’s IRS 990 forms demonstrate that the two Ackermans funded the centre to the tune of US$1 million each in 2003, then provided the centre with $1.6 million each the following year, and, most recently, in 2005 they gave the ICNC a massive $1.8 million each.

It is fitting that I should highlight why the two Ackermans are anti-democratic: I refer to them as being anti-democratic in the sense that they aim to promote low-intensity or neo-liberal forms of democracy rather than the more participatory kind of democracy usually favoured by progressive activists. Joanne Leedom-Ackerman has served on the board of the Albert Einstein Institute, and is currently a director of the International Center for Journalists (which receives funding from the NED, the Center for International Private Enterprise, and Boeing Corporation among many others). Joanne is also a director of International Crisis Group (ICG), a NGO catering to many of the same “democracy manipulators” as those found at the NED.

Unlike the NED, the ICG is a truly multilateral “democracy” venture, as evidenced by the wide variety of governments, foundations and corporations that fund its work: two key groups that finance its activities are the USIP and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. At the ICG, Leedom-Ackerman rubs boardroom shoulders with “democratic” notables like George Soros, NED director Morton Abramowitz; former NED directors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Wesley Kanne Clark; Ayo Obe (who is the chair of the steering committee of the NED-founded World Movement for Democracy); Kenneth Adelman (who has been associated with the Project for a New American Century, and is a trustee of Freedom House); Douglas Schoen (who is the founding partner of Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates – a firm that works closely with the NED), and the former president of the Philippines, Fidel V. Ramos, (who himself was a beneficiary of a NED-hijacked revolution in the late 1980s).

Likewise, Peter Ackerman is chair of the neo-conservative Freedom House, and sits on the USIP’s US advisory council. In addition, while serving as a director of the Albert Einstein Institute, Ackerman along with Jack Duvall co-authored the widely celebrated book A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict (2000). It is particularly interesting to note that despite Ackerman and DuVall’s associations with the NED crowd, they evince a highly selective memory of their “democratic” associates when it comes to their work – only mentioning the NED and USIP in passing in their book. The authors’ apparent lack of concern for interrogating the role of the principal manipulators of many successful revolutions since the early 1980s makes more sense when it is understood that the USIP helped fund the production of the documentary version of their book: a documentary that was co-produced for PBS by York Zimmerman, Inc. and WETA of Washington (of which DuVall had previously been vice president for program resources). Not surprisingly, in recent years, York Zimmerman has been a major recipient of ICNC largesse, as in 2003 it received US$1.3 million from the ICNC, while the following year this was upped to $2.2 million.

Further, Zunes rejects my well-substantiated evidence of “links between the ICNC and US foreign policy elites”, noting such links have never involved “anything more than occasional passing conversations at receptions and luncheons with State Department”. Why ICNC staff should be dining at the State Department is none of my business, but if this really is the true extent of their ties, why did the ICNC co-sponsor a conference earlier this year with a number of groups, most notable of which were the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, and the USIP? (This International Conference on Civil Resistance and Power Politics was held at Oxford University in the UK from the 15 to 18 March 2007.)
Other than Sharp and Ackerman, notably “democratic” speakers at this ICNC-sponsored conference included Abbas Milani (who is the co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution – incidentally the project’s two other co-directors are Larry Diamond and Michael McFaul, both of whom have intimate relations with the NED), Stephen W. Bosworth (who was formerly the president of the US Japan Foundation, and has served as the US ambassador to the Republic of Korea, Tunisia, and to the Philippines), Wang Juntao (who formerly published the NED-funded magazine Beijing Spring), Timothy Garton Ash (who is a former governor of the British version of the NED, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, and is a member of an elite group of “human rights” activists that Herman refers to as The New Humanitarians), Lucy Austin Nusseibeh (who is the founder of the NED-funded group Middle East Nonviolence and Democracy, and is married to Sari Nusseibeh, an individual whom many Palestinians consider to be an Israeli collaborator), and Ghia Nodia (who serves on the steering committee of the NED-founded World Movement for Democracy).

Given Zunes failure to respond to many of the points in my previous articles, and that I addressed all of his comments in my last response, it is strange that he notes that I “failed to respond” to his “most important point” which challenged my (apparently false) contention that the ICNC’s “actual unstated objective… is to help promote revolutions in geo-strategically useful countries”. I dispute this, as the entire point of last few articles was to present substantiated evidence to support that contention. The fact that Zunes claims that I am “totally wrong” in asserting that he maintains associations with anti-democratic elites illustrates how blinkered he is to valid review. Zunes fervently believes that it is not possible for him to make such an elemental mistake as working alongside anti-democratic elites – despite actually doing so – thus, we have it on his word that any criticism is unwarranted.

Given his disinterest in acknowledging the problems of the ICNC’s “democratic” ties, it is consistent with his behaviour that Zunes, like Ackerman and Duvall, should employ a highly selective theoretical framework in his writings that only pays lip service to the work of the international “democracy promoting” community. Thus, in a book he co-edited called the Nonviolent Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective (1999), he concludes the introduction by noting that [t]he process of democratization is often coopted into programs of polyarchy (i.e., bourgeois democracy) and neo-liberalism by the United States and international financial institutions so as to prevent popular democracy from taking root (e.g., see Robinson 1996).” So, given that he refers to Robinson’s seminal book, Promoting Polyarchy, it is strange that the rest of the book does not make any reference to Robinson’s work or the ideas promoted within it.

Of course, there are clear limits to my critique of the ICNC, and I freely admit that all I have done so far is demonstrate how its work is closely associated with that of key democracy-manipulating elites. It would, of course, be very interesting to see a list of all the groups that the Albert Einstein Institute and the ICNC have worked with in the past, and I would be happy to investigate the nature of these organisations if Zunes could kindly provide me with access to some of their internal files.

However, given the scarcity of publicly available information on the ICNC’s work, I am limited to using the little information available on its IRS 990 forms, which shows, for example, that in 2005 it paid the neo-conservative Freedom House to organise a series of educational seminars. (As I mentioned in a previous article, former ICNC director of programs and research, Kim Hedge, now serves as the program coordinator for Freedom House’s civil mobilization program.)

ICNC’s IRS 990 forms also illustrate that it hosted a workshop in Dubai (on April 18, 2005) – which was conducted by the Center for Advanced Nonviolent Action and Strategies – for Iranians selected by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The ICNC’s choice of working with the latter group is particularly informative as in the 2005 Financial Year the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center received $1 million from the US Department of States Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Unsurprisingly this group is also linked to the NED via one of their directors, Roya Boroumand, who is the executive director of the NED-funded Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation which received NED grants in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006.

Given the unmitigated support Zunes provides for the ICNC, it is fitting that in his last article he should attempt to help shield the USIP from my criticisms (a group that may be considered the NED’s partner organisation). This is in spite of the fact that Zunes acknowledges that “much of USIP’s leadership comes from the US foreign policy establishment and much of its agenda reflects that”. Further, he is unable to believe that a (military/peace) organisation like the Orwellian USIP, might be, as Right Web notes, “mandated to conduct … operations traditionally conducted by intelligence agencies”. Why this should be a surprise is anyone’s guess. Right Web is referring to the type of support that the CIA used to provide to leftist groups (a topic covered in depth by Roelofs, Berman, and Saunders), that is, providing selective support to more conservative activist groups to help undermine the promotion of participatory democracy. So it is not really so surprising to observe that the USIP recently facilitated the creation of the Iraq Study Group, a group that Larry Chin (in 2006) described as “another official damage control apparatus, spearheaded by notorious Western political and corporate elites, former military-intelligence officers, and ‘experts’ from right wing and intelligence-connected Western think tanks – one of which is the US Institute for Peace itself.” Moreover, in a (very) recent article, I demonstrate the “democratic” connections of all ten members of the USIP’s Iraq Study Group.

There is no doubt that both the NED and the USIP support some progressive activists, however, arguably, the funding of such individuals and groups is an essential part of their modus operandi. In the same way, it is not surprising that in the 1960s while the Ford Foundation was supporting the more conservative elements of the US Civil Rights Movement (which played an important role in de-radicalising the movement), they were working closely with the CIA. Moreover, according to Naomi Klein’s new book The Shock Doctrine (2007), around this time the Ford Foundation was also the “leading source of funding for the dissemination of the Chicago School ideology throughout Latin America”. Thus Ford-funded institutions played a “central role in the overthrow of Chile’s democracy, and its former students… appl[ied] their US education in a context of shocking brutality. Making matters more complicated for the foundation, this was the second time in just a few years that its protégés had chosen a violent route to power, the first case being the Berkeley Mafia’s meteoric rise to power in Indonesia after Suharto’s bloody [1965-66] coup.”

Thus, in addition to helping shelter their less credible funding activities from critical enquiry, another particularly important reason why “democratic” financial contributors continue to fund progressive activists is evidently so they are up-to-date about the actions and thinking of their ideological opponents, that is, progressive groups. This reasoning explains why Zunes received a USIP grant in 1989 to study the Morocco-Western Sahara conflict. Naturally, the funding of “progressive” activities will always be, as Zunes correctly observes, “attacked by right-wing elements in Congress and elsewhere”, but then again those same elements also launch rabid attacks against members of their own party, so it is not astonishing that radical neo-conservatives have problems with the funding of peace research.

Finally, Zunes concludes by noting that he “support[s] international solidarity efforts by independent human rights and pro-democracy groups, as well as other global civil society initiatives, designed to support popular struggles for freedom and justice wherever such support is needed and requested.” In the light of this statement/offer, perhaps progressive activists in developed minority countries like Australia and the UK could begin asking Zunes and the ICNC if they could also benefit from their well-funded services. Zunes can then help – as the NED spoof group the International Endowment for Democracy puts it – to “Promot[e] democracy in the country that needs it most – the USA.” (www.iefd.org)

[For background to this debate between Michael Barker and Steven Zunes, see:
Interview with Eva Golinger: US Continues Destabilisation Push in Venezuela (GLW # 716, June 28, 2007) http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/716/37169

Jack DuVall (President, ICNC), Gollinger Interview (Letter to the Editor,
GLW # 718, July 22, 2007) http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/718/37304

Michael Barker, Promoting 'Democracy' Through Civil Disobedience (GLW # 722, August 25, 2007) http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/722/37496

Stephen Zunes, Inaccurate and Unfair Attacks on the ICNC (GLW # 723, August
31, 2007) http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/723/37520

Michael Barker, An Accurate and Fair Critique of the International Center on
Nonviolent Conflict (GLW # 725, 22 September 2007) http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/725/37638]


From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #735 12 December 2007.

Constitutional reforms in Venezuela By Embassy of Venezuela in the US

On August 15, 2007, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez
proposed a number of reforms to the 1999 Constitution.
Focusing on a small segment of the constitution’s 350
articles, the reforms aim to speed the redistribution of the
country’s resources to benefit the poor and widen the base of
direct citizen participation in the democratic process. They
are also intended to move Venezuela towards a new model of
development — known as “Socialism for the 21st Century”
— in peace and democracy. This model embraces
participatory democracy, a mixed economy, meeting the
country’s social needs and promoting a multi-polar world.

History

In 1999, the Venezuelan people overwhelmingly voted to
install a constituent assembly with the express purpose of rewriting
the country’s constitution. As part of an attempt to
break with the past and create an equitable and fully
representative democratic system, citizens, community
groups and civic associations actively provided input
regarding necessary changes. Of the 624 proposals the
Venezuelan people submitted, over 50 percent were
eventually included as part of the new constitution’s 350
articles.

The resulting 1999 Constitution expanded the rights of all
Venezuelans, formally recognised the rights and privileges of
historically marginalized groups, reorganised government
institutions and powers, and highlighted the government’s
responsibility in working towards participatory democracy
and social justice. In a national referendum, 71 percent of the
Venezuelan people voted to adopt the new constitution.
Copies of the 1999 Constitution are widely available in
Venezuela, and even more widely read. According to one
journalist’s account, “You can buy a plastic-bound copy of
the Venezuelan Constitution for 60 cents, a leather-clad copy
for $3, a coffee-table edition for $5. Not that you really need
a copy of your own, since someone standing near you on the
subway in Caracas will have one in his pocket. Or you can
always listen to one of the ongoing debates at a downtown
park. ‘Look at this article,’ someone will shout, and a half
The Activist Volume 17, Number 13, November 2007 45
dozen people will flip through the constitution’s 35,000
words and 350 articles to find the pertinent passage. ‘Yes,’
someone else will cry out. ‘But this one here is more to the
point.’”

Democratic process

According to Article 342 of the constitution, the National
Assembly, the president or 15 percent of registered voters —
roughly 2.5 million voters — can propose reforms to the
constitution. The proposals must be debated by the National
Assembly in three rounds — the first round began on August
21 — and voted upon with a two-thirds majority, after which
they will be put before the Venezuelan people in a national
referendum.

On October 25, the National Assembly completed the
third round of debates on the proposed reforms. On top of the
three rounds of debates, members of the National Assembly
had also traveled throughout Venezuela to discuss the
proposed reforms with community groups, civic
organisations, opposition activists and regular citizens. From
August 16 to October 7, some 9,020 public events — over
192 a day for 47 days — were held throughout the country to
provide information and take citizen input on the
constitutional reforms. Similarly, a special hotline established
by the National Assembly took over 80,000 phone calls —
over 1,700 a day for 47 days — in which Venezuelan citizens
were able to offer critiques of the proposed reforms or offer
reforms of their own. Additionally, the National Assembly
distributed 10 million copies of the proposed reforms to
interested citizens. Due to those combined efforts, 77.8
percent of the Venezuelan people reported having read and
being informed about the reforms.

Based on the national process of consultations with the
Venezuelan people, 25 additional reforms were proposed and
11 smaller changes were made, for a total of 69 proposed
reforms. The proposed changes will be sent to the National
Electoral Council on November 2, and a national referendum
will be scheduled for early December 2007 that will allow
the Venezuelan people to either approve or reject the
reforms.

Reform of Presidential term limits

Article 230 of the 1999 Constitution establishes that the
presidential term limit will be of six years and that any
president can be re-elected once. Under the proposed reform,
the presidential term would be extended to seven years and
any sitting president would be allowed to seek another
consecutive term.

The purpose of the reform is to allow the wishes and
preferences of the voters to be fully respected when it comes
to electing a president. As President Dwight Eisenhower
noted in 1956 in reference to debate over presidential term
limits in the U.S., “The United States ought to be able to
choose for its President anybody it wants, regardless of the
number of terms he has served.” More recently, in 2005 Rep.
Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. James Sensennbrenner (RWisc.)
introduced legislation to do away with presidential
term limits. In reference to the legislation, H.J. Res. 24,
Hoyer, who now serves as the Majority Leader in the U.S.
House of Representatives, stated, “I feel there are good
public policy reasons for a repeal of [term limits]…Under the
Constitution as altered by the 22nd Amendment, this must be
President George W. Bush’s last term even if the American
people should want him to continue in office. This is an
undemocratic result.”

While this reform has been criticized as being
undemocratic, it is important to note that various mechanisms
will remain in place to ensure that the country’s president is
legitimately elected and held to account by the Venezuelan
people. The president will still face re-election, and the recall
referendum — an innovative democratic tool that allows
voters to cut short an elected officials’ term — will remain in
the constitution. It’s worth noting that the recall referendum
was successfully activated by members of the opposition in
August 2004, when 60 percent of the Venezuelan people
voted to allow President Chávez to finish his first full term in
office.

Economic reforms

During the last three years Venezuela has seen consistent
and record economic growth and diversification. More
importantly, new forms of economic activity, business and
entrepreneurship have been facilitated, allowing more
Venezuelans productive opportunities. A number of proposed
reforms to articles 112, 113, and 115 of the constitution
would expand upon these initiatives and formalize an
economic model centered on social welfare and a diverse
range of enterprises.

Article 112 currently guarantees the freedom of all
Venezuelans to engage in economic activity, while
mandating that the government promote private enterprises
that “create and guarantee the just distribution of wealth” and
direct economic activity towards the integral development of
the country. The proposed reform would mandate that the
government work to secure an economic system that is
“diversified and independent” and founded on the “human
values of cooperation and the preponderance of the general
interest.” The reform would expand the scope of economic
activity to not only include private enterprise, but also
socially oriented, cooperative and community-based models
of activity.

Article 113 currently states that economic monopolies will
not be permitted. The proposed reform would formally
prohibit economic monopolies and other actions to
concentrate economic power or resources. Moreover, the
reform would mandate that the government protect socially
oriented, cooperative and community-based models of
economic activity — the number of cooperatives has
increased from 800 to over 180,000 in recent years — and
would formalize the government’s ability to exploit the
country’s natural resources for the general good. Private
enterprises would still be allowed to exploit natural
resources, though in conjunction with government
enterprises.

Article 115 currently articulates the right to private
property, while stating that any property may be taken by the
government if just cause — the public good — is given and
adequate compensation granted. The proposed reform would
leave the right to and protection of private property
unchanged while adding a number of new classifications of
property. According to the reform, property not held in
private hands can be classified as follows:
Public: Fully owned and managed by the government.
Social: Owned by the Venezuelan people and either
managed by the government or by communities or other
institutions.

Collective: Owned and managed by groups of individuals
for their particular uses.

Mixed: A combination of ownership and management.
It is important to stress that private property will remain
and will enjoy the same protections it enjoys in other
countries. As detailed by the constitution and similar to the
U.S. and Western Europe, private property would only be
taken by the government only if the public good requires it
and if full compensation is offered. As an example, past
processes of land reform have shifted over 8.8 million acres
of unused lands to poor families, but in the case of private
lands, only with due compensation. Similarly, when the
government announced its intention to nationalize the electric
and telecommunications sectors, they paid the market value
of the two industries.

Reform of the Central Bank of Venezuela

Key to long-term growth and stability in Venezuela are
the policies of the Central Bank of Venezuela, an institution
charged with setting monetary policy and interest rates.
Central Bank policies over the last decades, though, have
limited economic growth and social development, a trend a
proposed reform seeks to correct.

Article 318 details the responsibilities, rights and structure
of the Central Bank of Venezuela. The proposed reform
would mandate that the Central Bank and the executive,
through the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Planning
and Development, more closely coordinate efforts to
implement policies that promote economic growth and
development. The reform would also limit the bank’s
autonomy while putting the country’s reserves under the
control of both the Central Bank and the executive branch for
the purpose of promoting “productive investments,
development and infrastructure, financing of social programs
and integral, endogenous and humanistic development.” This
reform will be an extension of a reform first made in 2005
that successfully allowed excess reserves — initially some $6
billion — to be directed to social programs and infrastructure
through the Fund for National Development (FONDEN in
Spanish).

While Central Banks have traditionally been insulated
from the governments they serve, this reform is vital to
Venezuela’s continued economic growth and development.
As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has argued, the many
tradeoffs involved in crafting monetary policy and promoting
economic growth in developing countries “cannot be
relegated to technocrats, particularly when those technocrats
place the interests of one segment of society above others.”
Historically, the central banks of the region have maintained
high interest rates and adopted policies that overvalued the
currency, thus limiting borrowing and investing (and, as a
consequence, economic growth) and making imports
artificially cheap and exports too expensive on world
markets. The reform intends to allow better coordination
between the executive and the Central Bank so as to
guarantee policies that secure sustained economic growth,
job creation and social development while maintaining
sustainable levels of inflation.

Political-territorial reforms

Like every other country in the world, Venezuela’s
political and territorial boundaries are divided into a number
of categories — nation, state, municipalities and a federal
district. A number of proposed reforms would expand and
clarify these political-territorial boundaries. These reforms
would further decentralize political power, thus allowing
communities the ability and resources to participate in
democratic processes and employ national resources to
identify and resolve local problems. They would also ensure
that areas that have remained underdeveloped due to location
and lack of infrastructure are better incorporated into national
and regional development schemes.

Article 16 currently defines the country’s politicalterritorial
boundaries, including states, municipalities, a
federal district, federal territories and federal dependencies.
Under the proposed reform, these boundaries would remain
in place and be fully respected, but would also be
complemented by the addition of maritime regions, insular
districts and cities. Within the latter, smaller units named
“communes” would be granted formal recognition, thus
allowing more active participation in municipal affairs by
individuals and community organisations. The reform would
also allow certain areas — those suffering from a lack of
development and poor infrastructure — to be designated
federal provinces, federal cities or functional districts in
which the government would be allowed to more easily direct
necessary resources for development.

Article 184 currently encourages the implementation of a
law to direct municipalities to provide resources and services
to those community and neighborhood organisations that
request them. The proposed reform mandates that a national
law be debated and passed articulating this transfer of
resources and services, which include housing, sport, culture,
environment, political participation, social economy and
endogenous development, job creation and other resources
and services currently handled by municipal bodies. The
national law would also create a fund to provide resources to
projects identified by communal councils.

Military reforms

Three reforms of articles related to the armed forces are
aimed at further securing Venezuela’s territorial integrity,
bringing all branches under a unified command structure and
better allowing the fight against drug trafficking and other
illegal activities.

The proposed reform of Article 11 would include mention
of Venezuela’s maritime possessions (some 270,000 square
miles) in the definition of its sovereign territory, while
allowing the executive to declare “Special Military Regions”
for the purposes of national defense or strategic activity
(fighting drug trafficking and international crime) and better
protection of border and/or remote areas. The proposed
reform of Article 329 would list the branches of the
Venezuelan armed services as the Army, the Navy, the Air
Force, the Territorial Guard and the Popular Militia (formerly
the National Reserves). While the National Reserves used to
be governed by a national law regulating the armed forces,
the new Popular Militia will be governed by the constitution
and under the same command as the other branches of the
armed forces. Finally, the armed forces would be renamed
the Bolivarian Armed Forces in reference of Simon Bolivar,
Venezuela’s independence hero.

Limitations on rights during emergencies
During the second round of debates, the National
Assembly proposed a reform to article 337 of the constitution
that would call for the suspension of certain political liberties
during what is known as a “state of exception,” or national
emergency. Articles 240 and 241 of the 1961 Constitution
similarly included limitations on civil and political rights
during times of national emergency.

While this reform has been criticized, it is fully consistent
with similar powers granted to democratic governments
around the world. Since the time of the French revolution,
governments have recognised that during moments of
massive disasters or extreme and imminent threats to the
standing and security of the nation additional and temporary
powers could be claimed by the executive to restore order.
Currently a number of Western democracies have laws
outlining the imposition of a state of exception or a state of
emergency, including Australia, Canada, France, Ireland,
Spain and the United Kingdom. In the United States, the
1976 National Emergencies Act allows the president to
invoke a state of emergency and limit certain rights —
including the right of habeas corpus — for up to two years.
There were 32 declared national emergencies between 1976
and 2001.

Moreover, international law recognises the right of
governments to limit certain rights in extreme circumstances.
Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which Venezuela ratified on August 10, 1978, notes,
“In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the
nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the
States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures
derogating from their obligations under the present
Covenant.”

While the reform of Article 337 calls for the limitation of
certain rights during a national emergency, a number of
rights would remain, including the right to life and personal
integrity, the right to a defense, the right to a fair trial, and
the right not to be tortured, disappeared or held
incommunicado. This ensures that Venezuela remains
consistent — or in some cases even exceeds -- with its
international obligations.

Other reforms

When Venezuela’s Constituent Assembly re-wrote the
constitution in 1999, a large proportion of the articles focused
on granting new rights or expanding their application to
groups that had been historically marginalized. All told, 111
of the constitution’s 350 articles deal with political,
economic, social and cultural rights. Many of the proposed
reforms seek to deepen the protection and promotion of
certain rights and liberties:
The proposed reform of Article 21 would add sexual
orientation and health to the categories under which
discrimination is prohibited.
The proposed reform of Article 64 would lower the voting
age to 16, following the lead of Austria, Nicaragua and
Brazil.

The proposed reform of Article 82 would codify the right
to adequate housing for all Venezuelans and prohibit the state
from taking any home as part of a judicial sanction.
The proposed reform of Article 87 would call for the
creation of a social security fund for those Venezuelans that
are self-employed or in the informal sector.
The proposed reform of Article 90 would decrease the
workweek from 44 hours to 36 hours.
The proposed reform of Article 98 would protect the
creation and communication of cultural goods.
The proposed reform of Article 100 would formally
recognise and protect Afro-Venezuelan heritage and culture.
The proposed reform of Article 103 would articulate the
right to education for all Venezuelans, and mandate that all
public education through university be free of charge.
The proposed reform of Article 158 would mandate that
the government take all steps to ensure the active
participation of the citizenry in the country’s democratic
system.

The proposed reform of Article 272 would establish that
the Venezuelan penitentiary system direct its efforts towards
the full rehabilitation of prisoners and respect their human
rights during incarceration.

Conclusion

Just as the 1999 Constitution was written with massive
and widespread participation and input from the Venezuelan
people, the proposed reforms have been widely discussed and
debated. Additionally, in early December, the Venezuelan
people will have the opportunity to vote the reforms up or
down in a national referendum. These reforms will better
allow Venezuela to create a political, economic and social
system that is equitable, peaceful and democratic. _

UN Spurns Cuba Embargo for 17th Year by Haider Rizvi

UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations General Assembly Tuesday snubbed the United States for its hostility towards Cuba, amid fresh calls for an end to the 45-year economic and financial embargo imposed on the socialist island.

On Tuesday, as many as 184 countries voted in favor of a General Assembly resolution demanding the U.S. lift 45-year-old restrictions on international trade with Cuba.
The vote broke last year’s record, when 183 countries endorsed the resolution against the U.S. embargo. The 192-member General Assembly has adopted 16 similar resolutions since 1992.
Like last year, in addition to the United States itself, the negative votes were cast by just three countries: Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. The only abstention was the small island nation of Micronesia.

Before and after the vote, speaker after speaker deplored the U.S. policy and said the sanctions against Cuba violate international law and the U.N. Charter.

The U.N. support for Cuba comes just a week after the U.S. President George W. Bush described Cuba as a “tropical gulag” and signaled his administration’s readiness to take more hostile measures to force an economic and political change on the island’s people.
In a major policy speech last Wednesday, Bush assured his support for those in and outside Cuba seeking to replace Cuba’s socialist democracy with a pro-U.S. economic and political system.

“Now is the time to support the democratic movements growing on the island,” Bush said, calling for the world “to put aside its differences and prepare for Cubans’ transition to a future of freedom and progress and promise.”

“The dissidents of today will be the nation’s leaders tomorrow,” Bush added in his speech, with family members of Cuban dissidents seated behind him on stage. “When freedom finally comes, they will surely remember who stood with them.”

For their part, Cuban leaders said Bush was trying to harass Cuba and threatening its entity as an independent and free nation.

“Mr. Bush: Your genocidal blockade, your support of terrorism, your murderous Cuban Adjustment Act, your wet-foot/dry-foot policy, your protection of the worst terrorists in this hemisphere, your unjust punishment of the Five Cuban Heroes who denounced the dangers for citizens of the United States and other countries to be killed in mid-flight, all these must cease,” wrote the Cuban leader Fidel Castro in a brief response on Oct. 21.

“Sovereignty is not negotiable,” he said. “The shameful tortures being carried out in the occupied territory of Guantánamo must also cease. We have never been intimidated by your threats to launch pre-emptive and surprise attacks against sixty or more dark corners of the world. Do not attack other countries; do not threaten humanity with a nuclear war.”
On Tuesday, speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, the largest political bloc of developing nations, Pakistani deputy ambassador Farukh Amil described the U.S. sanctions against Cuba as “a means of political and economic coercion”.

“The continued imposition of an economic, commercial, and financial embargo against Cuba violates the principles of the sovereign equality of states and of non-intervention in each other’s domestic affairs, international human rights law and the U.N. Charter,” he told delegates.
Explaining why the European Union (EU) voted in favor of the resolution, Portuguese diplomat Jorge de Lemos Godinho said the U.S. measures against Cuba were “not acceptable.” In Godinho’s view, although the embargo against Cuba is a bilateral issue, the U.S. has extended it to other territories.

The embargo provisions contained in the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act and the 1996 Helms-Burton Act put limits on EU countries’ trade relations with Cuba.

“The EU cannot accept unilateral measures imposed by the U.S.,” Godhino said, adding that in 1996, the EU Council of Ministers adopted a Regulation and Joint Action to protect the interests of natural and legal residents of the EU against the extraterritorial effects of the Helm-Burton Act.

The EU representative recalled that in 1998 at a summit, the U.S. had agreed to grant waivers to certain sections of the Helms-Burton Act. “The EU continues to urge the U.S. to implement its side of that understanding,” he said.

Among many others, diplomats from China and Russia, South Africa, Mexico, India and Mexico also made strong statements in support of the Cuban demand for the lifting of U.S. embargo.
Meanwhile, Ronald Godard, the U.S. State Department’s senior adviser for Latin American affairs, argued that, “The embargo was caused by Cuba in its denial of freedoms to its people” and that the “purpose of the embargo is to end the grip of the Cuban government on the Cuban people.”

Claiming that the U.S. is one of Cuba’s largest trading partners, accounting for more than 2 billion dollars in medical and agricultural commerce, he said the U.S. is also “the largest provider of humanitarian aid to the Cuban people.”

“Rather than voting for the resolution against the United States,” Godard added in a short statement, “the member states should oppose the Cuban government’s embargo on freedom, which is the real cause of the embargo.”

The Cuban government says the commercial and financial blockade imposed by the U.S. since 1962 has caused losses of over 89 billion dollars, which, at the current dollar value, account for no less than 222 billion dollars.

“Anyone can understand that the blockade is the main obstacle of the well-being of the Cuban people,” Cuban minister of foreign affairs Felipe Perez Roque told delegates. “It has constituted a systematic, blatant and massive violation of rights.”

“President Bush has urged Congress to maintain the embargo,” he said. “Indeed seven in 10 Cubans have lived their lives only knowing aggression against their country. The U.S. has ignored with arrogance and political blindness the 15 resolutions calling for the lifting of the blockade.”

Published on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 by Inter Press Service

Bush's Cuba Detour By TARIQ ALI

Bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, obsessed with Iran's rise as a regional power (a direct result of the wars in the aforementioned countries) the State Department has woken up to the fact that South America is in turmoil. Their last major intervention in the region was a crude attempt to topple the democratically elected government in Venezuela. This was in 2002, a year before the adventure in Iraq. Since then a wave of Bolivarian unity has swept the continent, successful in Bolivia and Ecuador, creating ripples in Peru and Paraguay and, above all, breaking the long isolation of Cuba. It is this that is causing the panic in Miami.

This tiny island that has defied imperial intervention, bullying and blockade for almost half-a-century remains an imperial obsession. Washington has been waiting for Fidel to die so that they could try and bribe senior military and police officials (and no doubt some well-chosen party apparatchiks) to defect. Bush's speech of 24 October is a sign of panic. They were so convinced that mega-bucks would do the trick that they had not done too much in recent years.
But yesterday we are told, without any sense of irony, that Raul Castro is unacceptable because he is Fidel's brother. This is not the transition that Washington had in mind. It's a bit rich coming from W, given his own family connections, not to mention the fact that if Mrs Clinton is nominated and wins, two families will have been in power for over two decades. And dynastic politics is now so deep-grained in official culture that it is being happily mimicked in tiny circles (the editorial chair of the neo-con mag Commentary has been smoothly handed over from father to son Podhoretz).

What has worried the Bush brothers and their clientele in Florida is the fact that Raul Castro has inaugurated a debate on the island encouraging an open debate on its future. This is not popular with apparatchiks, but is undoubtedly having an impact.

State censorship is not only deeply unpopular but has crippled creative thought on the island. The new opening has brought all the old contradictions to the fore. Cuban film-makers are publicly challenging the bureaucrats. Pavel Giroud, a well-known director explains how the censorship works:

"Censorship works here just like it does everywhere, except that because it's Cuba, it's closely scrutinized. It isn't a national monopoly. Every television network and publication in the world has its guidelines for broadcasting or editing, and whatever does not fit the requirements gets left out. HBO in the States refused to broadcast Oliver Stone's documentary about Fidel Castro, because it didn't take the focus that the network wanted. So they insisted on another interview with Fidel. In other words, what Stone wanted to say about his interviewee didn't matter -- what mattered was what the network wanted to show.

Personally, I prefer that a work of mine not be broadcast, rather than be told to change my shots or remove footage. Nor am I interested in hearing their explanations. The mere fact of being silenced is so serious that the reason why pales in comparison, because it will never be a good enough reason for the person who is silenced ... Banality and lack of creativity are favored everywhere. Turn on any music video channel in the world, and you'll see that for every artistically worthwhile video, you have to put up with several others. the same buttocks writhing around the machista reggaeton star, the same seductive gestures by the "in" singers, the same slow-moving shots of love scenes at sunset, the same sheen on the biceps, the same sensual moves, the same phony little smiles. I think we in Cuba are definitely not the principal producers of these.

"The same happens in politics -- there is opportunism on both sides, by the makers and by the broadcasters. The broadcasters know that a video full of praise for the system won't make any trouble for them, and the creators know perfectly well that they will get on television much faster if they write a song, produce a video or film, or paint a picture in praise of a political figure"

That the Cuban system needs to be reformed is widely accepted in the country. I have been told often that the decision 'forced on us by the embargo' to follow the old Soviet model was 'not beneficial.' The choice now is Washington or Caracas. And while a tiny layer of the Cuban elite will be tempted by the dollars, most Cubans would prefer a different model. They will not wish to see an end to their health and education systems, but they do want more economic and political diversity, even though the model of the Big Neighbour under whose shadow they live does not exactly offer that choice.

from CounterPunch

Tariq Ali's new book, Pirates of the Caribbean: Axis of Hope, is published by Verso. He can be reached at: tariq.ali3@btinternet.com

Australia Venezuela Solidarity Network Statement on RCTV license non-renewal

Dear members and friends, You will no doubt be seeing news headlines "Venezuelan troops take TV equipment" and worse, circulating the world today, many referring to "international criticism of (Chavez') decision not to renew RCTV's license and to replace Venezuela's most-watched channel with a state-backed network that will promote the values of his (sic) self-styled socialist revolution." It is important that you are clear that the 'international criticism' referred to is confined to prominently identified right wing identities and their media outlets, and their allies in the US Bush administration. This is a highly politicized campaign utilizing the international mass media. Opposition leaders openly state their aim in protesting the closure of RCTV is to return Venezuela to the old "4th Republic" days and rid themselves of Chavez. Any strategy based on "removing Chavez' is doomed to fail. Over the past nine years Venezuela has undergone a mass, popular, peaceful and democratic revolution. Chavez represents the hopes and aspirations of millions of Venezuelan's. Those millions of Venezuelan's have been demanding for many years that the media be democratised as well. For Venezuelan's today the media does not just represent the opposition – it is the opposition. Venezuela's community and alternative media is flourishing – has expanded enormously and is as an essential part of people's power. Ironically it was the direct actions of the media in 2002 in working to implement the briefly lived coup and politically identifying themselves – not as 'independent' reporters but as creating the very biased discourses – which has led to the Venezuelan people being so conscious about the role of the mass media. They have led to their own demise. And let's be clear. There is no forced, troop seizure of the RCTV in the way it is being presented. Notice was given months ago and court actions and appeals were lodged, followed through and have been lost by RCTV. What is happening today is happening as a result of a process of accountability. The Chanel 2 public broadcast license was up for renewal. The government has considered that the best option for the Venezuelan public – the public interest that government is elected to represent – will be best served by allowing access to that broadcasting frequency to the many many public, community and alternative programs already being produced and transmitted on community frequencies. This followed wide consultations as is the hallmark of the current Venezuelan government. It is a tribute to the Bolivarian revolution that the new TVes will not be producing new material themselves – but will be transmitting the wealth of material that people are already producing and that has a more limited audience currently. Viva the Bolivarian Revolution and the cultural developments that it brings! AVSN congratulates the Bolivarian government and people's organizations for this exciting step forward and for following legal and democratic processes to do so. When AVSN began to compose this note about the closure of RCTV and the transmission of the new Public broadcaster VTes, it was to be simply a congratulatory note - many compañeros have worked very hard to ensure a peaceful transition to the new public and socially responsible state owned TV station. And while in many ways it still is a great congratulations that we send to the Bolivarian Revolution and those millions of Venezuelan's who firmly reject the media monopoly which continues to destabilise and agitate for the pro-capitalist and imperialist systems they are a part of it is also a message of solidarity and condemnation of violence. AVSN notes the violent and aggressive reaction of the business managers of RCTV and their associates within Venezuela and in the USA, in calling for violent actions to overthrow the government in the supposed aim of "restoring democracy". We particularly deplore the use of armed violence by the RCTV protest organizers who on Sunday 27 May opened fire and shot 11 members of the Venezuelan security forces outside the RCTV – Tves building, and we applaud the restraint shown by the Venezuelan security forces in not responding with further violence and in continuing to negotiate and defuse the confrontations. As the vast majority of Venezuelan's tell you, they are very proud of their peaceful, democratic revolution. Incidents of violence are abhorred. Violence is understood by Bolivarians as a tactic of the opposition, the old fourth republic and their allies in imperialist and war mongering circles. Violence is a clear violation of the revolutionary conscienceness and it is used exclusively by the opposition : they are familiar with and comfortable with violence as they have used violence and repression for decades to control the population. Posada Carilles and other notable torturers and murders acted within the old state structures to carry out their crimes against the left and the general population. However on the eve of the license for transmission to expire - at about 7pm Caracas time on Sunday 27th May, the opposition protest began to OPEN FIRE on the metropolitian police and national guard who were providing security for their RCTV protest. An outrageous action from the RCTV which shows their true colors – this is how they chose to operate in an open and free democracy. Under people's power being constructed in Venezuela, people are not just 'allowed' to organise a (peaceful, mass) protest, they are positively encouraged to express themselves and have a voice and a public presence. As such millions of Venezuelans, who are the Bolivarian Revolution in action, have demanded that the licence not be renewed to RCTV, this has been public knowledge for some time - It is the clear will of the majority of Venezuelan's that the public licence and broadcast rights go to a socially responsible and democratic station. There is consistency of policy and the wishes of the vast majority of Venezuelan's in NOT renewing the license to this company : due to the long list of violations of broadcasting code : including several legal actions by governments prio to Chavez : as documented on the attached fact sheet – and due to the ongoing lies and misinformation transmitted by the broadcaster. They are free to continue to produce their materials and to sell them commercially and to broadcast via satellite. However they are no longer holders of the public broadcast license. Please don't hesitate to contact any one of us if you would like further information SOME FURTHER RESOURCES: 1. VIO Fact Sheet re RCTV closure 2. Venezuela Analysis article 3. GreenLeft Weekly Article An visual presentation explaining the situation can be found in the video "Tell the truth" posted to: http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/ Video:This is the documentary "Tell the truth", explaining what is happening with the Venezuelan TV channel "RCTV". Their concession for open broadcasting will expire on May 27th, 2007, and the Venezuelan government announced that their concession will be not renew. This video explains why. Also Links to further web debates on the issue. Links to direct video footage and reports of the violence of the RCTV protests against the Bolivarians can be found at www.aporrea.org and review the www.venezuelasolidarity.org site regularly also for news in English. http://www.aporrea.org/medios/n95624.html An earlier link to the RCTV Supporters Rally : they claim the "most Venezuelan's " support them, yet with complete freedom to mobilize, and lots of money at their disposal as well as all the media they could desire !! this is their best result: Note VIDEO taken BEFORE the RCTV opened fire on the metropolitan police and national guard. http://www.aporrea.org/venezuelaexterior/n95562.html

Venezuela’s Revolution Accelerates by Federico Fuentes

Caracas19 April 2007Returning once again to Venezuela — having last spent four months here in 2005 — I recalled a refrain that had been constantly repeated by Venezuelans: “After we re-elect Chavez in 2006, the real revolution will begin.” It took very little time for me to realise exactly what they meant.

I arrived on the eve of the fifth anniversary of those historic events that shook Venezuela from April 11-13 in 2002 — a US-backed coup that was overturned by a subsequent mass uprising of the poor in alliance with the majority of the armed forces.

Across all of Caracas, banners and billboards carried the slogan that summarised what had occurred on those fateful days: “Every 11 has its 13 — From oligarchic counter-revolution to civic-military revolution”. Throughout the city, numerous screens had been set up to play video footage of the massive rebellion that reversed the coup — which was aimed at putting an end to the Bolivarian process and protecting the interests of the wealthy elite — and reinstated President Hugo Chavez. State television played documentaries through the three days, detailing the events surrounding the coup and subsequent uprising.

On the streets, everyone was remembering what it was that they did during those days. It was impossible to miss the upbeat feeling among the people on April 13, as hundreds, and then thousands, began to congregate outside the presidential palace, just as they had five years ago, to await their president. Speaking in front an estimated million-strong demonstration, Chavez recalled the events that led up to the coup attempt, pointing out that it had acted as a “trigger”, pushing the process towards “an anti-imperialist revolution, because we know from where [these events] were led and planned from, the US”. Now five years on, Chavez called on the Venezuelan people to “radicalise” the revolution towards the “new socialism of the 21st century”, to thunderous applause and chants of approval.

Throughout most of 2005 and 2006, the Venezuelan government focused its attention on consolidating its support internally and internationally. On the domestic front the government paid particular attention to strengthening the social missions, in order to attack poverty and organise the population. In the international arena, Chavez travelled the world, seeking support for his government in the face of continued US hostility and Washington’s attempts to isolate Venezuela diplomatically.

Throughout the Third World, the Venezuelan government signed trade agreements, deepening both economic and social ties as part of a campaign to create an international anti-imperialist alliance. By trading not just in dollars and petroleum, but in human capital, providing — jointly with revolutionary Cuba in many cases — education and health programs, and though Chavez’s defiant and outspoken stance, such his denouncement of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, the Bolivarian revolution has captured the hearts and minds of millions across the world. This has helped provide the space for a rapid accelerating of the Bolivarian revolution, and with it an opening up of a period of definition of the process’s goals and line of march.

In the economic sphere, Chavez told the April 12 rally, the government has “no plan to eradicate private property in Venezuela, as long as it subordinates itself to the national interest and the socialist project”. If it didn’t, then it was “condemned to progressively disappear”. He added, however, that the government’s emphasis would be in working with “new forms of property, social property … collective property … co-management, self-management”. It would encourage “direct or indirect social property via the companies of social property, of social production, and many other mechanisms that we are designing”.

The first morning here I attended a meeting called by one of the currents in the National Union of Workers (UNT) to discuss the formation of Bolivarian Councils of Workers, more commonly dubbed workers’ councils. Describing the nature of the discussion over these councils, Marcela Maspero, a national coordinator of the UNT, said that the councils had to be “political organisations of the working class, based on direct democracy and control over production”. They had to play the role of “eradicating capitalist exploitation, and transforming relations of production in order to create socialised ownership over the means of production”.

Although these councils have only just begun to appear in a handful of companies, an intense debate at both the governmental and grassroots levels is unfolding over their nature and role. In the social sphere, Chavez has called for “an explosion in communal power”, urging the rapid construction of Communal Councils. These councils are based on the coming together of 200-400 families in urban areas, even less in rural areas, in order to plan and execute projects for the benefit of the community. In some areas, this has already progressed to the point where discussions have begun on the need to establish federations of Communal Councils, in order to tackle larger projects. There are now more than 19,000 Coimmunal Councils.

In essence, the aim of the Communal Councils is for power to reside in the communities. This has led to some cases where these councils have come into conflict with the existing state structures, where those who currently hold power fear losing it — a constant battle the revolution encounters as it comes up against the structures of the old state bureaucracy. Perhaps most importantly, Chavez stated in his speech on April 13 that the revolution once again called on the Venezuelan people to participate in the formation of the new united socialist party. Stating that to date the revolution “hasn’t had real parties”, he referred to the construction of the new party as “the greatest necessity of this revolution”.

On April 19, 16,000 promoters of the new party were initiated. Their task is to agitate for, and involve the communities in, the construction of the party, which organisers estimate will bring together 4-5 million people. Chavez’s call has opened up a big debate on what the nature and program of such a party should be.

For now, apart from Chavez’s party, the Movement for a Fifth Republic (MVR), the main Chavista parties have decided not to dissolve into the new party. However, large fractures have begun to occur as both leaders and rank-and-file members of these parties — Homeland For All (PPT), Podemos and the Venezuelan Communist Party — are leaving en masse. Most of the parties outside of the official Chavista electoral alliance but committed to the revolution have decided to integrate themselves into the new party, with a few waiting on the sidelines to see how things unfold first.

The party will be established along democratic lines, from the bottom up. For several weeks from April 29, 6000 booths will be set up all over the country for people to sign up to the new party. Next, the new joiners will be divided up into basic cells of 200 people based on territorial divisions, universities and factories. Out of each, a spokesperson will be elected to participate in the founding congress. No quotas have been set aside for party officials, nor will anyone automatically secure a place in the congress.

Even Chavez will have to be elected by his local cell if he is to participate in the conference. The founding conference will run for approximately three months. As the congress deliberates, spokespeople will return to their local cell, back to the congress, then back to the community and so on. On December 2, a referendum of all members will decide whether or not to approve the founding program of the new party. To ensure transparency and democracy, the national electoral commission will run the whole process. It will be a truly democratic and participatory process, never seen before on this scale, with the aim of drawing together the real leaders from the communities into a process of discussion and debate aimed at driving the process forward. Without doubt, the more this revolution deepens the more desperate the opposition will become.

At the same time as Chavez was giving his speech, a small explosive was detonated in the building that houses the legislative council of the state of Miranda. This followed two other explosions in shopping centres earlier that week. Although no-one was killed, the intent was clear. May 28 is the expiration day of RCTV’s license, a television station that openly participated in the 2002 coup plot. While the government never shut it down, it has decided to hand RCTV’s license over to community media as part of a program of expanding access to media.

Chavez warned that the government had reliable information that the opposition had begun a destabilisation plan aimed to culminate on the day of the expiry of the license, of which the bombs and the attempts by big capital to create food shortages are only the first steps. But the Venezuelan people, side by side with the military, have etched in their memories the events of April 13, 2002, because as they say in Venezuela, “every 11 has its 13”.
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #707 25 April 2007.

Current paper editionSubscribe Today

U.S. Frees International Terrorist by Amy Goodman

A terrorist lives in Miami. He is not in hiding, or part of some sleeper cell. He’s an escaped convict, wanted internationally for blowing up a jetliner. His name is Luis Posada Carriles. As the nation was focused on the Virginia Tech shooting, the Bush administration quietly allowed Posada’s release from a federal immigration detention center.

Cuban poster about Luis Posada Carriles

It was Oct. 6, 1976, a clear day in the Caribbean. Cubana Airlines Flight 455 departed from Barbados, bound for Cuba, with a stop in Trinidad. Posada then ran a private investigative firm in Venezuela. Two of his employees were on the flight, deplaned in Trinidad and left C-4 plastic explosive on board, disguised as a tube of toothpaste. Shortly after takeoff, the bomb exploded and the plane went down. All 73 people on board were killed.

Among them were six young Guyanese students on their way to Cuba to study medicine. Now an American citizen, Roseanne Nenninger, sister of Raymond Persaud, one of those students, was 11 years old when her brother was killed: “We had a huge farewell party for our brother and everyone came, the family members, everyone from the local community, all his friends, school friends, so it was a great day for all of us. And the next day, we all went to the airport. He was dressed in his brown suit that was made by a tailor especially for him getting on a plane. It was his first time on an airplane. We watched him walk on the tarmac and head onto the airplane. And it was a great moment for all of us.”

Within hours, he was dead. He was just one of the victims, one of 73. There was also the entire Cuban Olympic fencing team, young athletes. Each with a name, each with a story. The Cubana Airlines bombing remains to this day the only midair bombing of a civilian airliner in the Western Hemisphere. Posada was tried and convicted in Venezuela of organizing the bombing. He was imprisoned, then escaped in 1985.

Posada, who will be 80 next year, is a Cuban-born Venezuelan national. He has been a violent opponent of Fidel Castro since the early 1960s. Declassified CIA and FBI documents reveal the extent of Posada’s violent career. Through the decades he hopscotched around Latin America, smuggling arms, running drugs, plotting coups, working with Augusto Pinochet’s dreaded secret police, assisting with Oliver North’s illegal Contra war against Nicaragua—the list goes on. He was a paid CIA “asset,” and also served in the U.S. Army, rising to the rank of second lieutenant, at Fort Benning, Ga. He has been implicated in the bombing of hotels in Havana. He was caught and convicted of attempting to assassinate Castro in Panama.

Thanks to the Federation of American Scientists’ Government Secrecy Project and the private, nonprofit National Security Archive at George Washington University, the public can read for itself the declassified documents. These documents show what it means for U.S. intelligence agencies to work with “unsavory” characters. Endeavors like the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba of 1961 and the failed Iran-Contra program need operatives, and so the U.S. government hires violent criminals and overlooks their conduct, as long as the policy objectives are being pursued.

And so it is ironic that on the anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, following the mass slaughter on the Virginia Tech campus, the U.S. government quietly released this convicted terrorist and mass murderer.

We learn the names of the Virginia Tech victims, their accomplishments and their aspirations. Naming the victims, hearing their stories, dignifies their lives, helps us comprehend the magnitude of the loss. So too should we learn about the 73 innocent civilians killed on Cubana Airlines Flight 455.

Venezuela wants Posada extradited. The U.S. has refused. Washington, D.C.-based attorney Jose Pertierra is representing Venezuela in this case. He says international law is clear: “The law says you extradite or prosecute, but you don’t free him into the streets of Miami.”

The Bush administration, and disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, should designate Luis Posada Carriles the terrorist that he is. Justice, and the memory of his many victims, demands it.

Amy Goodman

Published on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 by TruthDig.com

Denis Moynihan assisted in the research for this article. Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.

© 2007 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate

Ecuador's 'Citizens' Revolution' by Duroyan Fertl

[President Rafael Correa]

Since his January 15 inauguration, President Rafael Correa has set about implementing his plan for changing Ecuadorian society, centred on a “citizens’ revolution” to refound the country and begin the construction of a “socialism of the 21st century” by investing economic wealth in social spending on health, education, housing and the environment.

In an effort to curb pollution, on February 3 Correa declared that Ecuador would suspend the contracts of oil companies who needlessly damage the environment. The decision follows the recent announcement that the Ecuadorian government had made US$1 billion from the oilfields of Oxy Petroleum, whose concessions were revoked a year ago for breach of contract. Correa has announced his intention to renegotiate contracts with other oil companies to give the government a larger share of the profits, to use for social spending.

Already under investigation is Brazil’s Petrobras, which holds the right to explore Oil Block 31, located in one of the world’s most biologically diverse regions. Another target of the government’s ire is a mine planned by Ascendant Copper in Junin. Ascendant’s environmental impact statement was rejected in late 2006, and the company is also accused of using paramilitary groups to intimidate and assault local opponents of the mine.

On February 5, Ecuador announced that it will take Colombia to the International Court of Justice over the spraying of glyphosate near the border and over parts of Ecuador. In December last year, Ecuador temporarily withdrew its ambassador from Colombia over the issue. The spraying is part of the US-funded “war on drugs” and is designed to kill coca plants, the source of the raw material for cocaine. However, it also leads to massive environmental damage, birth defects and the poisoning of the watertable.

The government’s new budget, delivered on January 31, promised a $1 billion reduction in foreign debt payments and repeated the government’s intention to renegotiate much of the debt. The government also outlined a plan to reform the tax system, lowering the value-added tax from 12% to 10% while increasing company taxes. On February 1, Correa announced the doubling of social benefits to more than a million of the poorest and most vulnerable, including the sick and single mothers.

Correa has already suffered some setbacks, however. Banana-growers have protested his choice of agriculture minister, Carlos Vallejo — a former associate of Correa’s rival in last year’s presidential election, Alvaro Noboa. Noboa is Ecuador’s richest man and owns numerous banana plantations. He is accused of using child labour and violently breaking strikes. Another associate of Noboa’s, Francisco Cucalon, recently appointed attorney-general, resigned on January 31 amid protests by Correa and others that his appointment was unconstitutional.

Another setback for Correa was the death on January 24, after only nine days in office, of Guadalupe Larriva, Ecuador’s first ever female defence minister. Larriva died in a collision of two military helicopters near Manta air base. She was a former president of the Socialist Party of Ecuador and head of the teachers’ union, and had been planning to renovate the armed forces, including increasing wages for low-ranking soldiers.

An independent investigation initiated by the government found nothing suspicious about the death. Nevertheless, Correa has replaced the head of the army. He has appointed another woman, Lorena Escudero, as defence minister. Since coming to power, Correa has also replaced three police chiefs, the latest on January 27, as he attempts to reform an institution rife with corruption.

The most important part of Correa’s reform program, the convoking of an assembly to rewrite the constitution, similar to efforts in Venezuela and Bolivia, has set the scene for a major showdown with the political forces traditionally dominant in Ecuador. The Constituent Assembly, which is supported by upwards of 75% of Ecuadorians, has been hindered by the traditional parties that dominate the Congress and Supreme Electoral Court (TSE), which fear it will reduce their power.

The TSE deliberately dragged its heels on declaring the legality of a planned March 18 referendum on the Constituent Assembly, before handballing the decision to the Congress after hundreds of pro-assembly protesters broke into the courtroom on January 23. Congress, also hostile to Correa, has since been stalling on the bill, as the parties debate the exact powers that the assembly will have and attempt to water it down to ensure their continuing control.

On January 30, thousands of protesters stormed the Congress, demanding it pass the bill, chanting “Death to the rats!” and “Down with the Congress, yes to the assembly!” Authorities evacuated the building and dispersed protesters with tear-gas. Protesters were also incensed that members of Congress, regarded by most Ecuadorians as corrupt, had also just voted to increase their salaries.

On February 6, the Congress blocked a vote on the assembly. The Patriotic Society Party of former president Lucio Gutierrez, who was overthrown in a popular uprising in 2005, had previously promised to support the bill but refused to vote for it. The PSP is the second largest party in Congress with 24 out of 100 seats, giving it the balance of power. It is widely believed that the PSP’s support for the bill will be conditional on them gaining key positions in the assembly and in the government.

Correa, who described Gutierrez as a “viper”, has threatened that if the Congress continues to stall or doesn’t pass the bill, it will be bypassed. Vice-President Lenin Moreno has suggested that an “ad hoc” committee could be convoked to set the parameters for the Constituent Assembly. Correa has also threatened to call further mass demonstrations to force the Congress to pass the bill, saying “The fight here is between the Congress and 13 million Ecuadorians”.

The social movements are feeling similarly frustrated. Humberto Cholango, of the indigenous organisation ECUARUNARI, has threatened that an indigenous uprising could be organised to force the issue. Similar uprisings have led to the overthrow of three presidents in the last decade. ECUARUNARI, the main indigenous federation CONAIE and dozens of other social movements and organisations have united to form the National Front for the Plurinational Constituent Assembly. A massive march on Quito is planned for March 13 to demand the Congress obey the popular mandate.

From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #698 14 February 2007.

A year Inside the Venezuelan Revolution by Paul Benedek, Brisbane

“We have just spent the most exciting year of our lives residing in Venezuela. It’s the heartland of the most important radical political upheaval of our time, and centre of the project for socialism in the 21st century”, enthused Jim McIlroy who, along with Coral Wynter, spent 2006 in Caracas reporting on the Bolivarian revolution for Green Left Weekly. McIlroy and Wynter detailed their experiences to almost 100 people at the CEPU Auditorium on February 3 at a forum organised by Green Left Weekly and sponsored by the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network (AVSN).

“The changes erupting in Venezuela, and now spreading across Latin America, provide a base and an inspiration for people seeking to challenge the domination of neoliberal capitalism all across the globe”, McIlroy said. “The message we bring back from Venezuela is that there is hope for socialism. The imperialist monster, centred in the US, with the support of allies like the Australian government, can be challenged and defeated.

“The most appropriate description of the revolutionary process in Venezuela is the phrase put forward by Vladimir Lenin of revolution as ‘a festival of the oppressed’.

“Led by socialist president Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan people are taking hold of their own destiny. They are seizing control of the economic resources and political power of the country, and challenging the rule of the oligarchy and the foreign capitalists who have traditionally dominated Third World countries like Venezuela”, McIlroy said.

McIlroy and Wynter discussed the recent presidential election campaign, in which Chavez won a new term with around 63% of the vote; the gains of the revolution; the struggles of workers, women and indigenous people; and the rise of a new people’s democracy linked to the neighbourhood-based communal councils.

Wynter and McIlroy described their abode in Catia, a working-class suburb of Caracas, and how they had been welcomed into the community activities and outings of the local Chavista movement, including being made honorary members of the Grandmothers’ Club.

McIlroy and Wynter also described the development of the international movement in solidarity with Venezuela, including the visit of several Australian brigades to Venezuela, sponsored by the AVSN. They urged everyone to join the solidarity movement in Australia and to consider participating in one of the AVSN-sponsored brigades to Venezuela. The first one this year is being organised to coincide with May Day, with a special focus on trade union solidarity.

“We are very optimistic that the Venezuelan people can carry forward their revolution”, Wynter said. “Their struggle to build an alternative society is so inspiring. Our job in Australia is to give them all the solidarity and support that we can.”

[McIlroy and Wynter are speaking at forums in Sydney and Melbourne in the coming weeks. See the calendar on page 23 for details. To find out more about the May Day brigade to Venezuela visit .]

From: Australian News, Green Left Weekly issue #698 14 February 2007.