Korea: A Less Selfish Way to Live
Adapting to the culture was a challenge, but also beneficial
Claire George (aeogae)
Published 2007-02-02 00:05 (KST)
In England my imagination went as far east as Russia and stopped just short of Lake Baikal. China was just a story in a book, and as for Korea, I couldn't even locate it on the map.
I never expected to find myself living in Seoul, 75 miles south of Pyongyang. For me, foreign adventure was Italy, France or Spain, not the other side of the world.
When I arrived in South Korea in August 2005 I was possibly one of the least enthusiastic tourists the country had ever seen. But I had a compelling reason to come: my partner is Korean. I would rather have gone to Paris or Madrid, but to cancel the trip and not see my boyfriend was unthinkable.
It was meant to be a visit of a year, and no more. Then the inevitable happened, I liked being in the same country as my boyfriend and wanted to stay longer.
Going to live in a foreign culture for personal, or practical, reasons is perhaps more difficult than making the leap because you're motivated by curiosity and wanderlust.
I read blogs written by young Americans who came to Seoul fascinated by Korea's history and language. I couldn't feel the same. Instead I felt intensely homesick and was unable to stop thinking about the muddy rain-swept streets of rural England.
In England they told me that I would never adapt to Korean life, it would be too alien for me. I thought so too, but now I realize that what was once strange and unacceptable has become comfortable and familiar.
The well-being of the group has much greater importance in Korea than it does in England, where individualism and personal privacy are highly valued.
"Intrusive" was the word I first used when I saw how the Korean workplace comes into significant areas of what we English people think of as private life.
Koreans are expected to invite all their colleagues to their weddings, their funerals and their children's first birthday parties.
At Korean weddings it is not unusual for the boss of the bride or groom to give a little speech immediately before the couple make their vows. This is a very odd thing from an English point of view.
During the day colleagues eat lunch together (no skulking off to read a novel) and everyone eats and drinks exactly the same thing.
After work, in order to maintain group solidarity, colleagues go out to eat (identical food) and drink (identical alcohol) together once or twice a week.
"In Korea, co-workers are like friends and neighbors," says a colleague of my boyfriend.
I once thought of these practices as bizarre and suffocating. In England we also socialize with our work colleagues; indeed many people find marriage and friendship in their factories and offices. But England is not a Confucian society like Korea, there is no social obligation to treat workmates as something close to family.
When I began working for OhmyNews in 2006 it was this aspect of Korean office life that worried me the most. Fortunately, a sympathetic boss allowed me to work from home like my colleagues in the U.S.A., so I was able to do my job unhindered by cultural anxieties.
That would have been it for me, I wouldn't have learnt anything good about Korean work culture if the very thing I was afraid of hadn't come to rescue me.
I often take my computer to my boyfriend's office and work there. It is only possible to do that because Koreans have a more sociable attitude towards their colleagues. In England if somebody proposed bringing their Korean girlfriend to work they would receive some very funny looks and harsh comments.
I've been watching the people in the office interact with each other, and I have slowly come to recognize the good things about Korean office life.
Nobody is given a chance to feel lonely at work. I'm sure it is possible to feel alone, but never lonely. Every wedding and child's first birthday party has enough guests to make it a noisy, happy occasion.
In England where colleagues sometimes don't know each other very well, bereavements can be kept hidden, causing all kinds of emotional difficulties. In Korea it is a little harder to do that when your officemates have been to the funeral.
I do not think it is necessary to go out drinking twice a week to feel a sense of loyalty towards your colleagues, or to develop team spirit. However, when I watch the members of my boyfriend's company I see that it does really work for them.
I came to Korea with a closed mind, convinced that individualism was superior to communalism. This country has taught me in many more ways than I have expressed here, that valuing the well-being of the group has some very definite advantages and is often the less selfish way to live.
I am nearly 30 years old, and I doubt that I will ever give up my English love of personal space, privacy and making my own meal choices, but I think I can come to a compromise.
©2007 OhmyNews
Other articles by reporter Claire George
sábado, febrero 10, 2007
viernes, febrero 09, 2007
Ha nacido un dictador
En un diario de Escandinavia, ha sido publicado un titular dedicado a Hugo Chavez que se muestra a continuación: (Cabe resaltar, que los países de Escandinavos , aparte de ser primer mundo son los primeros países socialistas del mundo, nadie sabe de socialismo mejor que ellos, ellos inventaron practicamente el socialismo y son ellos, los socialistas quienes dicen que Chavez es un dictador... si los socialistas lo reconocen.. que quedará para el que vive aquí adentro)
El diario refiere lo siguiente:
HA NACIDO UN DICTADOR
Ahora Chavez cerró la última puerta hacia la democracia .
Así él arrastró a la democracia hasta su último suspiro. La Asamblea Nacional de ese país, votó ayer una ley que le da al presidente Hugo Chávez el derecho de manejar al país a través de decretos por los próximos 18 meses.
La historia del Comunismo se repite; según se ve en el conocidísimo esquema comunista.
Hugo Chávez ha seducido considerablemente la actividad izquierdista dentro y fuera de Venezuela. Sus calientes críticas hacia los Estados Unidos y sobretodo hacia George Bush diciéndole que se vaya a su casa.
Para Chávez y compañía, Bush es el diablo reencarnado. Muchos piensan que tiene una opinión democrática y sentir de derechos humanos los cuales son mas criticados en la gestión de Bush en USA que de Chávez en Venezuela.
Eso realmente son tonterías. Y ahora Hugo Chávez parece cada vez mas instalado a seguir las mismas huellas de todos los dictadores de izquierda que han existido antes que él.
El dice que está del lado de la gente, Que él sabe mejor acerda de donde deben ser invertidos las ventajosas riquezas del país. Que el necesita poder para ejecutar todo eso.
Una vez a eso se le llamó: "la dictadura de los proletariados" y ya nosotros sabemos como termina eso.
Tan lejos no ha llegado Chávez aún, pero definitivamente ya tiene un trazo corrido hacia esa vía. La Asamblea le es fiel un 100% leal desde que la oposición les boicoteó la pasada elección; los tribunales también los domina él.
A través de decisiones tomadas en los patios, ya no necesita voltearse hacia la Asamblea para fundar leyes. Ya lo hace por propia mano en las 11 ramas mas importantes del país: desde economía hasta seguridad nacional.
Chávez ya ha dejado claro que piensa nacionalizar la telecomunicación y electricidad del país. Después de su gran triunfo de las elecciones el año pasado piensa él dirigirse hacia una "nueva era" pintada con el color rojo socialismo.
Hay mucho que criticar a George Bush por lo que ha hecho, y algunas veces Chavez ha tenido razón (un tanto humorística) en sus teatros de que expide olor de azufre.
Pero no hay nada de agradable con su hambre de poder. En 2 años Bush abandonará la Casa Blanca.
Algo me dice que va a tomar muchísimo mas tiempo, muchísimo mas para que Chavez abandone el poder.
LÖRDAG 3 FEBRUARI 2007
Fuente:
EXPRESSEN
Allt fler fruktar att Hugo Chavez är på väg att förvandla Venezuela till ett nytt Kuba. Fidel Castro är också Chavez stora förebild.
Mats Larsson: Nu har Chavez stängt den sista dörren till demokratin
Så drog då demokratin i Venezuela sin kanske sista suck. Landets parlament röstade i går igenom en lag som ger president Hugo Chávez rätten att styra landet med dekret i 18 månader framåt.

Kommunisthistorien upprepar sig alltså. Enligt ett bara alltför välbekant schema.
Hugo Chávez har de senaste åren charmat åtskilliga vänsteraktivister både i och utanför Venezuela. Hans svidande kritik mot USA och framför allt George W Bush går hem där.
För Chavez & Co är Bush djävulen inkarnerad. Många tycks ha uppfattningen att demokratin och de mänskliga rättigheterna är mer hotade i Bushs USA än i Chavez Venezuela.
Det är nonsens. Och Hugo Chávez verkar nu alltmer inställd på att följa i samma fotspår som så många vänsterdiktatorer före honom.
Han står på folkets sida, säger han. Han vet bäst hur omfördelningen av landets rikedomar ska gå till. Han behöver makten för att genomföra det.
Det kallades proletariatets diktatur en gång. Och vi vet hur illa det brukade sluta.
Så långt har inte Chavez kommit, men en bit på väg är han nu. Parlamentet är honom 100-procentigt lojalt sedan oppositionen bojkottade förra valet, domstolarna lyder honom också.
Och genom gårdagens beslut behöver han inte ens vända sig till parlamentet längre för att stifta lagar. Det klarar han av på egen hand på elva viktiga områden, från ekonomi till nationell säkerhet.
Chavez har redan gjort klart att han tänker förstatliga landets telekommunikationer och elindustri. Efter den stora valsegern i presidentvalet i fjol tänker han nu gå vidare och införa en "ny era" målad med socialismens röda färger.
Det finns mycket att kritisera George W Bush för. Och Chavez kan vara rätt underhållande ibland med sin svavelosande tirader.
Men det är inget lustigt med hans makthunger. Om två år har Bush flyttat ut ur Vita huset. Något säger mig att det kommer att ta betydligt längre tid att bli av med Hugo Chávez.
MATS LARSSON
mats.larsson@expressen.se

El diario refiere lo siguiente:
HA NACIDO UN DICTADOR
Ahora Chavez cerró la última puerta hacia la democracia .
Así él arrastró a la democracia hasta su último suspiro. La Asamblea Nacional de ese país, votó ayer una ley que le da al presidente Hugo Chávez el derecho de manejar al país a través de decretos por los próximos 18 meses.
La historia del Comunismo se repite; según se ve en el conocidísimo esquema comunista.
Hugo Chávez ha seducido considerablemente la actividad izquierdista dentro y fuera de Venezuela. Sus calientes críticas hacia los Estados Unidos y sobretodo hacia George Bush diciéndole que se vaya a su casa.
Para Chávez y compañía, Bush es el diablo reencarnado. Muchos piensan que tiene una opinión democrática y sentir de derechos humanos los cuales son mas criticados en la gestión de Bush en USA que de Chávez en Venezuela.
Eso realmente son tonterías. Y ahora Hugo Chávez parece cada vez mas instalado a seguir las mismas huellas de todos los dictadores de izquierda que han existido antes que él.
El dice que está del lado de la gente, Que él sabe mejor acerda de donde deben ser invertidos las ventajosas riquezas del país. Que el necesita poder para ejecutar todo eso.
Una vez a eso se le llamó: "la dictadura de los proletariados" y ya nosotros sabemos como termina eso.
Tan lejos no ha llegado Chávez aún, pero definitivamente ya tiene un trazo corrido hacia esa vía. La Asamblea le es fiel un 100% leal desde que la oposición les boicoteó la pasada elección; los tribunales también los domina él.
A través de decisiones tomadas en los patios, ya no necesita voltearse hacia la Asamblea para fundar leyes. Ya lo hace por propia mano en las 11 ramas mas importantes del país: desde economía hasta seguridad nacional.
Chávez ya ha dejado claro que piensa nacionalizar la telecomunicación y electricidad del país. Después de su gran triunfo de las elecciones el año pasado piensa él dirigirse hacia una "nueva era" pintada con el color rojo socialismo.
Hay mucho que criticar a George Bush por lo que ha hecho, y algunas veces Chavez ha tenido razón (un tanto humorística) en sus teatros de que expide olor de azufre.
Pero no hay nada de agradable con su hambre de poder. En 2 años Bush abandonará la Casa Blanca.
Algo me dice que va a tomar muchísimo mas tiempo, muchísimo mas para que Chavez abandone el poder.
LÖRDAG 3 FEBRUARI 2007
Fuente:
Allt fler fruktar att Hugo Chavez är på väg att förvandla Venezuela till ett nytt Kuba. Fidel Castro är också Chavez stora förebild.
Mats Larsson: Nu har Chavez stängt den sista dörren till demokratin
Så drog då demokratin i Venezuela sin kanske sista suck. Landets parlament röstade i går igenom en lag som ger president Hugo Chávez rätten att styra landet med dekret i 18 månader framåt.

Kommunisthistorien upprepar sig alltså. Enligt ett bara alltför välbekant schema.
Hugo Chávez har de senaste åren charmat åtskilliga vänsteraktivister både i och utanför Venezuela. Hans svidande kritik mot USA och framför allt George W Bush går hem där.
För Chavez & Co är Bush djävulen inkarnerad. Många tycks ha uppfattningen att demokratin och de mänskliga rättigheterna är mer hotade i Bushs USA än i Chavez Venezuela.
Det är nonsens. Och Hugo Chávez verkar nu alltmer inställd på att följa i samma fotspår som så många vänsterdiktatorer före honom.
Han står på folkets sida, säger han. Han vet bäst hur omfördelningen av landets rikedomar ska gå till. Han behöver makten för att genomföra det.
Det kallades proletariatets diktatur en gång. Och vi vet hur illa det brukade sluta.
Så långt har inte Chavez kommit, men en bit på väg är han nu. Parlamentet är honom 100-procentigt lojalt sedan oppositionen bojkottade förra valet, domstolarna lyder honom också.
Och genom gårdagens beslut behöver han inte ens vända sig till parlamentet längre för att stifta lagar. Det klarar han av på egen hand på elva viktiga områden, från ekonomi till nationell säkerhet.
Chavez har redan gjort klart att han tänker förstatliga landets telekommunikationer och elindustri. Efter den stora valsegern i presidentvalet i fjol tänker han nu gå vidare och införa en "ny era" målad med socialismens röda färger.
Det finns mycket att kritisera George W Bush för. Och Chavez kan vara rätt underhållande ibland med sin svavelosande tirader.
Men det är inget lustigt med hans makthunger. Om två år har Bush flyttat ut ur Vita huset. Något säger mig att det kommer att ta betydligt längre tid att bli av med Hugo Chávez.
MATS LARSSON
mats.larsson@expressen.se

La autonomía universitaria
Viceministro anuncia revisión al concepto de autonomía universitaria
29/01/2007
Tomado de El Tiempo.com.ve
Periódico Oriental
Henry Gómez ayer en Cumaná, expuso que las casas de estudios deben dejar de ser cotos cerrados a la realidad. Sopesó necesario reformular una noción que cree sirve para eternizar a una élite en las altas esferas académicas. Sector estudiantil objeta aspecto de ley de universidades que forja el gobierno
El Ministerio de Educación Superior iniciará un debate en torno al concepto de autonomía universitaria, tal como lo confirmó ayer en un acto realizado en Cumaná, el recién nombrado viceministro de Políticas Estudiantiles de ese despacho ministerial, Henry Gómez Mayz.
Las opiniones del alto funcionario y académico universitario fueron emitidas en el marco de la inauguración del Centro de Formación Socialista Venezolano (Cfsv) de la avenida del Bolivariano, al sureste de la capital sucrense.
Cree Mayz que la transformación de la autonomía de las universidades es necesaria, porque en su concepto muchas de estas instituciones siguen como cotos cerrados con respecto al resto del país.
"La autonomía, que si bien es académica y administrativa, también parece que las convirtió en un país aparte, algo que no se corresponde con lo que ocurre en la sociedad de hoy en día".
Dijo que más que eliminar la independencia de las casas de estudios superiores, se debería transitar hacia un nuevo concepto en el cual sean parte todos los actores del sector.
Señaló que habrá que revisar este principio desde los planes académicos de estudio, la autonomía administrativa, los recursos que envía el Estado, "y fijar una posición sobre el rumbo estratégico hacia el cual debe ir la educación superior en este país".
Incluso fue más allá. "La autonomía sirve para que una élite se eternice en el poder, en el manejo de las universidades. Ni siquiera ceden espacio a los actores principales, que es el estudiantado, a cuyas espaldas se toman muchas decisiones".
El ministro Luis Acuña Cedeño planteó que se debe transformar a las universidades. Ratificó que se hacen esfuerzos en el Núcleo de Sucre de la Universidad de Oriente (UDO), en función de establecer allí los consejos comunales.
Reserva ética
Milena Bravo de Romero, rectora de la UDO, manifestó compartir algunos conceptos emitidos por Mayz, pero no el que puedan existir factores que pretendan "eternizarse" en el poder en los ámbitos de la educación
superior pública de Venezuela.
"Una prueba de ello es la UDO, donde por 47 oportunidades sus autoridades han sido electas en los respectivos procesos".
Apuntó que la universidad es la reserva ética de este país. "Allí está el talento que contribuye con creces a la Venezuela proactiva, más profesional y educada. Contrario a esto vemos a muchos seudo universitarios que se enriquecen con recursos del Estado. Creo que el ministro y el viceministro deberían ver eso y confrontarlo".
Agregó que afrontan mermas con el personal docente, ya que suelen tener problemas para suplir a los jubilados y el gobierno no quiere percatarse de ello.
Dijo que abarrotar la institución de educandos sin contar con lo necesario para su formación es una mala política.
"Pensamos en el estudiante, nuestro primer objetivo y sin el cual no existe el hecho académico. Es nuestro norte y me preocupo por atenderlo".
Thaís Pico, vicerrectora administrativa de la UDO, piensa que la autonomía es el respeto mutuo de todos los entes imbuidos en el ámbito universitario y los que son externos.
"Los planes académicos responden a necesidades en cuanto a carreras que tenemos y adaptándonos a las disposiciones que el Ejecutivo nacional ha dispuesto en el cambio de materias académicas hasta el momento".
Ley escondida Geris Guerra, vocero del Movimiento 100% Udistas, dijo que esta se mana tendrán una reunión donde sopesará su posición sobre la nueva ley que propone el ministro de Educación Superior, Luis Acuña C.
"Está confinada en un maletín y no la han puesto para la discusión de la comunidad universitaria". Desmintió que los universitarios vivan aislados en su mundo.
("Dos cosas son infinitas: el universo y la estupidez humana; y
yo no estoy seguro sobre el universo"
Albert Einstein )
29/01/2007
Tomado de El Tiempo.com.ve
Periódico Oriental
Henry Gómez ayer en Cumaná, expuso que las casas de estudios deben dejar de ser cotos cerrados a la realidad. Sopesó necesario reformular una noción que cree sirve para eternizar a una élite en las altas esferas académicas. Sector estudiantil objeta aspecto de ley de universidades que forja el gobierno
El Ministerio de Educación Superior iniciará un debate en torno al concepto de autonomía universitaria, tal como lo confirmó ayer en un acto realizado en Cumaná, el recién nombrado viceministro de Políticas Estudiantiles de ese despacho ministerial, Henry Gómez Mayz.
Las opiniones del alto funcionario y académico universitario fueron emitidas en el marco de la inauguración del Centro de Formación Socialista Venezolano (Cfsv) de la avenida del Bolivariano, al sureste de la capital sucrense.
Cree Mayz que la transformación de la autonomía de las universidades es necesaria, porque en su concepto muchas de estas instituciones siguen como cotos cerrados con respecto al resto del país.
"La autonomía, que si bien es académica y administrativa, también parece que las convirtió en un país aparte, algo que no se corresponde con lo que ocurre en la sociedad de hoy en día".
Dijo que más que eliminar la independencia de las casas de estudios superiores, se debería transitar hacia un nuevo concepto en el cual sean parte todos los actores del sector.
Señaló que habrá que revisar este principio desde los planes académicos de estudio, la autonomía administrativa, los recursos que envía el Estado, "y fijar una posición sobre el rumbo estratégico hacia el cual debe ir la educación superior en este país".
Incluso fue más allá. "La autonomía sirve para que una élite se eternice en el poder, en el manejo de las universidades. Ni siquiera ceden espacio a los actores principales, que es el estudiantado, a cuyas espaldas se toman muchas decisiones".
El ministro Luis Acuña Cedeño planteó que se debe transformar a las universidades. Ratificó que se hacen esfuerzos en el Núcleo de Sucre de la Universidad de Oriente (UDO), en función de establecer allí los consejos comunales.
Reserva ética
Milena Bravo de Romero, rectora de la UDO, manifestó compartir algunos conceptos emitidos por Mayz, pero no el que puedan existir factores que pretendan "eternizarse" en el poder en los ámbitos de la educación
superior pública de Venezuela.
"Una prueba de ello es la UDO, donde por 47 oportunidades sus autoridades han sido electas en los respectivos procesos".
Apuntó que la universidad es la reserva ética de este país. "Allí está el talento que contribuye con creces a la Venezuela proactiva, más profesional y educada. Contrario a esto vemos a muchos seudo universitarios que se enriquecen con recursos del Estado. Creo que el ministro y el viceministro deberían ver eso y confrontarlo".
Agregó que afrontan mermas con el personal docente, ya que suelen tener problemas para suplir a los jubilados y el gobierno no quiere percatarse de ello.
Dijo que abarrotar la institución de educandos sin contar con lo necesario para su formación es una mala política.
"Pensamos en el estudiante, nuestro primer objetivo y sin el cual no existe el hecho académico. Es nuestro norte y me preocupo por atenderlo".
Thaís Pico, vicerrectora administrativa de la UDO, piensa que la autonomía es el respeto mutuo de todos los entes imbuidos en el ámbito universitario y los que son externos.
"Los planes académicos responden a necesidades en cuanto a carreras que tenemos y adaptándonos a las disposiciones que el Ejecutivo nacional ha dispuesto en el cambio de materias académicas hasta el momento".
Ley escondida Geris Guerra, vocero del Movimiento 100% Udistas, dijo que esta se mana tendrán una reunión donde sopesará su posición sobre la nueva ley que propone el ministro de Educación Superior, Luis Acuña C.
"Está confinada en un maletín y no la han puesto para la discusión de la comunidad universitaria". Desmintió que los universitarios vivan aislados en su mundo.
("Dos cosas son infinitas: el universo y la estupidez humana; y
yo no estoy seguro sobre el universo"
Albert Einstein )
jueves, febrero 08, 2007
Lula cercado de populistas
Es el título de un reportaje firmado por Diogo Schelp en la revista brasileña VEJA. El reportaje se refiere a la reciente reunión del Mercosur donde, según este reportero, Brasil tuvo una agenda más moderna que sus vecinos. Señala que Brasil está asediado por caudillos beligerantes.
Lula defendió la posición regional, pero dejó ver a los ojos del mundo que Brasil estaba en un estadio más estable y moderno que sus vecinos. Si bien es cierto que al llegar a Brasil el Presidente Chávez lo primero que señaló fue que se debería "desontaminar al Mercosur del Neoliberalismo", una prupuesta coherente con su "socialismo y muerte"
La región está dividida en dos grupos : 1) los países modernizantes como Brasil, Chile, Colombia y en cierta medida Uruguay, y 2) los países populistas orientados al socialismo autoritario como Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia y Argentina.
Chávez es un perturbador-dice el reportaje de VEJA - de las relaciones entre los países de Sur América y un fantasma aguafiesta en la región para la futura inversión de empresas extranjeras.
El reportaje señala también que Argentina se ha aproximado a Chávez debido a un interés económico por la venta de deuda a Venezuela y otros negocios ecómicos y financieros.
De modo imprudente Venezuela fue aceptado como país miembro pleno de Mercosur y también Bolivia y Ecuador desean ser aceptados por el grupo. El problema para Brasil es que la presencia de esos países enemigos de la blobalización y del libre-comercio, puede perjudicar las negociaciones del bloque con la Unión Europea. Mientras ya México ha logrado tratados comerciales con 45 países y Chile con 52 países, el Mercosur y por lo tanto Brasil también, ha encontrado dificultades en ese proceso de beneficiarse de la economía global a través de tratados comerciales.
(fuente: VEJA: pag. 56 del 24 de nero del año 2.007).
Lula defendió la posición regional, pero dejó ver a los ojos del mundo que Brasil estaba en un estadio más estable y moderno que sus vecinos. Si bien es cierto que al llegar a Brasil el Presidente Chávez lo primero que señaló fue que se debería "desontaminar al Mercosur del Neoliberalismo", una prupuesta coherente con su "socialismo y muerte"
La región está dividida en dos grupos : 1) los países modernizantes como Brasil, Chile, Colombia y en cierta medida Uruguay, y 2) los países populistas orientados al socialismo autoritario como Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia y Argentina.
Chávez es un perturbador-dice el reportaje de VEJA - de las relaciones entre los países de Sur América y un fantasma aguafiesta en la región para la futura inversión de empresas extranjeras.
El reportaje señala también que Argentina se ha aproximado a Chávez debido a un interés económico por la venta de deuda a Venezuela y otros negocios ecómicos y financieros.
De modo imprudente Venezuela fue aceptado como país miembro pleno de Mercosur y también Bolivia y Ecuador desean ser aceptados por el grupo. El problema para Brasil es que la presencia de esos países enemigos de la blobalización y del libre-comercio, puede perjudicar las negociaciones del bloque con la Unión Europea. Mientras ya México ha logrado tratados comerciales con 45 países y Chile con 52 países, el Mercosur y por lo tanto Brasil también, ha encontrado dificultades en ese proceso de beneficiarse de la economía global a través de tratados comerciales.
(fuente: VEJA: pag. 56 del 24 de nero del año 2.007).
Remitido de Carlos Andres Perez
Carlos Andres Pérez y el 4 de Febrero 92
El Ex Presidente Carlos Andrés Pérez señaló que : celebrar la muerte es el signo del chavismo. Hugo Chávez es incapaz de dar un discurso sin hablar de muertes de violencia y de amenazar tanto a venezolanos como a extranjeros.
Los cientos de venezolanos que murieron en el intento de golpe del 1992 son los precursores de una ola de asesinatos de venezolanos por venezolanos que han signado estos infames años de su gestión.
Chávez, que tiene las manos ensangrentadas por la muerte de tantos inocentes ocurrida ese día-como también por las víctimas del 11 de abril- tiene el descaro y la desvergüenza de celebrar las muertes de inocentes venezolanos calificando el 4 de febrero como el Día de la Dignidad cuando precisamente ese fue el día de la traición de la emboscada y de la cobardía.
El cuatro de febrero de 1992 el hoy presidente de Venezuela en unión de otros militares que deshonraron su juramento, empuñaron las armas que le habían confiado sus compatriotas, para irrumpir contra un gobierno que había sido electo en elecciones limpias.
Ese fue el día que Chávez y sus cómplices intentaron asesinarme en Miraflores y de asesinar a mi familia en La Casona - atacada por morteros y ametralladoras.
Es el día de la cobardía, liderizado por el teniente coronel Chávez, que refugiado en el Museo Militar se entregó llorosamente pensando que lo iban a matar, como el pretendía hacer conmigo y muchos de mis colaboradores y de mi propia familia.
Que la marcha que hacen hoy, los cómplices de tantas muertes, la inicien precisamente desde el Museo Militar hace aun más patética y desvergonzada semejante celebración.
Encerrado y escondido en el Museo Militar, Chávez pudo presenciar a la distancia como efectivos militares, bajo sus ordenes, morían innecesariamente mientras que él, que nunca participó en el combate, temblaba al contemplar como las Fuerzas Armadas lo hicieron rendir sin ninguna resistencia de su parte.
Pero lo que en cualquier comunidad civilizada sería motivo de bochorno, en el régimen del señor Chávez se califica como fecha patria. Tal es la inversión de valores, la tergiversación de los principios elementales de civilidad, que hoy azota a mi querida Venezuela. Pero más allá de la apología, de la felonía, de la exaltación de la barbarie, patentizada en un hecho que ocurrió hace quince años y que me tocó en lo personal, porque entonces era el titular de la jefatura de Estado, lo que más preocupa son las perspectivas. Ahora Chávez habla de "socialismo o muerte". Tal es su manera de hacer política.
Ayer pretendió alzarse contra las instituciones democráticas, con el saldo de civiles y gente inocente acribillada, y hoy, no concibe la concreción de su pretendido político a través del diálogo, la persuasión y el reconocimiento del adversario, sino a través del dilema primitivo de morir o asesinar.
Por eso quiere remover el principio de alternabilidad, básico en toda democracia. Por eso ha subrogado al parlamento en la función de sancionar leyes, a través de una habilitación legislativa espuria ad initio porque es fruto de una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente en cuya conformación se irrespetaron la más elemental hermenéutica electoral, el principio de representación proporcional, principalmente. Por eso, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia ha hecho dejación de su más elementa autonomía, al extremo que su presidente ha emplazado a los jueces de la República a salir a defender la Revolución y figurar uno de sus magistrados más prominentes como secretaria ejecutivo del propio señor Chávez.
Como venezolano, y como Jefe de Estado, no puedo menos que sumarme a la repulsa nacional a esta infausta celebración de la muerte de compatriotas llevados a tal final por un grupito de conspiradores que traicionaron a su institución y que violaron la constitución. Ese día Chávez quedó consagrado como el único golpista en más de cuarenta años de la fenecida democracia venezolana.
Que se celebre tan triste fecha con la participación de efectivos de las fuerzas armadas nacionales, no es solo motivo de
vergüenza, sino de consternación. Como pueden los guardianes de la institucionalidad sumarse a celebrar la violación y el atropello de la institucionalidad es la pregunta que deben estarse haciendo todos aquellos integrantes de la fuerzas armadas que no están dispuestos a rendir su dignidad ni a violar sus compromisos con la patria. La procalama del General Euclides
Campos en la marcha de hoy de "Socialismo, patria o muerte, venceremos" deben llamarnos a la reflexión a todos al ver en manos de quienes está la protección de los derechos ciudadanos en nuestro país .
El 4 de febrero no fue más ni menos que el anticipo de lo que hoy sufre el país y sus instituciones, secuestradas por un líder
fascistoide que se comporta como un jefe de pandilla de barrio –envalentonado cuando tiene todo el poder- y acobardado y llorón cuando es enfrentado. Ya los venezolanos le hemos visto llorar e implorar ante situaciones adversas, sólo nos faltaba ver como es capaz de celebrar la muerte de los pobres venezolanos muertos por su cobarde actuación del 4 de febrero. No
importa cuanto obligue a compatriotas a desfilar. Ese día de muertes es el signo imborrable de lo que Chávez y su acción representan.
El 4 de febrero conmemora realmente que nuestro país desgraciadamente está asociado y comprometido con las peores causas de la humanidad. Donde quiera que se atropellen los derechos humanos o se amenace la paz y la seguridad internacional, allí está Chávez, con el dinero del pueblo venezolano.
Todo, mientras la depauperación campea fueros en Venezuela. Mientras validos del régimen exhiben de la manera más impúdica el producto de su latrocinio, sin que haya autoridad que le ponga coto a sus depredaciones.
En este momento parecen vanos los esfuerzos por remover al gobierno forajido. Pero los pueblos siempre terminan por sobreponerse a sus dramas. Ojalá que en tal propósito los venezolanos podamos contar con el respaldo moral de la comunidad internacional, en particular la latinoamericana, y que, de esta manera, se le retribuya a mi país el entusiasta apoyo que alguna vez, ofreció a los principios democráticos.
Carlos Andrés Pérez
Miami 4 de febrero de 2007
El Ex Presidente Carlos Andrés Pérez señaló que : celebrar la muerte es el signo del chavismo. Hugo Chávez es incapaz de dar un discurso sin hablar de muertes de violencia y de amenazar tanto a venezolanos como a extranjeros.
Los cientos de venezolanos que murieron en el intento de golpe del 1992 son los precursores de una ola de asesinatos de venezolanos por venezolanos que han signado estos infames años de su gestión.
Chávez, que tiene las manos ensangrentadas por la muerte de tantos inocentes ocurrida ese día-como también por las víctimas del 11 de abril- tiene el descaro y la desvergüenza de celebrar las muertes de inocentes venezolanos calificando el 4 de febrero como el Día de la Dignidad cuando precisamente ese fue el día de la traición de la emboscada y de la cobardía.
El cuatro de febrero de 1992 el hoy presidente de Venezuela en unión de otros militares que deshonraron su juramento, empuñaron las armas que le habían confiado sus compatriotas, para irrumpir contra un gobierno que había sido electo en elecciones limpias.
Ese fue el día que Chávez y sus cómplices intentaron asesinarme en Miraflores y de asesinar a mi familia en La Casona - atacada por morteros y ametralladoras.
Es el día de la cobardía, liderizado por el teniente coronel Chávez, que refugiado en el Museo Militar se entregó llorosamente pensando que lo iban a matar, como el pretendía hacer conmigo y muchos de mis colaboradores y de mi propia familia.
Que la marcha que hacen hoy, los cómplices de tantas muertes, la inicien precisamente desde el Museo Militar hace aun más patética y desvergonzada semejante celebración.
Encerrado y escondido en el Museo Militar, Chávez pudo presenciar a la distancia como efectivos militares, bajo sus ordenes, morían innecesariamente mientras que él, que nunca participó en el combate, temblaba al contemplar como las Fuerzas Armadas lo hicieron rendir sin ninguna resistencia de su parte.
Pero lo que en cualquier comunidad civilizada sería motivo de bochorno, en el régimen del señor Chávez se califica como fecha patria. Tal es la inversión de valores, la tergiversación de los principios elementales de civilidad, que hoy azota a mi querida Venezuela. Pero más allá de la apología, de la felonía, de la exaltación de la barbarie, patentizada en un hecho que ocurrió hace quince años y que me tocó en lo personal, porque entonces era el titular de la jefatura de Estado, lo que más preocupa son las perspectivas. Ahora Chávez habla de "socialismo o muerte". Tal es su manera de hacer política.
Ayer pretendió alzarse contra las instituciones democráticas, con el saldo de civiles y gente inocente acribillada, y hoy, no concibe la concreción de su pretendido político a través del diálogo, la persuasión y el reconocimiento del adversario, sino a través del dilema primitivo de morir o asesinar.
Por eso quiere remover el principio de alternabilidad, básico en toda democracia. Por eso ha subrogado al parlamento en la función de sancionar leyes, a través de una habilitación legislativa espuria ad initio porque es fruto de una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente en cuya conformación se irrespetaron la más elemental hermenéutica electoral, el principio de representación proporcional, principalmente. Por eso, el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia ha hecho dejación de su más elementa autonomía, al extremo que su presidente ha emplazado a los jueces de la República a salir a defender la Revolución y figurar uno de sus magistrados más prominentes como secretaria ejecutivo del propio señor Chávez.
Como venezolano, y como Jefe de Estado, no puedo menos que sumarme a la repulsa nacional a esta infausta celebración de la muerte de compatriotas llevados a tal final por un grupito de conspiradores que traicionaron a su institución y que violaron la constitución. Ese día Chávez quedó consagrado como el único golpista en más de cuarenta años de la fenecida democracia venezolana.
Que se celebre tan triste fecha con la participación de efectivos de las fuerzas armadas nacionales, no es solo motivo de
vergüenza, sino de consternación. Como pueden los guardianes de la institucionalidad sumarse a celebrar la violación y el atropello de la institucionalidad es la pregunta que deben estarse haciendo todos aquellos integrantes de la fuerzas armadas que no están dispuestos a rendir su dignidad ni a violar sus compromisos con la patria. La procalama del General Euclides
Campos en la marcha de hoy de "Socialismo, patria o muerte, venceremos" deben llamarnos a la reflexión a todos al ver en manos de quienes está la protección de los derechos ciudadanos en nuestro país .
El 4 de febrero no fue más ni menos que el anticipo de lo que hoy sufre el país y sus instituciones, secuestradas por un líder
fascistoide que se comporta como un jefe de pandilla de barrio –envalentonado cuando tiene todo el poder- y acobardado y llorón cuando es enfrentado. Ya los venezolanos le hemos visto llorar e implorar ante situaciones adversas, sólo nos faltaba ver como es capaz de celebrar la muerte de los pobres venezolanos muertos por su cobarde actuación del 4 de febrero. No
importa cuanto obligue a compatriotas a desfilar. Ese día de muertes es el signo imborrable de lo que Chávez y su acción representan.
El 4 de febrero conmemora realmente que nuestro país desgraciadamente está asociado y comprometido con las peores causas de la humanidad. Donde quiera que se atropellen los derechos humanos o se amenace la paz y la seguridad internacional, allí está Chávez, con el dinero del pueblo venezolano.
Todo, mientras la depauperación campea fueros en Venezuela. Mientras validos del régimen exhiben de la manera más impúdica el producto de su latrocinio, sin que haya autoridad que le ponga coto a sus depredaciones.
En este momento parecen vanos los esfuerzos por remover al gobierno forajido. Pero los pueblos siempre terminan por sobreponerse a sus dramas. Ojalá que en tal propósito los venezolanos podamos contar con el respaldo moral de la comunidad internacional, en particular la latinoamericana, y que, de esta manera, se le retribuya a mi país el entusiasta apoyo que alguna vez, ofreció a los principios democráticos.
Carlos Andrés Pérez
Miami 4 de febrero de 2007
Latin America: America's Stepping Stone
Latin America: America's Stepping Stone
[Interview] Professor Greg Grandin on the historical legacy of U.S. in the region
Michael Werbowski (minou)
Published 2007-02-06 03:54 (KST)
Professor Greg Grandin lectures on Latin American History at New York University and authored most recently "Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the rise of the new Imperialism." He has also previously written "The Last Colonial Massacre" and the award-winning "The Blood of Guatemala." Grandin is a 2004 recipient of the Guggenheim fellowship. He served on the United Nations truth commission investigating the Guatemalan civil war. Grandin's articles have appeared in Harper's, The Nation and The New York Times. He lives in New York.
How does Washington in your view, see the recent reelection of the Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega and former Sandinista? What does his return to power mean for U.S. Central American relations?
Obviously it is a challenge, both because of the history between the U.S. and Nicaragua, and because of Latin America's current politics, which has included the election of leftists and nationalists sharply critical, or at least politically independent, of Washington. In terms of the first, in the 1980s, the U.S. spent millions of dollars and patronized anti-communist mercenaries who killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguans in order to destabilize the Sandinista government and make its attempt at creating a more humane society untenable.
The U.S. promised Nicaragua -- and indeed all of Central America -- that life within its sphere of influence, both in terms of politics and economics, would be better than the policy of non-alignment and social-democratic economics that the Sandinistas offered. But here we are 16 years after the Sandinistas were voted out of power -- worn down and exhausted by fighting a war against the most powerful nation in the history of the world -- and Nicaragua is a basket case, the second poorest country in the hemisphere after Haiti.
That Nicaraguans withstood intense pressure and re-elected Ortega demonstrates the absolute failure of U.S. foreign policy to provide a decent life to even a small country of a few million people -- so what are the chances the U.S. would be able to do so in a region like the Middle East? That the Sandinistas remain the single most popular party in Nicaragua is evidence of the limits of U.S. power, especially when it is exercised purely in military terms, which is, after all, the favorite exercise of the neocons. A country as poor as Nicaragua, in a region long locked into the United States' sphere of influence, bucking Washington's diktats is an intolerable embarrassment.
Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans killed in the 1980s, tens of thousands of them disappeared, another hundred thousand tortured, and millions more driven into exile, and Nicaragua still refuses to genuflect to Washington's commands.
In terms of contemporary politics, Ortega's victory is the closest to the U.S. border of Latin America's so-called "pink tide," and Ortega has made no secret of his alliance with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. If you think about it in geographic terms, the countries of Southern South America have recently demonstrated a remarkable degree of political and economic independence -- even a country like Chile, considered to be a model of responsible reformism allied with Washington, has refused to support the invasion of Iraq and refused to isolate Chavez. Further north, in the Andes, the region is up for grabs, with Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador led by leftists, and Peru and Colombia remaining in the U.S. camp. But Mesoamerica -- Mexico and Central America -- have remained secure, so far, bound to the U.S. by free-trade agreements.
Ortega's election could begin the thawing of this glacial hold the U.S. has on the region.
What are the chances that the former Guatemalan President and strongman Rios Montt who oversaw the military’s brutal campaign in the 1970s and 80s against Guatemala's indigenous population might one day be held accountable for his crimes?
I would say that question would best be answered by an insurance agent's actuarial table -- like Pinochet before his recent death, Rios Montt is of advanced age. I don’t know what the odds are of his surviving long enough to hold him accountable. While there has been some strengthening of the judicial process in Guatemala, there has not been the political will to bring him to justice.
Will the recent releases from prison of the deposed Panamanian President Manuel Noriega heal the wounds created by the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1990?
For wounds to heal, they have to be identified and exposed to air and light. That has yet to happen in the case of Panama, where the U.S. committed atrocities on a mass scale ? namely the brutal bombing of the poor neighborhoods of Corillo and San Miguelito, which were described by Panamanians as indiscriminate. The U.S. still claims only a few hundreds civilians died, but human rights organizations on the ground reported the killing of thousands, along with the creation of over 10,000 homeless. No white or rich neighborhoods in Panama City were bombed.
What is the significance of the rising tide of popularity of the "21st century Socialism" in Latin America? Is this an ideology or a real socio-political phenomenon with "grass roots" support or simply a populist ploy to consolidate power?
What you are seeing in Latin America, particularly in Venezuela, but elsewhere as well, is the return of the developmentalist state but now linked not so much to affiliated unions or peasant organizations but to the myriad "civil society" organizations that emerged in the 1990s to turn Latin America into the vanguard of the world’s anti-corporate social justice movement. There is a real synergy between, say, Evo Morales in Bolivia, or Chavez in Venezuela, and these diverse grassroots groups. I wouldn't describe it as a ploy at all -- and that Chavez notably refuses comparisons with someone like Juan Peron in Argentina is a good sign. In fact, whenever there has been a conflict between the official party and social-movement groups in Venezuela, Chavez has consistently sided with the latter.
Please briefly explain what role policy makers in Washington who masterminded the "Iran contra affair" in the 1980s under President Reagan played in orchestrating the military offensive against and occupation in Iraq?
There have been an untold number of books published on U.S. "regime change" in Latin America, and I didn't want "Empire's Workshop"--the book where I make this argument -- to be yet another.
I instead intended to examine the importance of Latin America in the formation of America's two great twentieth-century political coalitions, the New Deal and the New Right. The first chapter looks at how the ideas and institutions that came to define American multilateral "soft power" were first worked out in Latin America, largely as a result of local resistance to U.S. militarism. The rest of
the book focuses on the New Right's assault on these ideas and institutions in the wake of Vietnam.
And this is where Central America--and Iran-Contra -- comes in: Reagan's policy there served as the crucible where the alliances, ideas, and tactics that make up the modern New Right first fully took shape. I want to be clear that I am not saying Central America was more important to U.S. interests than, for instance, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, or Western Europe. On the contrary, its very unimportance allowed Reagan, even as he moved with moderation, even vacillation, in other parts of the world, to give the region as a cheap gift to movement conservatives. Their hard-line there was a form of wish fulfillment, how they hoped Washington would act against the USSR and other third-world hot spots.
In turn, a bellicose stance in Central America helped smooth over a number of potentially debilitating differences among the diverse groups that made up the gathering New Right, between, say, secular neocons and evangelical Christians.
Reagan's patronage of anticommunist insurgents in Nicaragua and death-squad states in El Salvador and Guatemala did more than just rehabilitate American "hard power"--it justified that power in evermore idealistic terms. This corresponded to the New Right's attempt to reclaim the diplomatic moral high ground, in response to both Kissinger's realpolitik and Carter's human rights diplomacy. It was in Central America where the Republican Party first fully embraced the language of human rights and democratization.
An instructive comparison is to Vietnam. There, as the war dragged on and atrocities were revealed, Washington gave up any pretense of idealism to justify its involvement. In Central America, the exact opposite occurred. Even after the press reported on Salvadoran and Contra carnage, even after the Iran-Contra story broke, Reagan upped the rhetorical ante, casting support for Contras as keeping faith with America's revolutionary heritage. This, I believe, is the most immediate antecedent to what some neocons like to call "hard Wilsonianism," or, as I put it in the book, Bush's "punitive idealism."
The role of neocons in this "remoralization" of American diplomacy has been widely noted. But Empire’s Workshop sheds light on the Christian Right's contribution as well. Again, Central America proved key. Republicans mobilized their fundamentalist base to check the anti-interventionist movement and to provide crucial "private" aid to anticommunist allies. This mobilization, in turn, both increased evangelical involvement in foreign policy and helped fuse the religious and secular branches of the New Right. Evangelicals shared with neocons a sense that America had grown dangerously weak, and that only a rebirth of political will, or spiritual renewal, would save it.
Their understanding of themselves as a persecuted people engaged in an end-time struggle between good and evil mapped easily onto the millennialism of anti-communist militarists, particularly those involved in Central America, many of whom, such as William Casey and Oliver North, were themselves ultraconservative Christians. One aspect of the Central American wars largely overlooked is the importance of Liberation Theology, along with the Christian humanism of the domestic solidarity movement, in united the New Right. Well before radical Islam, Liberation Theology was the "political religion" the Reagan Revolution squared off against. It provided a powerful ethical challenge to both mainstream conservative theologians and fundamentalists, who responded by reestablishing the link between free markets and morality and reaffirming America as a "redeemer nation."
So when Jeane Kirkpatrick remarked that the three U.S. nuns raped, mutilated and murdered by Salvadoran security forces in 1980 were "not just nuns, they were political activists," she was being more than cruel. She was signaling her disapproval of a particular kind of peace Christianity.
There's no space to go into it here, but "Empire's Workshop" also details how Central America provided the New Right an opportunity to rehearse the tactics that has led to today's restoration of the imperial presidency -- this is what the Iran-Contra scandal was really about, figuring out ways to bypass Congress to wage an aggressive, unaccountable war. The inter-agency war party built by the first generation of neocons in the 1980s set the stage for today's Office of
Special Plans in the Pentagon. Likewise, there is a direct line connecting Otto Reich's Office of Public Diplomacy -- which brought together PR experts with "grassroots" conservative organizations to manipulate media, congressional, scholarly, and public opinion -- to this administration's use of firms like the Rendon Group to sell the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.
Now that it is out, Empire's Workshop could be read as a compliment to studies that look at the domestic roots of the modern conservative movement, such as Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" some of which suggest that if "value" issues could just be neutralized, evangelicals would support a return to New Deal economics. This, I argue in the book, misses the role conservative Christian intellectuals played in laying the groundwork for today's embrace of
free-market empire as America's national purpose. "Empire's Workshop" can also be read as a missing link connecting books that focus on one or another conservative group to explain Bush's foreign policy -- Fukuyama on the neocons, for example, or Kevin Phillips on the fundamentalists -- but overlook the deeper history of the Salvadorization of American diplomacy.
Is the rise of Chavez's popular brand of socialism somewhat linked to or a backlash against the neo liberal policies in Latin America which originated with Milton Friedman and the other economist know as the "Chicago boys"?
Yes, you can't understand the rise of the New Latin American Left, unless you understand the absolute failure of radical free-market policies in Latin America over the last two decades. Between 1980 and 2000, the region grew cumulatively by only 9 percent in per capita terms. Compare that with the 82 percent expansion of the previous two decades, and add to it the financial crises that have rolled across Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina over the past 15 years, sweeping away accumulated savings, destroying the middle class, and wrecking the agricultural sector, and you will get a sense of why voters have turned left.
Please explain to us what the "Buenos Aires Consensus" is and how it may impact U.S Latin American relations?
The BAC is the term that the leaders of those countries have used to contrast their policies to those of the Washington Consensus -- the euphemism for the punishing mix of financial austerity, privatizations, and free-trade that has been imposed on Latin America. There are many policy differences among Latin America's new reformers, but they all share a commitment to diversify sources of investment and integrate Latin American markets (as a way of weakening their dependence on the U.S.) and of making the lessening of inequality -- as opposed to the generation of economic growth -- the primary goal of development.
Is America losing its hegemonic dominance in Latin America to China?
Not just China -- China does serve as an important source of capital investment, thus giving Latin American economies other options besides U.S. banks and the IMF to capitalize investment. But significant stores of capital has been built up throughout Asia, along with Russia and the Middle East, that has allowed leaders like Morales and Chavez, along with Kirchner in Argentina and now Rafael Correa in Ecuador, to have more leverage in their dealings with U.S. corporations.
[Interview] Professor Greg Grandin on the historical legacy of U.S. in the region
Michael Werbowski (minou)
Published 2007-02-06 03:54 (KST)
Professor Greg Grandin lectures on Latin American History at New York University and authored most recently "Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the rise of the new Imperialism." He has also previously written "The Last Colonial Massacre" and the award-winning "The Blood of Guatemala." Grandin is a 2004 recipient of the Guggenheim fellowship. He served on the United Nations truth commission investigating the Guatemalan civil war. Grandin's articles have appeared in Harper's, The Nation and The New York Times. He lives in New York.
How does Washington in your view, see the recent reelection of the Nicaraguan leader Daniel Ortega and former Sandinista? What does his return to power mean for U.S. Central American relations?
Obviously it is a challenge, both because of the history between the U.S. and Nicaragua, and because of Latin America's current politics, which has included the election of leftists and nationalists sharply critical, or at least politically independent, of Washington. In terms of the first, in the 1980s, the U.S. spent millions of dollars and patronized anti-communist mercenaries who killed tens of thousands of Nicaraguans in order to destabilize the Sandinista government and make its attempt at creating a more humane society untenable.
The U.S. promised Nicaragua -- and indeed all of Central America -- that life within its sphere of influence, both in terms of politics and economics, would be better than the policy of non-alignment and social-democratic economics that the Sandinistas offered. But here we are 16 years after the Sandinistas were voted out of power -- worn down and exhausted by fighting a war against the most powerful nation in the history of the world -- and Nicaragua is a basket case, the second poorest country in the hemisphere after Haiti.
That Nicaraguans withstood intense pressure and re-elected Ortega demonstrates the absolute failure of U.S. foreign policy to provide a decent life to even a small country of a few million people -- so what are the chances the U.S. would be able to do so in a region like the Middle East? That the Sandinistas remain the single most popular party in Nicaragua is evidence of the limits of U.S. power, especially when it is exercised purely in military terms, which is, after all, the favorite exercise of the neocons. A country as poor as Nicaragua, in a region long locked into the United States' sphere of influence, bucking Washington's diktats is an intolerable embarrassment.
Hundreds of thousands of Central Americans killed in the 1980s, tens of thousands of them disappeared, another hundred thousand tortured, and millions more driven into exile, and Nicaragua still refuses to genuflect to Washington's commands.
In terms of contemporary politics, Ortega's victory is the closest to the U.S. border of Latin America's so-called "pink tide," and Ortega has made no secret of his alliance with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. If you think about it in geographic terms, the countries of Southern South America have recently demonstrated a remarkable degree of political and economic independence -- even a country like Chile, considered to be a model of responsible reformism allied with Washington, has refused to support the invasion of Iraq and refused to isolate Chavez. Further north, in the Andes, the region is up for grabs, with Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador led by leftists, and Peru and Colombia remaining in the U.S. camp. But Mesoamerica -- Mexico and Central America -- have remained secure, so far, bound to the U.S. by free-trade agreements.
Ortega's election could begin the thawing of this glacial hold the U.S. has on the region.
What are the chances that the former Guatemalan President and strongman Rios Montt who oversaw the military’s brutal campaign in the 1970s and 80s against Guatemala's indigenous population might one day be held accountable for his crimes?
I would say that question would best be answered by an insurance agent's actuarial table -- like Pinochet before his recent death, Rios Montt is of advanced age. I don’t know what the odds are of his surviving long enough to hold him accountable. While there has been some strengthening of the judicial process in Guatemala, there has not been the political will to bring him to justice.
Will the recent releases from prison of the deposed Panamanian President Manuel Noriega heal the wounds created by the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1990?
For wounds to heal, they have to be identified and exposed to air and light. That has yet to happen in the case of Panama, where the U.S. committed atrocities on a mass scale ? namely the brutal bombing of the poor neighborhoods of Corillo and San Miguelito, which were described by Panamanians as indiscriminate. The U.S. still claims only a few hundreds civilians died, but human rights organizations on the ground reported the killing of thousands, along with the creation of over 10,000 homeless. No white or rich neighborhoods in Panama City were bombed.
What is the significance of the rising tide of popularity of the "21st century Socialism" in Latin America? Is this an ideology or a real socio-political phenomenon with "grass roots" support or simply a populist ploy to consolidate power?
What you are seeing in Latin America, particularly in Venezuela, but elsewhere as well, is the return of the developmentalist state but now linked not so much to affiliated unions or peasant organizations but to the myriad "civil society" organizations that emerged in the 1990s to turn Latin America into the vanguard of the world’s anti-corporate social justice movement. There is a real synergy between, say, Evo Morales in Bolivia, or Chavez in Venezuela, and these diverse grassroots groups. I wouldn't describe it as a ploy at all -- and that Chavez notably refuses comparisons with someone like Juan Peron in Argentina is a good sign. In fact, whenever there has been a conflict between the official party and social-movement groups in Venezuela, Chavez has consistently sided with the latter.
Please briefly explain what role policy makers in Washington who masterminded the "Iran contra affair" in the 1980s under President Reagan played in orchestrating the military offensive against and occupation in Iraq?
There have been an untold number of books published on U.S. "regime change" in Latin America, and I didn't want "Empire's Workshop"--the book where I make this argument -- to be yet another.
I instead intended to examine the importance of Latin America in the formation of America's two great twentieth-century political coalitions, the New Deal and the New Right. The first chapter looks at how the ideas and institutions that came to define American multilateral "soft power" were first worked out in Latin America, largely as a result of local resistance to U.S. militarism. The rest of
the book focuses on the New Right's assault on these ideas and institutions in the wake of Vietnam.
And this is where Central America--and Iran-Contra -- comes in: Reagan's policy there served as the crucible where the alliances, ideas, and tactics that make up the modern New Right first fully took shape. I want to be clear that I am not saying Central America was more important to U.S. interests than, for instance, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, or Western Europe. On the contrary, its very unimportance allowed Reagan, even as he moved with moderation, even vacillation, in other parts of the world, to give the region as a cheap gift to movement conservatives. Their hard-line there was a form of wish fulfillment, how they hoped Washington would act against the USSR and other third-world hot spots.
In turn, a bellicose stance in Central America helped smooth over a number of potentially debilitating differences among the diverse groups that made up the gathering New Right, between, say, secular neocons and evangelical Christians.
Reagan's patronage of anticommunist insurgents in Nicaragua and death-squad states in El Salvador and Guatemala did more than just rehabilitate American "hard power"--it justified that power in evermore idealistic terms. This corresponded to the New Right's attempt to reclaim the diplomatic moral high ground, in response to both Kissinger's realpolitik and Carter's human rights diplomacy. It was in Central America where the Republican Party first fully embraced the language of human rights and democratization.
An instructive comparison is to Vietnam. There, as the war dragged on and atrocities were revealed, Washington gave up any pretense of idealism to justify its involvement. In Central America, the exact opposite occurred. Even after the press reported on Salvadoran and Contra carnage, even after the Iran-Contra story broke, Reagan upped the rhetorical ante, casting support for Contras as keeping faith with America's revolutionary heritage. This, I believe, is the most immediate antecedent to what some neocons like to call "hard Wilsonianism," or, as I put it in the book, Bush's "punitive idealism."
The role of neocons in this "remoralization" of American diplomacy has been widely noted. But Empire’s Workshop sheds light on the Christian Right's contribution as well. Again, Central America proved key. Republicans mobilized their fundamentalist base to check the anti-interventionist movement and to provide crucial "private" aid to anticommunist allies. This mobilization, in turn, both increased evangelical involvement in foreign policy and helped fuse the religious and secular branches of the New Right. Evangelicals shared with neocons a sense that America had grown dangerously weak, and that only a rebirth of political will, or spiritual renewal, would save it.
Their understanding of themselves as a persecuted people engaged in an end-time struggle between good and evil mapped easily onto the millennialism of anti-communist militarists, particularly those involved in Central America, many of whom, such as William Casey and Oliver North, were themselves ultraconservative Christians. One aspect of the Central American wars largely overlooked is the importance of Liberation Theology, along with the Christian humanism of the domestic solidarity movement, in united the New Right. Well before radical Islam, Liberation Theology was the "political religion" the Reagan Revolution squared off against. It provided a powerful ethical challenge to both mainstream conservative theologians and fundamentalists, who responded by reestablishing the link between free markets and morality and reaffirming America as a "redeemer nation."
So when Jeane Kirkpatrick remarked that the three U.S. nuns raped, mutilated and murdered by Salvadoran security forces in 1980 were "not just nuns, they were political activists," she was being more than cruel. She was signaling her disapproval of a particular kind of peace Christianity.
There's no space to go into it here, but "Empire's Workshop" also details how Central America provided the New Right an opportunity to rehearse the tactics that has led to today's restoration of the imperial presidency -- this is what the Iran-Contra scandal was really about, figuring out ways to bypass Congress to wage an aggressive, unaccountable war. The inter-agency war party built by the first generation of neocons in the 1980s set the stage for today's Office of
Special Plans in the Pentagon. Likewise, there is a direct line connecting Otto Reich's Office of Public Diplomacy -- which brought together PR experts with "grassroots" conservative organizations to manipulate media, congressional, scholarly, and public opinion -- to this administration's use of firms like the Rendon Group to sell the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.
Now that it is out, Empire's Workshop could be read as a compliment to studies that look at the domestic roots of the modern conservative movement, such as Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" some of which suggest that if "value" issues could just be neutralized, evangelicals would support a return to New Deal economics. This, I argue in the book, misses the role conservative Christian intellectuals played in laying the groundwork for today's embrace of
free-market empire as America's national purpose. "Empire's Workshop" can also be read as a missing link connecting books that focus on one or another conservative group to explain Bush's foreign policy -- Fukuyama on the neocons, for example, or Kevin Phillips on the fundamentalists -- but overlook the deeper history of the Salvadorization of American diplomacy.
Is the rise of Chavez's popular brand of socialism somewhat linked to or a backlash against the neo liberal policies in Latin America which originated with Milton Friedman and the other economist know as the "Chicago boys"?
Yes, you can't understand the rise of the New Latin American Left, unless you understand the absolute failure of radical free-market policies in Latin America over the last two decades. Between 1980 and 2000, the region grew cumulatively by only 9 percent in per capita terms. Compare that with the 82 percent expansion of the previous two decades, and add to it the financial crises that have rolled across Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina over the past 15 years, sweeping away accumulated savings, destroying the middle class, and wrecking the agricultural sector, and you will get a sense of why voters have turned left.
Please explain to us what the "Buenos Aires Consensus" is and how it may impact U.S Latin American relations?
The BAC is the term that the leaders of those countries have used to contrast their policies to those of the Washington Consensus -- the euphemism for the punishing mix of financial austerity, privatizations, and free-trade that has been imposed on Latin America. There are many policy differences among Latin America's new reformers, but they all share a commitment to diversify sources of investment and integrate Latin American markets (as a way of weakening their dependence on the U.S.) and of making the lessening of inequality -- as opposed to the generation of economic growth -- the primary goal of development.
Is America losing its hegemonic dominance in Latin America to China?
Not just China -- China does serve as an important source of capital investment, thus giving Latin American economies other options besides U.S. banks and the IMF to capitalize investment. But significant stores of capital has been built up throughout Asia, along with Russia and the Middle East, that has allowed leaders like Morales and Chavez, along with Kirchner in Argentina and now Rafael Correa in Ecuador, to have more leverage in their dealings with U.S. corporations.
Mexico: a spectacular trip
A Trip to Mexico
A journey to one of the most beautful countries in the Americas
Alfredo Ascanio (askain)
Published 2007-02-10 17:17 (KST)
One Saturday morning in May my daughter Marisela went to my wife Judith's room on the second floor of our house in Venezuela. The sunlight pooled and dropped through the narrow slats in the window shutters.
"It'll be a devil of a job to persuade Dad to go on this trip," she said, addressing Judith.
"Everyone should go to Mexico once a year," replied my wife. She is Mexican and an ardent nationalist.
They went to speak to me about it, and I thought a while as I sat in a wicker chair on the porch. The light had slowly come some distance before I decided on an answer.
"It would be wiser to save for a rainy day," I said, after some thought.
Judith insisted.
"Don't fool around any more Alfredo and come to Mexico. It's a long time since we have seen our family there."
No one is as persuasive as my wife, so it was easier to give in than to quarrel.
"OK, your wish is my command, with a month in Mexico City and Cuernavaca you'll regain peace of mind," I affirmed, glad to finish the controversy.
We were very tired because we had worked hard all year round, so we decided to take a rest for one whole month.
Planning the trip was a family affair. We discussed the day we could leave, the clothes we would wear to cope with the heat, whether we would stay in my wife's sister's apartment or the house of the cousins in Cuernavaca, and how long we would remain there.
After we had thoroughly discussed the matter we decided to leave on Monday morning at 9 a.m. It was a very beautiful morning and the weather in Caracas was fine.
We had a very pleasant five-hour flight with the Mexican state airline, arriving in Mexico in the late afternoon. The further we went from Venezuela the more we entered into the holiday spirit.
Mexico is one of the most beautiful countries in the Americas. If you want to live there you can choose whichever climate suits you best. If you like hot weather you can live near the sea, if you want something different you can stay in Cuernavaca, in the heart of the country. In that city it is neither too cold nor too hot. That is why they call it the city of the eternal spring.
There are only two seasons in Mexico. A rainy season lasting from June to September and a dry one going from October to May. The rains are very heavy but of very short duration and after they stop the sun shines again.
Mexican towns are very agreeable. Cuernavaca is full of sunshine and there are lovely flowers everywhere. They sell all kinds of craftsmanship in their markets once a week.
Tourists are treated to a rich cultural heritage. There is a 16th-century fort that once belonged to the conquistador Hernan Cortes, and a morning's car ride away there is the ancient archaeological site of Xochicalco. It was built by the indigenous people of the area many centuries before the arrival of the Europeans.
Mexico City, 85 kilometers to the north, is different to Cuernavaca. It has long wide avenues with grand names like "La Reforma", "Insurgentes" and "La Alameda." There are many modern and tall buildings, but also beautiful well-conserved constructions preserved from its historical patrimony. There has been a city here since the first half of the 14th century, before the arrival of Hernan Cortes.
The streets are always hustling and bustling with people. The crowds of eager tourists add numbers to a city that already has well over 8 million inhabitants.
If you visit Mexico City you should be prepared for some transportation frustration. It's very difficult to find and get a taxi, simply because there are too many people and very few taxis! The best way for tourists to get around is for them to use special double-decker buses.
There are many beautiful parks in the city but "Chapultetepec" is just wonderful, with its special museum of anthropology and history. Everything there is pleasant to your eyes. I enjoyed the old and tall trees and the big multicolored flowers.
Mexican food is delicious. They prepare many different dishes: "tortillas," "tacos," "enchiladas," "mole poblano," "guacamole," and "tamales." Some people do not like these dishes because they are heavily seasoned and hot. "Tamales" is the main dish and "tequila" the main drink.
A very special place in Mexico City that pleases us is "the Pink Zone" (Zona Rosa in Spanish).
It is a captivating place, iridescent with many lights. Shoppers love the intoxicating displays in shop window after shop window, and the multicolored dazzle of the finest craft objects gathered from every corner of the nation. It is a center of cosmopolitan gaiety, filled with conversations in many languages.
As night falls the area's neon signs tempt the passerby with a diversity of pleasures. There are open-air cafes, fine restaurants offering the cuisines of many nationalities of the East and West, discotheques, art galleries, hotels, movie theaters, boutiques, and bookstores. It is truly a delightful and colorful experience.
I was glad that Judith persuaded me to go. Sometimes I think:
"Everybody who visits Mexico City and Cuernavaca for the first time wishes to go for a second time because Mexicans are very nice people and are also great singers. They always sing when they are glad, sad or angry. The music of the 'Mariachis' is something you never forget."
©2007 OhmyNews
miércoles, febrero 07, 2007
MAGIAS y TRUCOS
A ustedes que les gusta la magia y los buenos trucos se van a sorprender con este trabajo de Criss Angel.
Busca en Artículos más leídos: Criss Angel enseña cómo levitar.
Mercosur: discusion con los antropologos
Si hacen Clik arriba encontrarán la información para participar en el foro de Mercosur que organizan los antropólogos.
martes, febrero 06, 2007
China to Pass Landmark Property Law
China to Pass Landmark Property Law
[Interview] Zhang Weiying,
Dean of Peking University's Management School
Sunny Lee (sunnylee)
Published 2007-01-27 07:21 (KST)
China's parliament is set to discuss a landmark property law when it meets in March. Beijing is thus one step closer to approving the newest draft version of the legislation, which has been reworked seven times because of its apparent capitalistic penchant which conflicts with China's socialist orientation.
The law to protect private property has been a political hot potato in China where state ownership still dominates key parts of the economy.
Zhang Weiying, dean of Guanghua School of Management at Peking University, said he believes the bill would pass the parliament.
"The parliament will pass the law. That will be a very important signal," he said in a recent interview.
Zhang said passing the bill will "give more confidence" to China's rising entrepreneurs, who are "crucial" for China's economic development.
"When people have security, they will know what they will get. They will be more motivated to work, make more money and invest," he said.
Zhang said a well-adopted property law can be a tool for a value creation and wealth redistribution.
"But the danger is some people are very anti-business," and there is ideological resistance, Zhang said, adding there may be "some important changes" likely to be made in the 17th Communist Party Congress in September.
"The leadership...can do something, which they couldn't do before... The top leaders may become braver in implementing reform policies," Zhang said without elaborating.
Zhang said recently Chinese economy has become easier to predict, with the economy has been less dominated by the government.
"That is a much nicer system. Unlike the government, when the private sector makes an investment, they look at it with a relatively long-term perspective...That was the reason the economy has become more stable. So, it is easy to predict this year's economy," he said.
Zhang said he is "confident" the economy this year will grow similar to last year's level, citing stable labor supply and improved productivity that he expects to last for a few years to come.
Zhang said he disagrees with some China watchers who think China's economy will start sliding after the 2008 Olympic Games as the high-expectation bubble up to the world event will go burst once it ends.
Instead, Zhang said China's economy will still be able to grow between 8 and 10 percent after the 2008 Olympic Games, buoyed by strong demands in both domestic and global markets.
"We do not expect any big change even after the Olympic games. (There will be) still a strong demand and supply," Zhang said.
China Has A Long Way To Go
Meanwhile, Zhang said China has "a lot of things to do" before to be really a market economy. "I don't think it's a market economy yet in a strict sense." He said, for example, the capital market and land market are still highly controlled by the government.
When asked when he expects China to get a market economy status from the U.S., he said, "China doesn't need to worry about that. America will eventually recognize China as a market economy. Now it is too much political."
Zhang said there is no good solution for the trade dispute between China and America because essentially "this is a political game. Each government thinks and raises voices strategically. Politics needs confrontation."
"I think the confrontation will continue," Zhang said.
In 2006, China's trade surplus jumped 74 percent from 2005 to hit a record US$177.47 billion, which will likely encourage further American pressures on Beijing to let the yuan appreciate at a faster pace.
China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai said reducing China's trade surplus will be a key task for 2007.
China is making its own effort to gradually move toward a more open economy, Zhang said. "The government now cannot fully control the (economy's) brake any more," which he said reflects a "fundamental" change.
"We're becoming better students of Adam Smith," Zhang said.
©2007 OhmyNew
[Interview] Zhang Weiying,
Dean of Peking University's Management School
Sunny Lee (sunnylee)
Published 2007-01-27 07:21 (KST)
China's parliament is set to discuss a landmark property law when it meets in March. Beijing is thus one step closer to approving the newest draft version of the legislation, which has been reworked seven times because of its apparent capitalistic penchant which conflicts with China's socialist orientation.
The law to protect private property has been a political hot potato in China where state ownership still dominates key parts of the economy.
Zhang Weiying, dean of Guanghua School of Management at Peking University, said he believes the bill would pass the parliament.
"The parliament will pass the law. That will be a very important signal," he said in a recent interview.
Zhang said passing the bill will "give more confidence" to China's rising entrepreneurs, who are "crucial" for China's economic development.
"When people have security, they will know what they will get. They will be more motivated to work, make more money and invest," he said.
Zhang said a well-adopted property law can be a tool for a value creation and wealth redistribution.
"But the danger is some people are very anti-business," and there is ideological resistance, Zhang said, adding there may be "some important changes" likely to be made in the 17th Communist Party Congress in September.
"The leadership...can do something, which they couldn't do before... The top leaders may become braver in implementing reform policies," Zhang said without elaborating.
Zhang said recently Chinese economy has become easier to predict, with the economy has been less dominated by the government.
"That is a much nicer system. Unlike the government, when the private sector makes an investment, they look at it with a relatively long-term perspective...That was the reason the economy has become more stable. So, it is easy to predict this year's economy," he said.
Zhang said he is "confident" the economy this year will grow similar to last year's level, citing stable labor supply and improved productivity that he expects to last for a few years to come.
Zhang said he disagrees with some China watchers who think China's economy will start sliding after the 2008 Olympic Games as the high-expectation bubble up to the world event will go burst once it ends.
Instead, Zhang said China's economy will still be able to grow between 8 and 10 percent after the 2008 Olympic Games, buoyed by strong demands in both domestic and global markets.
"We do not expect any big change even after the Olympic games. (There will be) still a strong demand and supply," Zhang said.
China Has A Long Way To Go
Meanwhile, Zhang said China has "a lot of things to do" before to be really a market economy. "I don't think it's a market economy yet in a strict sense." He said, for example, the capital market and land market are still highly controlled by the government.
When asked when he expects China to get a market economy status from the U.S., he said, "China doesn't need to worry about that. America will eventually recognize China as a market economy. Now it is too much political."
Zhang said there is no good solution for the trade dispute between China and America because essentially "this is a political game. Each government thinks and raises voices strategically. Politics needs confrontation."
"I think the confrontation will continue," Zhang said.
In 2006, China's trade surplus jumped 74 percent from 2005 to hit a record US$177.47 billion, which will likely encourage further American pressures on Beijing to let the yuan appreciate at a faster pace.
China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai said reducing China's trade surplus will be a key task for 2007.
China is making its own effort to gradually move toward a more open economy, Zhang said. "The government now cannot fully control the (economy's) brake any more," which he said reflects a "fundamental" change.
"We're becoming better students of Adam Smith," Zhang said.
©2007 OhmyNew
lunes, febrero 05, 2007
Cambio climático: lo que ya sabíamos
Cambio climático: lo que ya sabíamos
ESTEBAN ARLUCEA
PROFESOR DE DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA UPV
El Informe del cambio climático
Un día después del anecdótico apagón eléctrico de cinco minutos se ha presentado en la sede de la Unesco en París un avance del último informe (el cuarto) del llamado Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático de la ONU (IPCC en su acrónimo inglés).
En honor a la verdad, he de reconocer que todos los medios de comunicación se hicieron eco de la noticia que colmó los arranques de todos los noticiarios de ayer. De suyo, un buen acontecimiento si no fuera por lo que el contenido del
avance de este estudio -realizado, entre redacción y revisiones, por más de 1.200 científicos- pone de relieve: que aun siendo una parte insignificante de este planeta redondo, cerrado y finito, como muy literariamente nos ha recordado Muñoz Molina en su reciente 'El viento de la Luna', somos los responsables cuasi en exclusiva (90%) de lo que acaece en él.
Retroceso de la civilización
Claro que esto para un racionalista antropocentrismo no es un dato que deba llevarnos a reflexión alguna, pero para quienes
sostenemos el valor éticamente intrínseco de todo cuanto nos rodea, no es sino la confirmación de sospechas y sensaciones que nos hablan del paulatino retroceso de nuestra moderna civilización. Término que, derivado del latino 'civis' (ciudadano, persona en definitiva), mal habla de que continuemos conduciéndonos en el único espacio físico que conocemos y podemos (la Tierra) de una manera que nos lleva a nuestra propia destrucción o, en el mejor de los escenarios, a un notabilísimo
incremento de perjuicios.
Y llegados a este punto de denunciada difícil vuelta atrás, cuando menos por los efectos a largo plazo sobre la naturaleza, las declaraciones de nuestros responsables políticos se tiñen de una insolente inocencia:
Todavía tenemos pesimismo
Necesitábamos la confirmación global y objetiva de la ciencia para, ahora sí, actuar plenamente en consecuencia, aunque ya hayamos ido dando pasos en tales sentidos', es lo que, en resumidas cuentas, vienen a decir. Sin embargo, albergo la sospecha de que en modo alguno ello va a suceder así, principalmente porque pensar hoy en día en el poder político como uno autónomo es una mezcolanza de desconocimiento e ingenuidad a partes iguales.
El poder político (donde lo hay) está sumisamente supeditado al económico. Los dictados del G-8, OMC, Banco Mundial y otras organizaciones menos nombradas penetran más, y más rápidamente, en nuestras vidas que la ley para el fomento de la cultura de la paz, por poner un ejemplo. Es cierto que para quien ha querido ver los datos, ahí estaban. Este panel de expertos simplemente se ha limitado a ordenarlos y presentarlos (como otros muchos antes) en sociedad. Y el cuadro que esbozan es desolador: cambio climático, incremento de desastres naturales, deshielo, aumento de temperaturas, y todo ello y más, relacionado con la especie humana. Esto es lo que el 2 de febrero ha saltado a la palestra, que no es poco.
Desde el año 1972 y no ha pasado nada
Nada nuevo, como digo, al menos desde 1972, fecha de la celebración de la Cumbre de Estocolmo precedida por cierta carta que dirigió Mansholt al presidente de la Comisión de la CEE (Malfatti), advirtiéndole de la incompatibilidad de nuestro modo de producir y la supervivencia del ser humano en el planeta. Evento que inaugura una forma internacional de intentar afrontar ciertos problemas, asimismo, internacionales. Sin embargo, para esa fecha la estructuralidad de la forma de producción y consumo occidental, origen fundamental de estas consecuencias, no admitía más rivales que el decadente socialismo soviético, y el planteamiento originario de esta cumbre parecía suponerlo, de modo que no se le negó el tutelar auxilio de la Secretaría del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio (GATT) en su preparación. No es
casualidad, pues, que su declaración final no cuestionara para nada los modelos industrial y económico imperantes. Sus repeticiones en 1992 y 2002 no han concluido sino con meros eufemismos sobre la salud del planeta, perdiéndose lo que ya el organizador de la Cumbre de Río hace quince años llamó la última oportunidad para salvarlo.
Se ignoran los impactos
Contrariamente, desde otros sectores alternativos se han ido emitiendo propuestas, pero, desgraciadamente, han resultado ignoradas o reconvertidas a la lógica del sistema, perdiéndose con ello toda su fuerza transformadora. Es lo que ha sucedido con el Protocolo de Kioto de 1997 sobre limitación de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, que tanta responsabilidad ostentan en el denominado cambio climático: la bondad de la idea ha sido pervertida al traducirse a un sistema exclusivamente economicista de compraventa de derechos de contaminación, cuyo resultado -no podría ser otro- es un incremento de las emisiones y de los beneficios económicos globales asociados (sin ir más lejos, es el caso de España, que ha visto incrementado su porcentaje de emisiones de CO2 en un 15% respecto a los valores de 1990, aunque, de seguir su
política como hasta el momento, podrían ser superiores en un 60% a finales de 2012).
Un desarrollo erróneo
El avance de este cuarto informe pone de manifiesto, pues, lo erróneo del camino recorrido a base de una interesada transformación del concepto de desarrollo sostenible en sólo desarrollo limitado cuantitativamente. La socialización del uso de los combustibles fósiles y su asunción como algo imprescindible para nuestro modus vivendi acarrean un precio impagable como planeta -vienen a decir sus conclusiones- y toda apuesta por los mismos desprecia la realidad en la
que desde hace unas décadas nos hallamos inmersos, que la modificación de sus efectos ya sólo se encuentra en parte en nuestras manos.
Así que hoy más que nunca cobra especial sentido la constatación de Desmond Morris cuando atribuía a nuestro proceso descivilizatorio el que continuáramos siendo ese sencillo animal tribal de hace varios miles de años, recriado al calor de su feroz industrialismo esquilmador, que se considera aparte, por encima y propietario del planeta.
ESTEBAN ARLUCEA
PROFESOR DE DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA UPV
El Informe del cambio climático
Un día después del anecdótico apagón eléctrico de cinco minutos se ha presentado en la sede de la Unesco en París un avance del último informe (el cuarto) del llamado Panel Intergubernamental sobre el Cambio Climático de la ONU (IPCC en su acrónimo inglés).
En honor a la verdad, he de reconocer que todos los medios de comunicación se hicieron eco de la noticia que colmó los arranques de todos los noticiarios de ayer. De suyo, un buen acontecimiento si no fuera por lo que el contenido del
avance de este estudio -realizado, entre redacción y revisiones, por más de 1.200 científicos- pone de relieve: que aun siendo una parte insignificante de este planeta redondo, cerrado y finito, como muy literariamente nos ha recordado Muñoz Molina en su reciente 'El viento de la Luna', somos los responsables cuasi en exclusiva (90%) de lo que acaece en él.
Retroceso de la civilización
Claro que esto para un racionalista antropocentrismo no es un dato que deba llevarnos a reflexión alguna, pero para quienes
sostenemos el valor éticamente intrínseco de todo cuanto nos rodea, no es sino la confirmación de sospechas y sensaciones que nos hablan del paulatino retroceso de nuestra moderna civilización. Término que, derivado del latino 'civis' (ciudadano, persona en definitiva), mal habla de que continuemos conduciéndonos en el único espacio físico que conocemos y podemos (la Tierra) de una manera que nos lleva a nuestra propia destrucción o, en el mejor de los escenarios, a un notabilísimo
incremento de perjuicios.
Y llegados a este punto de denunciada difícil vuelta atrás, cuando menos por los efectos a largo plazo sobre la naturaleza, las declaraciones de nuestros responsables políticos se tiñen de una insolente inocencia:
Todavía tenemos pesimismo
Necesitábamos la confirmación global y objetiva de la ciencia para, ahora sí, actuar plenamente en consecuencia, aunque ya hayamos ido dando pasos en tales sentidos', es lo que, en resumidas cuentas, vienen a decir. Sin embargo, albergo la sospecha de que en modo alguno ello va a suceder así, principalmente porque pensar hoy en día en el poder político como uno autónomo es una mezcolanza de desconocimiento e ingenuidad a partes iguales.
El poder político (donde lo hay) está sumisamente supeditado al económico. Los dictados del G-8, OMC, Banco Mundial y otras organizaciones menos nombradas penetran más, y más rápidamente, en nuestras vidas que la ley para el fomento de la cultura de la paz, por poner un ejemplo. Es cierto que para quien ha querido ver los datos, ahí estaban. Este panel de expertos simplemente se ha limitado a ordenarlos y presentarlos (como otros muchos antes) en sociedad. Y el cuadro que esbozan es desolador: cambio climático, incremento de desastres naturales, deshielo, aumento de temperaturas, y todo ello y más, relacionado con la especie humana. Esto es lo que el 2 de febrero ha saltado a la palestra, que no es poco.
Desde el año 1972 y no ha pasado nada
Nada nuevo, como digo, al menos desde 1972, fecha de la celebración de la Cumbre de Estocolmo precedida por cierta carta que dirigió Mansholt al presidente de la Comisión de la CEE (Malfatti), advirtiéndole de la incompatibilidad de nuestro modo de producir y la supervivencia del ser humano en el planeta. Evento que inaugura una forma internacional de intentar afrontar ciertos problemas, asimismo, internacionales. Sin embargo, para esa fecha la estructuralidad de la forma de producción y consumo occidental, origen fundamental de estas consecuencias, no admitía más rivales que el decadente socialismo soviético, y el planteamiento originario de esta cumbre parecía suponerlo, de modo que no se le negó el tutelar auxilio de la Secretaría del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio (GATT) en su preparación. No es
casualidad, pues, que su declaración final no cuestionara para nada los modelos industrial y económico imperantes. Sus repeticiones en 1992 y 2002 no han concluido sino con meros eufemismos sobre la salud del planeta, perdiéndose lo que ya el organizador de la Cumbre de Río hace quince años llamó la última oportunidad para salvarlo.
Se ignoran los impactos
Contrariamente, desde otros sectores alternativos se han ido emitiendo propuestas, pero, desgraciadamente, han resultado ignoradas o reconvertidas a la lógica del sistema, perdiéndose con ello toda su fuerza transformadora. Es lo que ha sucedido con el Protocolo de Kioto de 1997 sobre limitación de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, que tanta responsabilidad ostentan en el denominado cambio climático: la bondad de la idea ha sido pervertida al traducirse a un sistema exclusivamente economicista de compraventa de derechos de contaminación, cuyo resultado -no podría ser otro- es un incremento de las emisiones y de los beneficios económicos globales asociados (sin ir más lejos, es el caso de España, que ha visto incrementado su porcentaje de emisiones de CO2 en un 15% respecto a los valores de 1990, aunque, de seguir su
política como hasta el momento, podrían ser superiores en un 60% a finales de 2012).
Un desarrollo erróneo
El avance de este cuarto informe pone de manifiesto, pues, lo erróneo del camino recorrido a base de una interesada transformación del concepto de desarrollo sostenible en sólo desarrollo limitado cuantitativamente. La socialización del uso de los combustibles fósiles y su asunción como algo imprescindible para nuestro modus vivendi acarrean un precio impagable como planeta -vienen a decir sus conclusiones- y toda apuesta por los mismos desprecia la realidad en la
que desde hace unas décadas nos hallamos inmersos, que la modificación de sus efectos ya sólo se encuentra en parte en nuestras manos.
Así que hoy más que nunca cobra especial sentido la constatación de Desmond Morris cuando atribuía a nuestro proceso descivilizatorio el que continuáramos siendo ese sencillo animal tribal de hace varios miles de años, recriado al calor de su feroz industrialismo esquilmador, que se considera aparte, por encima y propietario del planeta.
China y los cambios climaticos
Los medios chinos silencian los efectos del cambio climático
PABLO M. DÍEZ.
CORRESPONSAL
PEKÍN.
En medio de humeantes chimeneas y bajo un cielo gris y cubierto por una neblina que oculta permanentemente el sol, los chinos continuaban trabajando ayer completamente ajenos a las serias advertencias lanzadas durante los últimos días por el Panel Intergubernamental del Cambio Climático (IPCC), que han relacionado de manera directa e inequívoca el calentamiento global con la mano del hombre.
Silencio en los medios de comunicación
A pesar de que el gigante asiático es uno de los países que más nota debería tomar del aviso efectuado por los expertos internacionales reunidos en París, los principales medios de comunicación chinos han silenciado sus conclusiones, que no han sido difundidas por la televisión estatal ni por los grandes rotativos y sólo han sido
recogidas brevemente por un par de periódicos.
Se trata de un ejemplo más del control que ejerce el régimen comunista de Pekín sobre los medios de comunicación, en los que sólo aparecen las noticias que el gobierno quiere airear. Y, evidentemente, la responsabilidad del ser humano en la alteración del clima no es una de ellas.
Primer contaminante
No en vano, China se convirtió durante el año 2005 en el primer país emisor de sustancias contaminantes al liberar a la atmósfera 25,49 millones de toneladas de dióxido de azufre, motivo por lo que es uno de los países que más contribuye a generar gases de efecto invernadero junto a Estados Unidos, Japón, la India, Australia y Corea del Sur, todos ellos críticos con el informe del IPCC y sus principales conclusiones.
Se ignora el Protocolo de Kioto
Pero, aunque China ha firmado y ratificado el Protocolo de Kioto para reducir dichos gases, sus fábricas y centrales térmicas -que queman carbón para suministrar el 80 por ciento de la electricidad que requiere su desenfrenado crecimiento económico- seguirán contaminando como hasta ahora. El motivo es que, al ser todavía un país en vías de desarrollo,
el coloso oriental se ve eximido de recortar sus emisiones porque esta tarea compete sólo a las naciones plenamente industrializadas.
Una peligrosa excepción que, establecida para facilitar el progreso de potencias emergentes como China, la India o Brasil, puede acabar pasándole factura al planeta Tierra porque Pekín ya ha reconocido su fracaso en la protección del medioambiente. Y es que, tras un cuarto de siglo de «milagro» económico, la "fábrica global» se encuentra tan contaminada que la lluvia ácida ya riega un tercio de su superficie y el 27% de sus 341 mayores urbes padecen unos niveles de polución en el aire :«muy peligrosos», al tiempo que el 70% de sus ríos y lagos están seriamente degradados y 300 millones de habitantes no tienen agua potable.
Los Impactos
Además de causar la muerte de 400.000 personas al año por enfermedades pulmonares y cardiovasculares, la contaminación amenaza con hipotecar los gastos sanitarios en el futuro y colapsar el altísimo crecimiento económico de China, puesto que los costes medioambientales ya suponen el 10 por ciento de su Producto Interior Bruto (PIB).
domingo, febrero 04, 2007
Hugo Chavez: The Electoral Phenomenon
Hugo Chavez: The Electoral Phenomenon
By Alek Boyd
Introduction
No book about contemporary politics of Venezuela can negate the fact that Hugo Chavez is an electoral phenomenon. Having won every electoral process in which he, his parties or candidates have participated since his first victory in 1998, Chavez embodies the exception to the rule that has that incumbents tend to suffer a decline in support as time elapses. In his case the contrary has actually happened, which may suggest that either Chavez is the most successful politico the modern world has seen or that his electoral victories are direct consequence of a power-hoarding model of governance similar to those encountered in dictatorships. It is my intention to unravel which of the two premises is closer to Venezuela ’s current political reality.
The Political Landscape
The 1998 presidential race: Hugo Chavez first democratic victory came about in December 1998; however his career in politics started well before that in the army. After more than 10 years of conspiration Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez launched with a number of military companions a coup d’etat against a democratically elected administration on 4 February 1992 . Rampant corruption and purported neoliberal policies implemented by then president Carlos Andres Perez have been cited by Hugo Chavez as the reasons for his attempt. One policy had caused slum dwellers to react violently; an increase in gasoline prices, which caused transport fares to surge overnight. The many deaths –exact figure unknown until this day- caused by the implementation of a military contingency plan (Plan Avila) to placate the rioting mobs in Caracas on 27 February 1989 was the trigger for the putschists to accelerate the bid to gain power by unlawful means.
A poorly designed plan coupled with utterly inefficient leaders in charge of perpetrating it resulted in a fiasco. But despite his failure Chavez’s political persona was catapulted to stardom thanks to the media; his brief televised address to the nation, negotiated upon betrayal of his companions while hiding in Caracas ’ Museo Militar from where he was conducting the coup, turned him instantly into an icon. At the time there was consensus on the need to change the establishment, and Venezuelans for the most part, being only too prone for quick fixes, thought that the military adventure spearheaded by Chavez was not only commendable but a realistic solution to the country’s many social and political problems.
Jailed and pardoned at a latter date without having gone through trial by Carlos Andres Perez’s successor Rafael Caldera, upon regaining freedom Chavez made his first trip to Cuba in December 1994. Dictator Fidel Castro saw in him a window of opportunity. After the fall of his communist patrons in the Soviet Union an impoverished and abated Castro found himself resource less, the umbilical cord that maintained his communist revolution financially and militarily had been cut. However there he was, a young, charismatic, gullible soldier from the province, eager to implement in Venezuela a replica of Castro’s Animal Farm, something that the Cuban had not been able to achieve in its heyday. The dictator received his would-be apprentice like a hero and carefully laid the foundations of what would become a paternal sort of relationship. The prospect of controlling Venezuela ’s vast resources via a proxy was just what the dictator needed to oxygenate his failed revolution.
Chavez’s active involvement in politics started in earnest in 1995. Convinced of the dysfunctional status of the Venezuelan State he advocated for abstention, for a conscious effort of withdrawing support and citizen participation in electoral processes whose victors did not have the interests and needs of the population at heart. In many quarters of society his was a respected position. Politicians that had never been in positions of power in Venezuela jumped in the popular bandwagon, the goal being to tame Chavez and turn him into an obedient colleague, part of the crooked crew as it were.
Similarly powerful businessmen and media tycoons could not help themselves and boarded the train, supporting the coupster. It is a known fact for instance that Chavez lived in Miguel Henrique Otero’s house [owner of daily El Nacional] and traveled around the country in a plane lent by Henry Boulton [owner of extinct Avensa & Servivensa], which exemplifies the sort of appeal that Chavez had once upon a time, even among individuals whose democratic credentials were beyond question. The ménage a trois between Chavez, the powers that were and a large chunk of society came to its climax in 1998, when he was elected to the presidency. It is to be noted that in spite of being at what some considered his highest ever peak of popularity Chavez did not manage to get in 1998 as many votes as Carlos Andres Perez got a decade earlier. On a similar note, his then political mentor Luis Miquilena negotiated with Spanish bank BBVA a $1.5 million donation – $525.586 received December 1998 and $1 million July 1999 - the second disbursement of which Chavez readily accepted after having been sworn in legislation forbidding such acts notwithstanding.
But Chavez had great plans in mind. His winning ticket was generally speaking one of anti-corruption/crime/unemployment/poverty, although he also promised to eradicate the pest –represented by political parties’ (sic), to fry the heads of corrupt politicians (sic), to change his name had he fail to rescue streets children, to do away with all elected powers and dismantle institutions, to rewrite the constitution, to convene a National Constituent Assembly, etc. At the time Venezuelans heard only the bits they wanted to hear, the sheer disgust and discontentment towards the status quo was so generalized that the common stance could be defined as “anything but traditional politicos.” Venezuelans wanted desperately to get over the worse decade of its incipient democratic history.
In the late 80ies and early 90ies the country was rocked by unprecedented events. Starting with the infamous Caracazo in 89, coups d’etat (4 Feb and 27 Nov) in 92, impeachment and destitution of Carlos Andres Perez in 93 due to misuse of funds, an economy in tatters after the banking crisis in 1994, during Caldera’s second term (93-98) detrimental bond tender offers justified by an irresponsible director of Banco Central de Venezuela who candidly admitted “in 10 years time none of us will be around here” (sic), an utterly corrupt and inefficient administration from 93 onwards, in sum the majority thought that nothing could be worse and so they thrust support on Chavez who was seen as the great white hope.
Referenda processes and the National Constituent Assembly: With a fresh mandate and riding the popularity wave Chavez proposed a novel concept; that of referenda. At the time the body of laws was built upon the constitution of 1961, which, needs be stressed, did not contain any provision, article or mandate allowing the use of such supraconstitutional mechanism nor did it exist any legislation to that effect. But that did not stop Chavez. Ever the gifted communicator he convinced the people that under the circumstances he could not rule: his line of reasoning could be summarized as “the State and its institutions must be refound. Originary power resides in the people, as such I propose a referendum so that the people can vote on whether or not to convene a National Constituent Assembly that will rewrite the constitution and lay the foundations of a new State.” The actual question presented on referendum to voters on 25 April 1999 was “¿Convoca usted una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente con el propósito de transformar el Estado y crear un nuevo ordenamiento jurídico que permita el funcionamiento efectivo de una Democracia Social y Participativa?”
Neither him, nor the people, were bothered by the fact that convening a National Constituent Assembly was unconstitutional; with polls indicating 80% support he did not give a second thought about alienated parties. 3,630,666 votes, or 33% of registered voters, signed the blank check and approved the experiment of transforming the State, creating a new judicial order that would allow an effective functioning of a participative and social democracy. Selection of members of the Constituent Assembly followed and cronies of Chavez managed to get 124 out of the 131 seats. But an impatient Chavez rushed them to finish and requested for the new constitution to be written in 3 months instead of 6 as initially planned. His request was fulfilled with diligence and then came the approval of the new constitution, which was basically dictated by Chavez. In the new document of 350 articles rights to recall elected officials via referenda and to rebellion were enshrined. The State was to have five branches instead of the traditional three; Citizen and Moral powers were added to Judiciary, Legislative and Executive and the selection and appointment of officials to these posts were to follow strict rules to ensure independence.
On 15 December 1999 3,301,475 Venezuelans voted in favour of adopting the new constitution (30% of roll). Worth mentioning that there existed a discrepancy between total number of registered voters between the convening of the National Constituent Assembly on 25 April and the approval of the new constitution on 15 December; the roll decreased by 127,457 voters. So Chavez got his bespoke constitution and on 22 December 1999 the Constituent Assembly, a week before the new constitution was enacted, decreed a ‘transition regime,’ which ceased the functioning of Congress -permanently dissolving the Senate- legislative assemblies and all other public powers. Then, arguing that the new constitution had yet to take effect (it had been approved already a week earlier) it created a National Legislative Committee, appointed the new members of the Supreme Court, the people's Defender, the Attorney General, the National Electoral Commission and the Comptroller. In none of these cases were the procedures established by the new constitution followed.
For the second instance Chavez showed his true colors for none of these acts were improvised, but were implementation via ‘democratic means’ of measures devised and prepared well before 1992; in fact the first democratic coup in Venezuela’s history. In order to minimize criticism another stroke of genius; early into his presidency he invited Jose Vicente Rangel and Alfredo Peña to join the government, arguably two of the most dreaded journalists/critics in the country.
Enabling bill, street protests, strikes and the coup: In November 2000 Congress approved an Enabling bill to confer extraordinary powers to Chavez, who was to decree legislation in predetermined areas. Nearly a year to the day the Enabling bill was passed Chavez launched 49 laws. Ranging from land management passing through maritime rights to more mundane administrative issues the new bills prompted intense criticism in opposition quarters. To his credit most of them had to do with aspects related to his ‘socialist’ revolution, such as regulation of grants and credits to Small and Medium Enterprises. A Macro Stabilization Fund (FIEM in Spanish) was also created with the purpose of balancing budgets with extraordinary income deposited during windfall. Predictably most of the +$7 billion deposited with FIEM went missing, as Chavez irresponsibly disposed of the monies as he saw fit. But the strongest bone of contention was the Land bill, which introduced the concept of “idle land.” The idleness of the land was to be determined in subjective fashion by civil servants who, often, would use their discretionary powers as a mechanism to blackmail land owners, to settle political problems or simply to get parcels of land in sought after places.
All the while the opposition was sort of gathering momentum. Throughout 2001 and 2002 Venezuela ’s cities saw the biggest demonstrations ever recorded. The head of the country’s largest union –Carlos Ortega- joined forces with the chair of the business chamber –Carlos Fernandez- something unheard of previously, and ganged up against the regime. Together they organized massive protests, the goal being to halt the country’s economy. During this period Chavez fired Petroleos de Venezuela’s CEO and appointed in its stead an ignorant crony, which added more to the fire. Oil workers protested the decision for it did away with the meritocratic concept whereby promotions to higher positions in the company always came from the pool of talent within.
The situation was deteriorating rapidly to which Chavez reacted with even more dismissals; one good day in the middle of one of his televised Sunday talkathons (known as “Alo Presidente”) he started naming PDVSA board members and after blowing a whistle he would say “you’re fired!” It was considered to be the ultimate insult, up until that point PDVSA directors were the untouchables, no government official or public servant had dared dismiss a company director in such gross and disrespectful manner. However it was just another example that Chavez was not cut from the same cloth. The reaction was swift; a string of harsh statements leveling criticism ensued. The house of one PDVSA director was raided; that prompted a protest in a PDVSA building that was dispersed brutally by the military. Things heated up, by now Juan Fernandez, whose house was raided, joined forces with the pair of irreverent bosses.
The opposition had built enough momentum, or so its leadership thought, but little did it know what the future held. Disgruntled high ranking members of the army took their grief to the cameras, stating that the president had become authoritarian and that his behavior violated constitutional and democratic tenets. An ill prepared, loose coalition of natural born enemies decided that time was ripe to meet forces with Chavez’s monolithic regime. On 11 April 2002 some of the leaders of the opposition, intoxicated with the spectacle of the sight, decided to deviate hundreds of thousands of protesters that had gathered in front of Cubo Negro (adjacent to a PDVSA building) to Miraflores, Venezuela’s presidential palace. The human tide obeyed and marched towards the palace, but Chavistas (as Chavez’s supporters are known) were prep and ready –meaning armed and located in strategic positions- for the agitation and chaos that was to ensue. At that point the forces that had been irresponsibly unleashed were, quite naturally, out of control.
A rain of bullets met the protesters and, to this day, no one can claim knowledge as to which side started the shooting. Sharp shooters were seen in roof tops that were meant to be under Chavez’s personal security apparatus control (Casa Militar). Additionally members of Congress supportive of Chavez were bearing arms in Puente Llaguno, a sort of overpass above the avenue where the protesters were, and were filmed shooting against the advancing crowd that was shielded by officers from the Metropolitan Police. Confrontation did not last long, nonetheless 19 people were killed and about a hundred were wounded. The chain of events that followed are shrouded in mystery, current versions ranging from the whole thing being a US led coup to other versions that maintain that it was Chavez’s own machinations, seeking to purge the army of disloyal officers, that led to it. What is certain about it is that depending on the political tendency of he/she who recounts the episode any version pretty much goes for Chavez and his lackeys simply were not interested in determining who did what, torpedoing any meaningful investigations aimed at identifying those responsible. To the contrary, at a latter stage Chavez would bestow honors upon those congressmen seen shooting from Puente Llaguno, celebrating their zeal and defining them as “revolutionary heroes.”
What is known is that a group of high ranking officers, politicians and businessmen were plotting to oust Chavez. Just before the shooting began something that resembled an address from the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared on TV withdrawing allegiance to the president. Chavez was addressing the nation while less than a mile from where he was mayhem was taking place. As mandatory the speeches of the president have to be broadcast jointly by all media, however some TV networks decided to split the screen; on one side Chavez was giving his usual dose of humbug on the other people were being killed on live television. The country was taken aback by the scenes in downtown Caracas . Fearing that the situation had gotten out of hand Chavez ordered the implementation of a military contingency plan known as Plan Avila.
The plan had been designed to counter militarily massive riots, lootings or any other event that would overwhelm Caracas ’ police forces. Tellingly the implementation by Carlos Andres Perez of this very same plan caused many deaths in Caracas in 1989 and was still fresh in many people’s minds. It could have been precisely because of that that the general in charge of implementing it (General Manuel Rosendo) disobeyed Chavez’s orders, expressing that he was not going to order tanks and troops out to counter a demonstration. So Rosendo’s subaltern General Luis Garcia Carneiro decided to act upon the president’s orders and sent some tanks to Miraflores, which, needs be said, never engaged in action. By this time the anger towards the president was generalized within the higher echelons of the army. Gathered in Fuerte Tiuna, Caracas’ military base, they found themselves debating what would the next step be, what would they do with Chavez, perceived as responsible for the bloodbath. Consensus was difficult to achieve as some insisted in imprisoning Chavez while others wanted to send him packing chez his Cuban mentor, as already requested by Chavez. But somewhere else in the city one Pedro Carmona, new leader of the business chamber (Fedecamaras) was having thoughts of his own. [To be continued...]
The Electoral Conditions
2006 Presidential Elections: whereas lack of transparency and fairness characterized electoral processes in the run up to the presidential race, this one was, despite some participating actors attesting to the contrary, more of the same. Chavez had by then completed his castling, appointing another staunch ally –Tibisay Lucena- to chair the electoral board. This move somewhat tranquilized opposition forces that felt that another election with Jorge Rodriguez at the helm would amount to no more than a sham. However the partisan structure of the CNE remained intact with a balance of power of 4 out of 5 board directors clearly identified with officialdom. The gamesmanship became evident early when leading academics of the three most important universities in the country (Universidad Central de Venezuela or UCV, Universidad Catolica Andres Bello or UCAB and Universidad Simon Bolivar or USB) proposed to audit the roll thoroughly for it was the bone of strongest contention between government and opposition. It was a known fact that the electoral roll had been artificially inflated in the millions through irresponsible registry mechanisms, unchecked identification processes, flawed methodology, lax ID-documents requirements were all part of the massive increase in the number of voters.
Notorious examples abound: the Gonzalez family with more than 2.000 members all born the same date and registered in the same house; or the +39.000 voters over 100 hundred years of age -a statistical impossibility given the country's population; or the entries of unidentified voters called XX; in sum these corollary of fabricated voters -created to re-elect Chavez- cast many doubts on the overall transparency of the process. According to current legislation (art. 93 of the Organic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation) the CNE is obliged to release to political parties and interested groups that so require copies of each list of voters published by the Office of Electoral Register.
Furthermore the director of said office shall certify a) that such lists are exact copies of the roll and b) whether the released copies represent partial or total content of the electoral roll. But the CNE had of course different mandates to fulfill. Never stating clearly that auditing under strict academic standards was not to be permitted another proposal was put forward: the audit was to be conducted by a joint panel formed by experts of UCV, UCAB, USB and unknown academics lacking credentials from six other universities and one scientific research institute (IVIC). The added institutions were either created by Chavez or controlled by supporters: incredibly out of the seven additions only one institution (IVIC) had reputable statisticians actively engaged in research but they were explicitly forbidden by CNE from taking part in the audit in any way. Furthermore the CNE saw fit to negotiate and impose the most appropriate method to conduct the audit in clear violation to the law.
The impression that Venezuela had a thriving democracy needed to be maintained at all costs. Ergo the next step to be taken was to file a considerable number of candidates, though everyone sort of knew that it was going to be a two horse race. Once these hurdles were overcome came the revelation for this was far from being a typical presidential campaign as understood and known in Western countries. For Manuel Rosales did not just confront Hugo Chavez but the Venezuelan State. Chavez did not relinquish his powers and ominous control over all institutions, nor did he show any restraints in using public funds for campaigning purposes. The ratio of TV-time of the two candidates was 22 to 1 in favor of Chavez; the budget of his campaign unknown, aggravated by the fact that no institution would dare take any members of cabinet –many of whom were assigned responsibilities within the official campaign team- or the president into account.
Airports were closed to prevent Rosales’s plane from landing; access roads to Caracas were shut to block access to Rosales’s rallies; governors and mayors supportive of Chavez in the hinterlands would use public resources to organize violent anti-Rosales protests that coincided with his rallies; electricity was cut in many rallies around the country to impede Rosales’s message to be heard in popular gatherings; intelligence police kept filming and photographing Rosales’s campaign team members as they got off planes and cars in order to intimidate them; TV crews from official media were dispatched to cover Rosales’s events while journalist from privately owned media were forbidden to attend Chavez’s meetings; public funds were used to hire thousands of buses to transport chavistas to meetings; millions were spent on paying chavistas to get them to attend rallies of the official candidate; official vehicles and buildings were covered with propaganda; in sum this was anything but a normal race. International observers present in the country expressed utter dismay at the abuse of public resources by the Chavez camp; the CNE board however did not find any of it out of the ordinary or illegal. Under such conditions a favorable result for the opposition was impossible to achieve. [To be continued...]
By Alek Boyd
Introduction
No book about contemporary politics of Venezuela can negate the fact that Hugo Chavez is an electoral phenomenon. Having won every electoral process in which he, his parties or candidates have participated since his first victory in 1998, Chavez embodies the exception to the rule that has that incumbents tend to suffer a decline in support as time elapses. In his case the contrary has actually happened, which may suggest that either Chavez is the most successful politico the modern world has seen or that his electoral victories are direct consequence of a power-hoarding model of governance similar to those encountered in dictatorships. It is my intention to unravel which of the two premises is closer to Venezuela ’s current political reality.
The Political Landscape
The 1998 presidential race: Hugo Chavez first democratic victory came about in December 1998; however his career in politics started well before that in the army. After more than 10 years of conspiration Lieutenant Colonel Hugo Chavez launched with a number of military companions a coup d’etat against a democratically elected administration on 4 February 1992 . Rampant corruption and purported neoliberal policies implemented by then president Carlos Andres Perez have been cited by Hugo Chavez as the reasons for his attempt. One policy had caused slum dwellers to react violently; an increase in gasoline prices, which caused transport fares to surge overnight. The many deaths –exact figure unknown until this day- caused by the implementation of a military contingency plan (Plan Avila) to placate the rioting mobs in Caracas on 27 February 1989 was the trigger for the putschists to accelerate the bid to gain power by unlawful means.
A poorly designed plan coupled with utterly inefficient leaders in charge of perpetrating it resulted in a fiasco. But despite his failure Chavez’s political persona was catapulted to stardom thanks to the media; his brief televised address to the nation, negotiated upon betrayal of his companions while hiding in Caracas ’ Museo Militar from where he was conducting the coup, turned him instantly into an icon. At the time there was consensus on the need to change the establishment, and Venezuelans for the most part, being only too prone for quick fixes, thought that the military adventure spearheaded by Chavez was not only commendable but a realistic solution to the country’s many social and political problems.
Jailed and pardoned at a latter date without having gone through trial by Carlos Andres Perez’s successor Rafael Caldera, upon regaining freedom Chavez made his first trip to Cuba in December 1994. Dictator Fidel Castro saw in him a window of opportunity. After the fall of his communist patrons in the Soviet Union an impoverished and abated Castro found himself resource less, the umbilical cord that maintained his communist revolution financially and militarily had been cut. However there he was, a young, charismatic, gullible soldier from the province, eager to implement in Venezuela a replica of Castro’s Animal Farm, something that the Cuban had not been able to achieve in its heyday. The dictator received his would-be apprentice like a hero and carefully laid the foundations of what would become a paternal sort of relationship. The prospect of controlling Venezuela ’s vast resources via a proxy was just what the dictator needed to oxygenate his failed revolution.
Chavez’s active involvement in politics started in earnest in 1995. Convinced of the dysfunctional status of the Venezuelan State he advocated for abstention, for a conscious effort of withdrawing support and citizen participation in electoral processes whose victors did not have the interests and needs of the population at heart. In many quarters of society his was a respected position. Politicians that had never been in positions of power in Venezuela jumped in the popular bandwagon, the goal being to tame Chavez and turn him into an obedient colleague, part of the crooked crew as it were.
Similarly powerful businessmen and media tycoons could not help themselves and boarded the train, supporting the coupster. It is a known fact for instance that Chavez lived in Miguel Henrique Otero’s house [owner of daily El Nacional] and traveled around the country in a plane lent by Henry Boulton [owner of extinct Avensa & Servivensa], which exemplifies the sort of appeal that Chavez had once upon a time, even among individuals whose democratic credentials were beyond question. The ménage a trois between Chavez, the powers that were and a large chunk of society came to its climax in 1998, when he was elected to the presidency. It is to be noted that in spite of being at what some considered his highest ever peak of popularity Chavez did not manage to get in 1998 as many votes as Carlos Andres Perez got a decade earlier. On a similar note, his then political mentor Luis Miquilena negotiated with Spanish bank BBVA a $1.5 million donation – $525.586 received December 1998 and $1 million July 1999 - the second disbursement of which Chavez readily accepted after having been sworn in legislation forbidding such acts notwithstanding.
But Chavez had great plans in mind. His winning ticket was generally speaking one of anti-corruption/crime/unemployment/poverty, although he also promised to eradicate the pest –represented by political parties’ (sic), to fry the heads of corrupt politicians (sic), to change his name had he fail to rescue streets children, to do away with all elected powers and dismantle institutions, to rewrite the constitution, to convene a National Constituent Assembly, etc. At the time Venezuelans heard only the bits they wanted to hear, the sheer disgust and discontentment towards the status quo was so generalized that the common stance could be defined as “anything but traditional politicos.” Venezuelans wanted desperately to get over the worse decade of its incipient democratic history.
In the late 80ies and early 90ies the country was rocked by unprecedented events. Starting with the infamous Caracazo in 89, coups d’etat (4 Feb and 27 Nov) in 92, impeachment and destitution of Carlos Andres Perez in 93 due to misuse of funds, an economy in tatters after the banking crisis in 1994, during Caldera’s second term (93-98) detrimental bond tender offers justified by an irresponsible director of Banco Central de Venezuela who candidly admitted “in 10 years time none of us will be around here” (sic), an utterly corrupt and inefficient administration from 93 onwards, in sum the majority thought that nothing could be worse and so they thrust support on Chavez who was seen as the great white hope.
Referenda processes and the National Constituent Assembly: With a fresh mandate and riding the popularity wave Chavez proposed a novel concept; that of referenda. At the time the body of laws was built upon the constitution of 1961, which, needs be stressed, did not contain any provision, article or mandate allowing the use of such supraconstitutional mechanism nor did it exist any legislation to that effect. But that did not stop Chavez. Ever the gifted communicator he convinced the people that under the circumstances he could not rule: his line of reasoning could be summarized as “the State and its institutions must be refound. Originary power resides in the people, as such I propose a referendum so that the people can vote on whether or not to convene a National Constituent Assembly that will rewrite the constitution and lay the foundations of a new State.” The actual question presented on referendum to voters on 25 April 1999 was “¿Convoca usted una Asamblea Nacional Constituyente con el propósito de transformar el Estado y crear un nuevo ordenamiento jurídico que permita el funcionamiento efectivo de una Democracia Social y Participativa?”
Neither him, nor the people, were bothered by the fact that convening a National Constituent Assembly was unconstitutional; with polls indicating 80% support he did not give a second thought about alienated parties. 3,630,666 votes, or 33% of registered voters, signed the blank check and approved the experiment of transforming the State, creating a new judicial order that would allow an effective functioning of a participative and social democracy. Selection of members of the Constituent Assembly followed and cronies of Chavez managed to get 124 out of the 131 seats. But an impatient Chavez rushed them to finish and requested for the new constitution to be written in 3 months instead of 6 as initially planned. His request was fulfilled with diligence and then came the approval of the new constitution, which was basically dictated by Chavez. In the new document of 350 articles rights to recall elected officials via referenda and to rebellion were enshrined. The State was to have five branches instead of the traditional three; Citizen and Moral powers were added to Judiciary, Legislative and Executive and the selection and appointment of officials to these posts were to follow strict rules to ensure independence.
On 15 December 1999 3,301,475 Venezuelans voted in favour of adopting the new constitution (30% of roll). Worth mentioning that there existed a discrepancy between total number of registered voters between the convening of the National Constituent Assembly on 25 April and the approval of the new constitution on 15 December; the roll decreased by 127,457 voters. So Chavez got his bespoke constitution and on 22 December 1999 the Constituent Assembly, a week before the new constitution was enacted, decreed a ‘transition regime,’ which ceased the functioning of Congress -permanently dissolving the Senate- legislative assemblies and all other public powers. Then, arguing that the new constitution had yet to take effect (it had been approved already a week earlier) it created a National Legislative Committee, appointed the new members of the Supreme Court, the people's Defender, the Attorney General, the National Electoral Commission and the Comptroller. In none of these cases were the procedures established by the new constitution followed.
For the second instance Chavez showed his true colors for none of these acts were improvised, but were implementation via ‘democratic means’ of measures devised and prepared well before 1992; in fact the first democratic coup in Venezuela’s history. In order to minimize criticism another stroke of genius; early into his presidency he invited Jose Vicente Rangel and Alfredo Peña to join the government, arguably two of the most dreaded journalists/critics in the country.
Enabling bill, street protests, strikes and the coup: In November 2000 Congress approved an Enabling bill to confer extraordinary powers to Chavez, who was to decree legislation in predetermined areas. Nearly a year to the day the Enabling bill was passed Chavez launched 49 laws. Ranging from land management passing through maritime rights to more mundane administrative issues the new bills prompted intense criticism in opposition quarters. To his credit most of them had to do with aspects related to his ‘socialist’ revolution, such as regulation of grants and credits to Small and Medium Enterprises. A Macro Stabilization Fund (FIEM in Spanish) was also created with the purpose of balancing budgets with extraordinary income deposited during windfall. Predictably most of the +$7 billion deposited with FIEM went missing, as Chavez irresponsibly disposed of the monies as he saw fit. But the strongest bone of contention was the Land bill, which introduced the concept of “idle land.” The idleness of the land was to be determined in subjective fashion by civil servants who, often, would use their discretionary powers as a mechanism to blackmail land owners, to settle political problems or simply to get parcels of land in sought after places.
All the while the opposition was sort of gathering momentum. Throughout 2001 and 2002 Venezuela ’s cities saw the biggest demonstrations ever recorded. The head of the country’s largest union –Carlos Ortega- joined forces with the chair of the business chamber –Carlos Fernandez- something unheard of previously, and ganged up against the regime. Together they organized massive protests, the goal being to halt the country’s economy. During this period Chavez fired Petroleos de Venezuela’s CEO and appointed in its stead an ignorant crony, which added more to the fire. Oil workers protested the decision for it did away with the meritocratic concept whereby promotions to higher positions in the company always came from the pool of talent within.
The situation was deteriorating rapidly to which Chavez reacted with even more dismissals; one good day in the middle of one of his televised Sunday talkathons (known as “Alo Presidente”) he started naming PDVSA board members and after blowing a whistle he would say “you’re fired!” It was considered to be the ultimate insult, up until that point PDVSA directors were the untouchables, no government official or public servant had dared dismiss a company director in such gross and disrespectful manner. However it was just another example that Chavez was not cut from the same cloth. The reaction was swift; a string of harsh statements leveling criticism ensued. The house of one PDVSA director was raided; that prompted a protest in a PDVSA building that was dispersed brutally by the military. Things heated up, by now Juan Fernandez, whose house was raided, joined forces with the pair of irreverent bosses.
The opposition had built enough momentum, or so its leadership thought, but little did it know what the future held. Disgruntled high ranking members of the army took their grief to the cameras, stating that the president had become authoritarian and that his behavior violated constitutional and democratic tenets. An ill prepared, loose coalition of natural born enemies decided that time was ripe to meet forces with Chavez’s monolithic regime. On 11 April 2002 some of the leaders of the opposition, intoxicated with the spectacle of the sight, decided to deviate hundreds of thousands of protesters that had gathered in front of Cubo Negro (adjacent to a PDVSA building) to Miraflores, Venezuela’s presidential palace. The human tide obeyed and marched towards the palace, but Chavistas (as Chavez’s supporters are known) were prep and ready –meaning armed and located in strategic positions- for the agitation and chaos that was to ensue. At that point the forces that had been irresponsibly unleashed were, quite naturally, out of control.
A rain of bullets met the protesters and, to this day, no one can claim knowledge as to which side started the shooting. Sharp shooters were seen in roof tops that were meant to be under Chavez’s personal security apparatus control (Casa Militar). Additionally members of Congress supportive of Chavez were bearing arms in Puente Llaguno, a sort of overpass above the avenue where the protesters were, and were filmed shooting against the advancing crowd that was shielded by officers from the Metropolitan Police. Confrontation did not last long, nonetheless 19 people were killed and about a hundred were wounded. The chain of events that followed are shrouded in mystery, current versions ranging from the whole thing being a US led coup to other versions that maintain that it was Chavez’s own machinations, seeking to purge the army of disloyal officers, that led to it. What is certain about it is that depending on the political tendency of he/she who recounts the episode any version pretty much goes for Chavez and his lackeys simply were not interested in determining who did what, torpedoing any meaningful investigations aimed at identifying those responsible. To the contrary, at a latter stage Chavez would bestow honors upon those congressmen seen shooting from Puente Llaguno, celebrating their zeal and defining them as “revolutionary heroes.”
What is known is that a group of high ranking officers, politicians and businessmen were plotting to oust Chavez. Just before the shooting began something that resembled an address from the Joint Chiefs of Staff appeared on TV withdrawing allegiance to the president. Chavez was addressing the nation while less than a mile from where he was mayhem was taking place. As mandatory the speeches of the president have to be broadcast jointly by all media, however some TV networks decided to split the screen; on one side Chavez was giving his usual dose of humbug on the other people were being killed on live television. The country was taken aback by the scenes in downtown Caracas . Fearing that the situation had gotten out of hand Chavez ordered the implementation of a military contingency plan known as Plan Avila.
The plan had been designed to counter militarily massive riots, lootings or any other event that would overwhelm Caracas ’ police forces. Tellingly the implementation by Carlos Andres Perez of this very same plan caused many deaths in Caracas in 1989 and was still fresh in many people’s minds. It could have been precisely because of that that the general in charge of implementing it (General Manuel Rosendo) disobeyed Chavez’s orders, expressing that he was not going to order tanks and troops out to counter a demonstration. So Rosendo’s subaltern General Luis Garcia Carneiro decided to act upon the president’s orders and sent some tanks to Miraflores, which, needs be said, never engaged in action. By this time the anger towards the president was generalized within the higher echelons of the army. Gathered in Fuerte Tiuna, Caracas’ military base, they found themselves debating what would the next step be, what would they do with Chavez, perceived as responsible for the bloodbath. Consensus was difficult to achieve as some insisted in imprisoning Chavez while others wanted to send him packing chez his Cuban mentor, as already requested by Chavez. But somewhere else in the city one Pedro Carmona, new leader of the business chamber (Fedecamaras) was having thoughts of his own. [To be continued...]
The Electoral Conditions
2006 Presidential Elections: whereas lack of transparency and fairness characterized electoral processes in the run up to the presidential race, this one was, despite some participating actors attesting to the contrary, more of the same. Chavez had by then completed his castling, appointing another staunch ally –Tibisay Lucena- to chair the electoral board. This move somewhat tranquilized opposition forces that felt that another election with Jorge Rodriguez at the helm would amount to no more than a sham. However the partisan structure of the CNE remained intact with a balance of power of 4 out of 5 board directors clearly identified with officialdom. The gamesmanship became evident early when leading academics of the three most important universities in the country (Universidad Central de Venezuela or UCV, Universidad Catolica Andres Bello or UCAB and Universidad Simon Bolivar or USB) proposed to audit the roll thoroughly for it was the bone of strongest contention between government and opposition. It was a known fact that the electoral roll had been artificially inflated in the millions through irresponsible registry mechanisms, unchecked identification processes, flawed methodology, lax ID-documents requirements were all part of the massive increase in the number of voters.
Notorious examples abound: the Gonzalez family with more than 2.000 members all born the same date and registered in the same house; or the +39.000 voters over 100 hundred years of age -a statistical impossibility given the country's population; or the entries of unidentified voters called XX; in sum these corollary of fabricated voters -created to re-elect Chavez- cast many doubts on the overall transparency of the process. According to current legislation (art. 93 of the Organic Law of Suffrage and Political Participation) the CNE is obliged to release to political parties and interested groups that so require copies of each list of voters published by the Office of Electoral Register.
Furthermore the director of said office shall certify a) that such lists are exact copies of the roll and b) whether the released copies represent partial or total content of the electoral roll. But the CNE had of course different mandates to fulfill. Never stating clearly that auditing under strict academic standards was not to be permitted another proposal was put forward: the audit was to be conducted by a joint panel formed by experts of UCV, UCAB, USB and unknown academics lacking credentials from six other universities and one scientific research institute (IVIC). The added institutions were either created by Chavez or controlled by supporters: incredibly out of the seven additions only one institution (IVIC) had reputable statisticians actively engaged in research but they were explicitly forbidden by CNE from taking part in the audit in any way. Furthermore the CNE saw fit to negotiate and impose the most appropriate method to conduct the audit in clear violation to the law.
The impression that Venezuela had a thriving democracy needed to be maintained at all costs. Ergo the next step to be taken was to file a considerable number of candidates, though everyone sort of knew that it was going to be a two horse race. Once these hurdles were overcome came the revelation for this was far from being a typical presidential campaign as understood and known in Western countries. For Manuel Rosales did not just confront Hugo Chavez but the Venezuelan State. Chavez did not relinquish his powers and ominous control over all institutions, nor did he show any restraints in using public funds for campaigning purposes. The ratio of TV-time of the two candidates was 22 to 1 in favor of Chavez; the budget of his campaign unknown, aggravated by the fact that no institution would dare take any members of cabinet –many of whom were assigned responsibilities within the official campaign team- or the president into account.
Airports were closed to prevent Rosales’s plane from landing; access roads to Caracas were shut to block access to Rosales’s rallies; governors and mayors supportive of Chavez in the hinterlands would use public resources to organize violent anti-Rosales protests that coincided with his rallies; electricity was cut in many rallies around the country to impede Rosales’s message to be heard in popular gatherings; intelligence police kept filming and photographing Rosales’s campaign team members as they got off planes and cars in order to intimidate them; TV crews from official media were dispatched to cover Rosales’s events while journalist from privately owned media were forbidden to attend Chavez’s meetings; public funds were used to hire thousands of buses to transport chavistas to meetings; millions were spent on paying chavistas to get them to attend rallies of the official candidate; official vehicles and buildings were covered with propaganda; in sum this was anything but a normal race. International observers present in the country expressed utter dismay at the abuse of public resources by the Chavez camp; the CNE board however did not find any of it out of the ordinary or illegal. Under such conditions a favorable result for the opposition was impossible to achieve. [To be continued...]
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)