Imperialism And Resistance

Cindy Sheehan interview on Venezuelan TV, strong truthful words. Unlike many on the liberal-left of the US, who backed (and continue to back) the Obama campaign for a 3rd Bush Imperial Regime, Sheehan remained clear in her stand against US imperialism – while one may not agree with her on specific issues, at the very least she is willing to name the cancerous rot of imperialism for what it is… (Cindy’s words are translated by Eva Golinger).

See also a recent article by Chris Hedges on “Ralph Nader was right about Obama.” There are a number of such articles appearing, however, it remains to be seen if such sentiment will translate into actual political action, or, if the US liberal-left will, once again, ally themselves with the liberal wing of imperialism.

Part I

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

Part II

Get the latest Flash Player to see this player.

“El plan que existe detrás del movimiento foquista de jóvenes, que ya no son jóvenes, se pusieron viejos antes de tiempo porque están al servicio del capitalismo, los hijitos de la burguesía detrás de ese foquismo enloquecido fascista y violento, hay un plan que ha funcionado en otros países de Europa, como la Revolución Naranja; es una estrategia imperial’, explicó el comandante Chávez a los líderes estudiantiles congregados en la Sala Ríos Reyna, durante la juramentación del Frente de Juventudes Bicentenario 200.

Revolución Verde: protestas en Irán contra el presunto fraude electoral y en apoyo del candidato de la oposición Mir-Hossein Mousavi.”La ‘revolución verde’ de Teherán es el más reciente caso de las «revoluciones de color» mediante las cuales Estados Unidos ha logrado imponer gobiernos sometidos a su tutela en varios países sin tener que recurrir a la fuerza”, señala Meyssan

haz click aqui para leer mas

partial translation: “Listen to this news, I could not believe this, but then I verified it! The New York Times says, the New York Times says a lot of lies, but I don’t think they lie about the internal politics, or the government of the US. Listen to this: The US forces said they suspended the evacuation of the victims of the earthquake in Haiti to the US, because of a dispute about who would pay for the treatment of… suspended… This is imperialism, this is Capitalism…each ill person who comes, an injured person, how much does this fracture cost? How much does this operation cost? A pregnant woman, how much does the cesarean cost? … This is Capitalism”

Also check this article by Ashley Smith:

“The media coverage of the earthquake is marked by an almost complete divorce of the disaster

from the social and political history of Haiti,” Canadian Haiti Solidarity Activist Yves Engler said in an interview. “They repeatedly state that the government was completely unprepared to deal with the crisis. This is true. But they left out why.”

Why were 60 percent of the buildings in Port-au-Prince shoddily constructed and unsafe in normal circumstances, according to the city’s mayor? Why are there no building regulations in a city that sits on a fault line? Why has Port-au-Prince swelled from a small town of 50,000 in the 1950s to a population of 2 million desperately poor people today? Why was the state completely overwhelmed by the disaster?

To understand these facts, we have to look at a second fault line–U.S. imperial policy toward Haiti. The U.S. government, the UN, and other powers have aided the Haitian elite in subjecting the country to neoliberal economic plans that have impoverished the masses, deforested the land, wrecked the infrastructure and incapacitated the government.

The fault line of U.S. imperialism interacted with the geological one to turn the natural disaster into a social catastrophe.

During the Cold War, the U.S. supported the dictatorships of Papa Doc Duvalier and then Baby Doc Duvalier–which ruled the country from 1957 to 1986–as an anti-communist counter-weight to Castro’s Cuba nearby.

Under guidance from Washington, Baby Doc Duvalier opened the Haitian economy up to U.S. capital in the 1970s and 1980s. Floods of U.S. agricultural imports destroyed peasant agriculture. As a result, hundred of thousands of people flocked to the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince to labor for pitifully low wages in sweatshops located in U.S. export processing zones.

Eva Golinger discusses soft attempts at destabilization of the Bolivarian Revolution, and the involvement of US government supported organizations.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

battle for the planet by President Hugo Chavez:

In Copenhagen, from the beginning, the cards were on the table for all to see. On the one hand, the cards of brutal meanness and stupidity of capitalism which did not budge in defence of its logic: the logic of capital, which leaves only death and destruction in its wake at an increasingly rapid pace.

On the other hand, the cards of the peoples demanding human dignity, the salvation of the planet and for a radical change, not of the climate, but of a world system that has brought us to the brink of unprecedented ecological and social catastrophe.

On one side, the victors of a mercantile and utilitarian civilisation, that is, the “civilised ones” who for a long time now have forgotten about human beings, and opted blindly for increasingly insatiable desires.

On the other hand, the “barbarians” who remain committed in believing and in fighting for radically changing the logic, that you can maximise human welfare, minimising environmental and ecological impacts. Those who sustain the impossibility of defending human rights, as raised by the comrade Evo Morales, if we don’t also defend the rights of Mother Earth, those who act with determination to leave a planet and future for our descendants.

the truth about Copenhagen by Fidel Castro

Obama’s deceitful, demagogic and ambiguous remarks failed to involve a binding commitment and ignored the Kyoto Framework Convention. He then left the room shortly after listening to a few other speakers. Among those invited to take the floor were the highest industrialized nations, several emerging economies and some of the poorest countries in the world. The leaders and representatives of over 170 countries were only allowed to listen.

At the end of the speeches of the 16 chosen, Evo Morales, with the authority of his indigenous Aymara origin and his recent reelection with 65% of the vote as well as the support of two-thirds of the Bolivian House and Senate, requested the floor. The Danish president had no choice but to yield to the insistence of the other delegations.
When Evo had concluded his wise and deep observations, the Danish had to give the floor to Hugo Chavez. Both speeches will be registered by history as examples of short and timely remarks. Then, with their mission duly accomplished they both left for their respective countries. But when Obama disappeared, he had yet to fulfill his task in the host country.