Imperialism And Resistance

La guerra suave
Uploaded by Guarataro. – News videos hot off the press.

By Eva Golinger

Caracas, July 24, 2010 – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez denounced this Saturday US plans to attack his country and overthrow his government. During a ceremony celebrating the 227th birthday of Independence hero Simon Bolivar, Chavez read from a secret memo he had been sent from an unnamed source inside the United States.

“Old friend, I haven’t seen you in years. As I said to you in my three prior letters, the idea remains the generation of a conflict on your western border”, read Chavez from the secret missive.

“The latest events confirm all, or almost all, of what those here discussed as well as other information that I have obtained from above”, the letter continued.

“The preparation phase in the international community, with the help of Colombia, is in plain execution”, manifested the text, referring to last Thursday’s session in the Organization of American States (OAS), during which the Colombia government accused Venezuela of harboring “terrorists” and “terrorist training camps” and gave the Chavez government a “30-day ultimatum” to allow for international intervention.

The letter continued with more details, “I told you before that the events wouldn’t begin before the 26th, but for some reason they have moved forward several actions that were supposed to be executed afterward”.

“In the United States, the execution phase is accelerating, together with a contention force, as they call it, towards Costa Rica with the pretext of fighting drug trafficking”.

On July 1, the Costan Rican government authorized 46 US war ships and 7,000 marines into their maritime and land territory.
The true objective of this military mobilization, said the letter, is to “support military operations” against Venezuela.

ASSASSINATION AND OVERTHROW

“There is an agreement between Colombia and the US with two objectives: one is Mauricio and the other is the overthrow of the government”, revealed the document. President Chavez explained that “Mauricio” is a pseudynom used in these communications.

“The military operation is going to happen”, warned the text, “and those from the north will do it, but not directly in Caracas”.
“They will hunt ‘Mauricio’ down outside Caracas, this is very important, I repeat, this is very important”.

President Chavez revealed that he had received similar letters from the same source alerting him to dangerous threats. He received one right before the capture of more than 100 Colombian paramilitaries in the outskirts of Caracas that were part of an assassination plan against the Venezuelan head of state, and another in 2002, just days before the coup d’etat that briefly outsted him from power. “The letter warned of snipers and the coup”, explained Chavez, “and it was right, the information was true, but we were unable to act to prevent it”.

US MILITARY EXPANSION

This information comes on the heels of the decision last Thursday to break relations between Colombia and Venezuela, made by President Chavez after Colombia’s “show” in the OAS.

“Uribe is capable of anything”, warned Chavez, announcing that the country was on maximum altert and the borders were being reinforced.

Last October, Colombia and the US signed a military agreement permitting the US to occupy seven Colombian bases and to use all Colombian territory as needed to complete missions. One of the bases in the agreement, Palanquero, was cited in May 2009 US Air Force documents as necessary to “conduct full spectrum military operations” in South America and combat the threat of “anti-US governments” in the region.

Palanquero was also signaled as critical to the Pentagon’s Global Mobility Strategy, as outlined in the February 2009 White Paper: Air Mobility Command Global En Route Strategy, “USSOUTHCOM has identified Palanquero, Colombia (German Olano Airfield SKPQ), as a cooperative security location (CSL). From this location nearly half of the continent can be covered by a C-17 without refueling”.

The 2010 Pentagon budget included a $46 million USD request to improve the installations at Palanquero, in order to support the Command Combatant’s “Theater Posture Strategy” and “provide for a unique opportunity for full spectrum operations in a critical sub region of our hemisphere where security and stability is under constant threat from narcotics funded terrorist insurgencies, anti-US governments, endemic poverty and recurring natural disasters”.

The May 2009 Air Force document further added that Palanquero would be used to “increase our capacity to conduct Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR), improve global reach…and expand expeditionary warfare capability”.

In February 2010, the US National Directorate of Intelligence (NDI) classified Venezuela as “Anti-US Leader” in the region in its annual threat assessment.

The US also maintains forward operation locations (small military bases) in Aruba and Curazao, just miles off the Venezuelan coast. In recent months, the Venezuelan government has denounced unauthorized incursions of drone planes and other military aircraft into Venezuelan territory, originating from the US bases.

These latest revelations evidence that a serious, and unjustified conflict is brewing fast against Venezuela, a country with a vibrant democracy and the largest oil reserves in the world.

via Eva Golinger

“For the dignity of Venezuela”

Venezuela and Colombia break relations

President Chavez ordered maximum alert on Venezuela’s border with Colombia after the Uribe administration made grave accusations against Venezuela claiming the Chavez government harbors terrorists and terrorist training camps

The outgoing government of Alvaro Uribe in Colombia gave a shameful presentation before member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) on Thursday, reminiscent of Colin Powell’s “weapons of mass destruction” power point evidence presented in 2003 before the United Nations Security Council to justify the war in Iraq.

Colombia alleged that Venezuela is harboring “terrorists” from the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) and hosting several “terrorist training camps” near the border region that divides the two nations.

During an extraordinary session convened at OAS headquarters in Washington on Thursday, upon request of the Uribe government, Colombia’s ambassador to the OAS, Luis Alfonso Hoyos, presented television and video images allegedly taken from computers confiscated during the illegal invasion of Ecuatorian territory on March 1, 2008, which resulted in the death of FARC leader Raul Reyes and a dozen other Colombian, Ecuatorian and Mexican citizens. Hoyos also presented several computer-generated maps and photographs of alleged members of the FARC, which he said were taken inside Venezuela.

NO REAL PROOF

Yet none of the images were authenticated or verified as reliable by any source other than the Colombian government. Colombia also used satellite map images, some from Google Earth, to show alleged “coordinates” where FARC members are in Venezuela.

Furthermore, the photographs presented by Hoyos had no source identification, dates or times, and merely showed alleged members of the FARC and ELN in different jungle and coastal areas.

Venezuela and Colombia share a porous, jungle and mountainous border and both countries have Caribbean coasts. The countries have similar vegetations, climates and scenery.

Venezuela’s ambassador to the OAS, Roy Chaderton said the photographs looked to him as though they had been taken in Colombia. “That looks like the beach in Santa Marta to me”, responded Chaderton, after Hoyos claimed a photo of a FARC member drinking a beer on the beach was taken at Chichirivichi, a Venezuelan beach town.

“There is no evidence, not a single piece of proof, of where those photographs were taken”, said Chaderton, adding that the “evidence” presented by Colombia was “confusing, imprecise and non-convincing”.

The Venezuelan army verified and thoroughly inspected the locations and coordinates provided by the Uribe administration on Thursday and found none of the alleged “terrorist sites”, “camps” or “guerrilla presence” claimed by Colombia.

Upon arriving at the first coordinate indicated in Colombia’s report, identified as an alleged terrorist camp of alias Ruben Zamora, the Venezuelan army found a farm growing plantains, yucca and corn. The second coordinate, which was the alleged camp of FARC commander Ivan Marquez, was merely an extensive field with no structures or presence of anyone or anything.

INTERNATIONAL INTERVENTION

During his two-hour long flamboyant presentation, Hoyos called for “international intervention” in Venezuela to verify the campsites and gave Venezuela a “30-day ultimatum”.

“Colombia requests a commission of international members, including all those of the OAS, go to Venezuela and verify each of the terrorist camp sites and coordinates to see the truth”, said Hoyos, adding, “we give the Venezuelan government 30 days”, although he didn’t specify what could happen afterward.

Hoyos also accused the Venezuelan government of facilitating drug trafficking, money laundering, illegal arms trade, attacks against Colombian armed forces and even went so far as to allege the Chavez government “squashes its opposition”, “represses freedom of expression”, “insults other governments” and “violates principles of democracy”.

At the same time, Hoyos said his government would be unwilling to listen to or respond to any accusations, insults or offenses made by the Venezuelan government.

Colombia’s position is an echo of Washington’s, which has accused Venezuela of harboring and providing refuge to members of the FARC during the past seven years. But, the US government has also failed to present any evidence to back such claims, and often makes contradictory statements, which appear to confirm the lack of solid proof.

In March 2010, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) chief General Douglas Fraser said that he had seen no evidence of any links between Venezuela and the FARC. “We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify where there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection”, declared Fraser during a hearing before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee.
However, the following day, General Fraser contradicted himself before the press, stating, “There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the Government of Venezuela and the FARC”.

Possibly, Fraser was referring to previous governments in Venezuela, such as those of Carlos Andres Perez (1989-1993) or Rafael Caldera (1994-1998), which actually housed an office of the FARC in the presidential palace. President Chavez shut down that office when he entered the presidency in early 1999.

Or maybe General Fraser was referring to the specific requests made by two Colombian presidents, Andres Pastrana and Alvaro Uribe, for Chavez to mediate the release of hostages held by the FARC.

With full disclosure and complete authority from President Alvaro Uribe, and based on his own personal request, in September 2007, President Chavez accepted the role as mediator in order to secure the release of several hostages held by the FARC inside Colombian territory. For that reason only, Chavez met with FARC commander Ivan Marquez and assured the release of Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez in January 2008.

But otherwise, the Venezuelan government has consistently and repeatedly denied any links or support given to the FARC or any other armed, irregular group from Colombia or elsewhere.

RELATIONS BROKEN

After Colombia’s presentation before the OAS, President Chavez announced a complete rupture in relations.
“It is with tears in my heart that I announce that we will break all relations with Colombia. We have no other choice, for our dignity and our sovereignty”.

Chavez also ordered troops to secure all border areas. “I have ordered a maximum alert on our borders. Uribe is a mafioso and a liar, and is capable of anything”, he said, recalling how Uribe ordered the invasion of Ecuador’s territory in 2008 and then lied to President Rafael Correa about what had happened.

Venezuela accused Colombia of failing to resolve its own internal conflicts, including a 60-year old civil war that has negatively impacted its neighbors with violence and drug trafficking spilling over the borders. More than 4 million Colombians, fleeing the violence in their country, live in Venezuela today.

The Colombian “show” appears to be an effort to justify preemptive war against Venezuela. Last year Colombia opened its territory to seven US military bases in an agreement that the US Air Force claimed was necessary in order to conduct “full spectrum military operations” throughout South America to “combat the constant threat of anti-American governments in the region”.

Vineyard of the Saker has an important blog post on “My love-hate relationship with Marxists” – I identify with much of what he writes in this post, especially regarding how Marxists (and the North American left in general) relate (or rather do not relate, or understand) religion – especially Islam – and the role Islam plays in authentic liberation struggles amongst Muslims. I also agree with him on his assessment of the contemporary Latin American left movements, that do appear to be qualitatively different than their predecessors, in that they are not out to denigrate the people’s religious values, but are more interested in correcting the manipulation of religion by the oligarchies.

Many Marxists have also supported the “Gucci Revolution” in Iran only because they perceived the power of “the mullahs” (as they would put it) as being “reactionary” and “theocratic” (hence – very bad). Such Marxists have never read Ayatollah Khomenei, they know nothing of the progressive reforms introduced by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and they are oblivious to the fact that the leaders of the “Gucci Revolution” were representing the reactionary multi-millionaire and bourgeois classes of Tehran. For some mysterious reason, most Marxists when looking at Iran completely forgot about class interest and class warfare. That is what ideological blindness does to them. If religion is reactionary, then the mullahs are bad, and any movement which attempts to overthrow the Islamic Republic (which is what he “Gucci Revolution” was all about, of course) is worthy of support, even if it is CIA sponsored.

In all fairness, I have to admit that the new generation of Marxists is changing, at least in Latin America where leaders like Chavez or even Castro have considerably toned down their opposition to religion. I have some very real hope that the new “Bolivarian Socialism” or “Bolivarianism” will resolutely turn away from the deep errors of 20th century “classical” Marxism and, in the words of Hugo Chavez, “a new type of socialism, a humanist one, which puts humans and not machines or the state ahead of everything”. Hopefully, this new type of socialism will, unlike Leninism and Trotskysm, value each individual life and never use terror. And hopefully this new type of socialism will accept and embrace the diversity of human spirituality and not designate any religion as the class enemy. Such a new socialism will be able to fully integrate the Marxist, Leninist and Trotskyst analysis and critique of the Capitalist system and ideology, but will reject their methods and prescriptions. After all, a “progressive” must – by definition – learn from past mistakes and yearn for a new, better, way.

Eva Golinger reports on US intervention in Venezuela and funding of a fraudulent press:

Documents reveal multimillion-dollar funding to journalists and media in Venezuela

US State Department documents declassified under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) evidence more than $4 million USD in funding to journalists and private media in Venezuela during the last three years. This funding is part of the more than $40 million USD international agencies are investing annually in anti-Chavez groups in Venezuela in an attempt to provoke regime change

The funding has been channeled directly by the State Department through three US agencies: Panamerican Development Foundation (PADF), Freedom House, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Press TV has had some interesting programs that are available on their YouTube channel – check out Shahram Amiri’s interview, and A short history of sanctions against Iran. Click here for Press TV’s YouTube channel

An important clarification by President Chavez on the manipulation of Christianity by the hierarchy, and the true message of Hadhrat Isa (peace and blessings on him) – his love for humanity, brother/sisterhood and justice (I’ll post an English translation when it appears).

Lineas de Chavez

Las más recientes declaraciones del Cardenal Urosa Savino nos obligan a realizar algunas reflexiones que consideramos pertinentes con el afán de ir colocando cada asunto en su santo lugar.

Habría que hacer verdaderas peripecias doctrinales y teológicas para restarle a la figura histórica del Cristo redentor, su profundo sentido social, su opción preferencial por los pobres de la tierra, su amor desenfrenado por una humanidad fraguada en la hermandad y la justicia.

No seamos tan inocentes: la jerarquía Católica, como institución, ha jugado un papel esencialmente político, tratando de mantener, a lo largo de la historia, el estatus de dominación, incluso con la más criminal violencia. ¿O es que ya se olvidó, Cardenal, de los atropellos de la religión del Imperio cuando dejaron de existir las primeras comunidades cristianas? ¿O es que ya no recordamos el matrimonio de la espada y la cruz con la llegada de los genocidas europeos a tierras americanas o los cariños de la Santa Inquisición para con aquellos que no profesaban su fe?

Por otro lado, la consideración del ejercicio religioso desde el catolicismo se ha prestado y se presta a polémicas concepciones y a través de ellas fijamos el concepto de hombre en que creemos y la sociedad que anhelamos. Y es saludable que así sea, de lo contrario debemos seguir considerando que la interpretación de las escrituras sólo descansa en las máximas autoridades de la Iglesia, asunto nefasto para la propia vitalidad de la creencia.

IV

Detengámonos en dos concepciones contemporáneas en la historia de la fe: el Opus Dei y la Teología de la Liberación. ¡Vaya diferencia! La primera representa la doctrina de la opresión y de los intereses más deleznables, con la justificación de las desigualdades como principio divino; la otra la libertad y la justicia de los olvidados que tienen el sagrado derecho de existir en un mundo más humano.

Si esa es la balanza ante la que estamos, Cardenal Urosa, nosotros no dudamos por la segunda: la que más fielmente refleja el Sermón de la Montaña; la que nos hace herederos del Cristo liberador e hijo del amor. Cristo para nosotros tiene rostro de gente pobre y desamparada, jamás de explotadores y criminales. He allí la diferencia de principios partiendo del mismo Jesucristo.

En otro sentido, Cardenal, le ruego que no juegue a atrapar incautos con sus interesadas interpretaciones acerca de mi persona y del proceso bolivariano. Aquí avanzamos hacia una democratización plena que bien hemos llamado socialismo bolivariano, cuyo sentido primordial es darle poder al pueblo para que ejerza soberanamente su destino. Para nosotros, el marxismo es una herramienta que nos ayuda a interpretar al hombre, la sociedad y la historia, no un dogma, ni una cartilla.

Me reconozco como un hombre de fe e infinitamente he dicho que tengo al mismo Dios que ustedes tienen, como figura ejemplar de los más elevados valores de justicia, libertad e igualdad, tres pilares esenciales de la fraternidad ejercida más que vociferada.

La vida me ha enseñado que la amplitud de criterios es fuente sana de conocimiento y de ejercicio vital. Así, Cardenal, soy con mucho orgullo, Bolivariano, Cristiano…y también marxista. Si usted ve allí contradicción, poco puedo hacer para que lo entienda, en mí esas concepciones de vida conviven en una estrecha hermandad.

Cumpla con su papel, Cardenal, que yo sabré cumplir ante el pueblo con el mío, pero deje por el amor de Dios, de seguir utilizando la mentira para pescar incautos.

Decir que copiamos modelos foráneos y nos guían ideologías extrañas que chocan con la legalidad que nuestro Pueblo se ha dado, no deja de ser un crimen en quienes creyéndose dueños de la fe de los venezolanos y venezolanas, pretenden manipularla.

El Cardenal Urosa Savino debería demostrar, ante un tribunal, la inconstitucionalidad de la que, según él, son fiel expresión todas las nuevas leyes que nos hemos dado últimamente, así como las acciones de nuestro gobierno.

Invito a todos los venezolanos y venezolanas a revisar las hemerotecas y leer las declaraciones que Urosa dio a la prensa el 12 de abril de 2002. El hoy Cardenal Jorge Urosa Savino “expresó satisfacción por la culminación del gobierno de Hugo Chávez Frías, el cual calificó de verdadera pesadilla para Venezuela”, según las declaraciones publicada en el diario carabobeño Notitarde en su edición del 13 de abril. “Todos esos fascinerosos, sus jefes y el mismo Chávez, deben ser juzgados y sancionados, porque tienen las manos manchadas de sangre y eso; no puede quedar impune”, expresó también en aquella ocasión el prelado. ¿Quién es el que está, entonces, fuera de la Constitución desde hace rato?

Va contra nuestra Constitución Urosa y la Conferencia Episcopal Venezolana cuando desconociendo el carácter laico de nuestro Estado, pretenden por igual erigirse en un poder estatal, dirigiéndose a nuestro gobierno e instituciones bajo la figura del “Exhorto” que encabeza sus comunicados y pastorales, bajo un chantaje que solo raya en la prepotencia y el desprecio que la alta jerarquía católica siempre ha manifestado contra nuestro Pueblo.

Ahora mismo recuerdo una frase que me salío del alma aquel atardecer del 13 de abril de 2002, cuando otro Cardenal, Ignacio Velasco, llevó a mi cuarto de prisionero en la Isla de la Orchila, a pedirme que “en el nombre de Dios”, firmara la renuncia a la Presidencia, porque según él, “ya todo estaba consumado”.

Estaba tranquilo el pedazo de mar que se abre más allá, hacia el gran caribe, pero yo olía la tormenta que ya se había desatado en tierra firme.

El pueblo estaba combatiendo en las calles, los militares patriotas se unían al pueblo, la dictadura perseguía y asesinaba, Venezuela estaba verdaderamente al borde de una guerra civil, y aquel Cardenal mentía a conciencia, diciéndome que todo estaba en calma, que el pueblo estaba tranquilo, que yo debería hacer “un último gesto” firmando la renuncia, que “ya todo estaba consumado” y que “Dios me bañaría de bendiciones”.

Fue entonces cuando le dije: “ay Cardenal, si Cristo te viera”.

Hoy vuelvo a decirlo: “Ay Cardenales…” bueno, ahora me atrevo también a pedir que Dios les perdone.

Not the kind of enthusiasm and warmth we see when Ahmadinejad and Chavez meet – but still worth a watch – since this is the first ever visit by a Syrian President to Venezuela. President Chavez has twice visited Syria in 2006, and 2009.

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Not translatable to written English – if, for some unfortunate reason, you don’t speak Spanish, find a friend who does, who can translate into spoken English (If you have no friends, please stop spending so much time reading blogs – and go out and make some)