Archive | Ecuador RSS feed for this section

Editorial: Hugo Chávez kept his promise to the people of Venezuela

5 Mar

hastaBy OSCAR GUARDIOLA-RIVERA

He wrote, he read, and mostly he spoke. Hugo Chávez, whose death has been announced, was devoted to the word. He spoke publicly an average of 40 hours per week. As president, he didn’t hold regular cabinet meetings; he’d bring the many to a weekly meeting, broadcast live on radio and television. Aló, Presidente, the programme in which policies were outlined and discussed, had no time limits, no script and no teleprompter. One session included an open discussion of healthcare in the slums of Caracas, rap, a self-critical examination of Venezuelans being accustomed to the politics of oil money and expecting the president to be a magician, a friendly exchange with a delegation from Nicaragua and a less friendly one with a foreign journalist.

Nicaragua is one of Venezuela’s allies in Alba, the organisation constituted at Chávez’s initiative to counter neoliberalism in the region, alongside Cuba, Ecuador and Bolivia. It has now acquired a life of its own having invited a number of Caribbean countries and Mexico to join, with Vietnam as an observer. It will be a most enduring legacy, a concrete embodiment of Chávez’s words and historical vision. The Bolívarian revolution has been crucial to the wider philosophy shared and applied by many Latin American governments. Its aim is to overcome global problems through local and regional interventions by engaging with democracy and the state in order to transform the relation between these and the people, rather than withdrawing from the state or trying to destroy it.

Because of this shared view Brazilians, Uruguayans and Argentinians perceived Chávez as an ally, not an anomaly, and supported the inclusion of Venezuela in their Mercosur alliance. Chávez’s Social Missions, providing healthcare and literacy to formerly excluded people while changing their life and political outlook, have proven the extent of such a transformative view. It could be compared to the levelling spirit of a kind of new New Deal combined with a model of social change based on popular and communal organisation.

The facts speak for themselves: the percentage of households in poverty fell from 55% in 1995 to 26.4% in 2009. When Chávez was sworn into office unemployment was 15%, in June 2009 it was 7.8%. Compare that to current unemployment figures in Europe. In that period Chávez won 56% of the vote in 1998, 60% in 2000, survived a coup d’état in 2002, got over 7m votes in 2006 and secured 54.4% of the vote last October. He was a rare thing, almost incomprehensible to those in the US and Europe who continue to see the world through the Manichean prism of the cold war: an avowed Marxist who was also an avowed democrat. To those who think the expression of the masses should have limited or no place in the serious business of politics all the talking and goings on in Chávez’s meetings were anathema, proof that he was both fake and a populist. But to the people who tuned in and participated en masse, it was politics and true democracy not only for the sophisticated, the propertied or the lettered.

All this talking and direct contact meant the constant reaffirmation of a promise between Chávez and the people of Venezuela. Chávez had discovered himself not by looking within, but by looking outside into the shameful conditions of Latin Americans and their past. He discovered himself in the promise of liberation made by Bolívar. “On August 1805,” wrote Chávez, Bolívar “climbed the Monte Sacro near Rome and made a solemn oath.” Like Bolívar, Chávez swore to break the chains binding Latin Americans to the will of the mighty. Within his lifetime, the ties of dependency and indirect empire have loosened. From the river Plate to the mouths of the Orinoco river, Latin America is no longer somebody else’s backyard. That project of liberation has involved thousands of men and women pitched into one dramatic battle after another, like the coup d’état in 2002 or the confrontation with the US-proposed Free Trade Zone of the Americas. These were won, others were lost.

The project remains incomplete. It may be eternal and thus the struggle will continue after Chávez is gone. But whatever the future may hold, the peoples of the Americas will fight to salvage the present in which they have regained a voice. In Venezuela, they put Chávez back into the presidency after the coup. This was the key event in Chávez’s political life, not the military rebellion or the first electoral victory. Something changed within him at that point: his discipline became ironclad, his patience invincible and his politics clearer. For all the attention paid to the relation between Chávez and Castro, the lesser known fact is that Chávez’s political education owes more to another Marxist president who was also an avowed democrat: Chile’s Salvador Allende. “Like Allende, we’re pacifists and democrats,” he once said. “Unlike Allende, we’re armed.”

The lesson drawn by Chávez from the defeat of Allende in 1973 is crucial. Some, like the far right and the state-linked paramilitary of Colombia would love to see Chavismo implode, and wouldn’t hesitate to sow chaos across borders. The support of the army and the masses of Venezuela will decide the fate of the Bolívarian revolution, and the solidarity of powerful and sympathetic neighbours like Brazil. Nobody wants instability now that Latin America is finally standing up for itself. In his final days Chávez emphasised the need to build communal power and promoted some of his former critics associated with the journal Comuna. The revolution will not be rolled back. Unlike his admired Bolívar, Chávez did not plough the seas.

Source

Ecuador: Britain Retracts Threats to Attack Embassy

28 Aug

British Foreign Office Says Committed to Dialogue

by Jason Ditz

Ecuador President Rafael Correa is reporting that Britain has formally withdrawn its threat to attack the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, saying that his government “consider this unfortunate incident over.”

Britain’s Foreign Office had threatened to invade the embassy earlier this month over the granting of asylum for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Though the Vienna Convention of 1961 forbids nations from attacking one another’s embassies, British law claims the right to do so.

The Ecuadorean government says they have received an additional communication from the Foreign Office over the weekend, saying that there is “no threat to enter the embassy.” Ecaudor had previously called an emergency meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS) to respond to the threat.

The British Foreign Office is now denying that the threat was ever made in the first place, and says that its second letter was meant to “calm things down.” They say that they are now committed to dialogue.

Source

Political Cartoon: U.S. pitbull threatens to raid Ecuador embassy to get Assange

22 Aug

The NYT and the School of Assassins

17 Aug

by JOAN ROELOFS

Saturday, August 11, The New York Times printed a front page article about the nun, Sister Megan Rice, age 82, who committed civil disobedience at the Oak Ridge Tennessee nuclear reservation in a protest against nuclear weapons. The article also informs us that she had been arrested in 1998 protesting at the School of the Americas in Fort Benning, Georgia. The Times then notes that some of the trainees from that school “went on to commit human rights abuses.” You might think of denials of same-sex partner medical benefits, or censorship of soldiers’ mail; in fact, the abuses were (and still are) assassination, torture, and military overthrow of elected governments.

The Times then states: “The school has since been closed.” This is not the case at all. The name has been changed to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, with the same curriculum.

The SOA, aka WHISC, is probably the best known locale of foreign military training, because of the vigil and civil disobedience organized every November by the School of the Americas Watch organization. Some mainstream news sources note this event; The New York Times usually ignores it. Perhaps that is why they think the school is closed; if it is not in the NYT, it can’t possibly exist.

SOA graduates include the murderers of Jesuit priests, the lay missionary and 3 nuns, Archbishop Romero, and the El Mazote massacre of 900 civilians in El Salvador; and many other victims. SOA training manuals advocate torture. The recent overthrow of Honduras government was the work of graduates of SOA. Other alumni are Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia.

Ecuador, Costa Rica, Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela have withdrawn participation in SOA.

“Multicultural” education doesn’t stop with the SOA. More than 200 institutions in the US train foreign military personnel, and US military sponsored training occurs all over the world, in our overseas institutions and in situ. The 571 page State Department Report on Foreign Military Training for 2010 indicates that approximately 67,100 students from 159 countries participated.

“Education” is offered through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program, and activities funded through Defense and State Departments. All armament sales are accompanied by training. The State Department International Military Education and Training (IMET) is a major offering. The Expanded IMET (E-IMET) program (arising from criticism of our past trainees’ post-graduate projects—assassination, torture, military takeovers, etc.) is supposed to teach respect for civilian control of the military, human rights, and belief in the rule of law.

Among the DOD programs is Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET). US Special Operations Forces (SOF) train “with friendly foreign forces. . . The primary purpose of JCET is always the training of US SOF personnel, although incidental training benefits may accrue to the foreign forces.”

Programs exist for combating terrorism, counter-narcotics training, humanitarian demining, and a whole university of military and civilian subjects. Civilian government leaders of many countries are also invited and participate in the trainings.

The WHISC brags that it teaches peaceful skills such as public administration, but the purpose is clear: when the troops take over a country they have to know how to do it. Perhaps the DOD has learned from the experience of Lawrence of Arabia: his men captured Damascus, but didn’t have any public administration skills, so lost it.

Each branch of the military has its own network of schools, the military academies have exchange programs, there are regional centers, and civilian institutions have foreign military students. Even military prep schools can get into the picture; some start at pre-Kindergarten. Private contractors also perform training.

Some examples of participating institutions among the 200 are the Africa Center for Strategic Studies (In D.C., Senegal, and Ethiopia); the US Army JFK Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC for Special Forces training (Green Berets); and the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies (Marshall Center).

Land-grant universities were originally planned to include military training, and they are today important centers for these programs. Indonesian special forces—Kopassus—were trained at Norwich University in Vermont. When this was revealed by a reporter, a scandal ensued, the reporter was fired from her newspaper, and the program was shut down. However, the University’s president recently announced that the relationship was resuming.

Among the many countries participating in our military training are Sweden and Switzerland, sometimes thought to be neutral. They are affiliated with NATO, in a “Partnership for Peace” status. So also is Russia, and its troops joined ours in anti-terrorism training this May in Colorado. Another odd grantee is the tiny Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, as Lora Lumpe points out in her excellent 2002 Report on military training.

One goal of these programs is to enable foreign military forces to support combined operations and “interoperability” with US forces. Military hardware is also advertised and demonstrated, being an important part of US exports.

The larger picture is positioning the US as a “holding company” for all the world’s militaries. These are also being groomed to penetrate civilian governments, in some cases by the old fashioned military coup. More sinister is the influence our past trainees, now heavily represented in foreign defense ministries, exert on the temporary elected governments in countries considered democracies—especially those considered the most democratic, such as Sweden and Denmark. Currently fashionable “networking” is indeed a potent technique of US domination.

Source

Is the US Poised to Regain Control of Latin America with Regional Proxy Wars Through Colombia?

21 Jun

The Summit of the Americas, Drug Legalization, ‘Asymmetric’ Relations & Security Cooperation

by ANNIE BIRD

The Summits of the Americas began in 1994 as forums to promote free trade. In 2009 the Summit’s focus shifted to demands for the inclusion of Cuba in regional political bodies and the end of the U.S. economic embargo, a debate which continued in this month’s Sixth Summit in Cartagena.

But a new topic made its way into the news from the April 14 and 15 Summit in Cartagena, the call to discuss ‘decriminalization’ of drugs. Strangely, the call was launched by precisely the presidents which have most embraced militarization under the guise of the drug war. Though spearheaded by Guatemalan President Otto Perez Molina, reportedly a former CIA asset and former general accused of carrying out crimes against humanity, Perez Molina claims he thought of the proposal together with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes on April 15, Presidents Obama and Santos signed the U.S. – Colombia Action Plan for Regional Security Cooperation, an agreement for security cooperation throughout the hemisphere and in West Africa, whose stated objective is to respond to increased insecurity generated by organized crime.

The call for debate on such an important and sensitive topic by Washington’s military allies, while the U.S. launches with them a new regional ‘security’ project is confusing. But it also occurs as the U.S. attempts to challenge a set of popular South American leaders intent on forging an independent Latin America.

U.S. dominance is a sensitive subject in Latin America, and there is very little political capital to be gained from pandering to Washington. To the contrary, those that challenge the U.S. have become extremely popular, which leads to the suspicion that the call from the drug warriors for a debate on “decriminalization” could be a red herring to garner popularity for a new set of U.S. friendly Latin American presidents.

Colombian Host Helps US Retake Center Stage at the Summit

As South American leaders focus on building up a Latin American economic and political block with independence from its northern, English speaking neighbors, the Summits have been the sites of diplomatic tensions.

In 2009, during the last Summit in Trinidad and Tobago, US press reports focused on Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega’s “rant” against U.S. imperialism and reported on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s gift to Obama of the book “The Open Veins of Latin America” as an affront.

Whatever deference to Obama may have been missing in Trinidad and Tobago was more than made up for in Colombia where it was reported that in the ceremonial dinner Obama sat on a raised platform well above the other presidents, who could not be served until Obama arrived and was seated, well over an hour after everyone else.

Miami, the unofficial business capital of Latin America and nerve center of the political network that advance the interests of U.S. based corporations in Latin America was also given the opportunity to again flex its muscles in the context of a Summit in a Summit of corporate CEO’s convoked by the Colombian president of the Inter American Development Bank, Luis Alberto Moreno.

Immersed in his battle with cancer, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez did not attend. In the 2005 Summit Chavez pronounced the original summit agenda, the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), dead and buried, as Venezuela launched an alternative, the Bolivarian Alliance for Latin America (ALBA).

The only point of North- South tension reported from the Summit was the panel discussion turned debate, facilitated by co-panelist President Santos, between Obama and Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, in which Vanity Fair reports that Rousseff referred to the ‘asymmetric relationship’ between the U.S. and Latin America a dozen times.

April 15, Obama and Santos Announce the U.S. Colombia Action Plan for Regional Security

The diplomatic role Colombia played in restoring the U.S. President’s asymmetric relationship in the Summit was backed up by the signing of a political-military agreement aimed at strengthening the U.S.’s military presence in the region. President Santos, who was Minister of Defense under Alvaro Uribe, and President Obama “on the margins” of the Summit on April 15th signed an agreement to establish the U.S. Colombia Action Plan for Regional Security.

The White House described the agreement as building on, ie. expanding U.S. Colombian security operations from Central America to the whole hemisphere and even Africa. The White House referred to the ‘success,’ without describing specific benchmarks to demonstrate ‘success’, of Operation Martillo, launched last year, partnering the U.S. Joint Interagency Task Force- South (JIATF-S) and the Colombian Navy and Air Forces in Central America.

JIATF-S, a unit under the U.S. military’s Southern Command (SouthCom), left Panama for Miami 19 years ago when the U.S. left the Canal Zone. Last year JIATF-S came back to Panama providing “Operational Support” in a newly reopened U.S. military base which serves as the Center of Operations for the Central American System for Regional Integration’s Regional Security Strategy (SICA-COSR).

COSR will most likely be the regional center for the JIATF-S’s C4I border surveillance program, which creates technology canals of radars and other electronic surveillance equipment linked to Colombian and Mexican border control technology.

The White House also mentions that the Colombian National Police are providing assistance and training through the Central America Regional Security Initiative (CARSI) to all of Central America except Nicaragua, Central America’s only ALBA member since the 2009 military coup in Honduras. In December 2011, Panamanian President Martinelli announced that the US and Colombia were partnering in creating a border control school for the region’s police and military in Panama.

CARSI is being implemented through SICA’s Regional Security Strategy, which is promoted by a ‘group of friends,’ spearheaded by the United States and the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) in Washington, DC, but which also includes, among others, Colombia, Chile, Brazil and Germany. SICA- ESCA is expected to have an annual budget of over US$1 billion, provided by the Group of Friends, mostly in the form of 22 loans from the IADB.

From Central America to the Hemisphere: Biden’s Lunch with Central American Presidents While General Fraser Explained SouthComs Agenda to Congress

In preparation for the 6th Summit of the Americas, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Mexico and Central America on March 4, 5 and 6. He began in Mexico where the State Department’s Merida Initiative partnered with President Felipe Calderon’s drug war in 2006, and has resulted in an estimated 50,000 deaths.

On Tuesday March 6, Biden lunched in Tegucigalpa with all the presidents of Central America mainly to discuss CARSI, the Central American version of the Merida Initiative. The same day the Commander of the US Southern Command, General Fraser, presented his annual address to the Armed Services Committee in the House of Representatives, focusing strongly on Central America.

In the context of Biden’s visit, the US ambassador to Honduras, Lisa Kubiske, commented that the diminishing engagement of the US in the Middle East means that US Armed Forces can increase their commitments in Central America, a scenario that is already taking shape.

Fraser explained that the US agenda in the hemisphere is stability, and spoke extensively about Central American crime gangs as a threat to stability in the region, which he claimed require a military response and assistance from the State Department in training and funding police forces. Another threat to stability he described were alleged protests and unrest in certain ALBA nations, while he expressed concern about overtures from the Iranian government to Venezuela.

He also asserted that “criminal activities extend into the Venezuelan government,” ironic given Biden’s presence in Honduras where deep implications of government officials and security forces in organized crime, including gangs, have been completely overlooked by the U.S.

The politically charged discourse behind the ‘drug war’ underscores the fact that since 2006 the U.S. has established a massive military presence from Mexico to Colombia, in what looks like a move to insure that the independent governments of South America don’t spread north, and now, apparently, the U.S. and Colombian security agenda is throughout the Hemisphere.

At the 5th Summit of the Americas, the Left Controlled Central America

In 2009 Biden also visited Central America to prepare for the Summit, but the cards were stacked very differently. Left leaning governments, many affiliated with former revolutionary movements, had taken control of Central America through elections.

Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista movement, was president of Nicaragua, firmly staked out in office with a large base of support and a political pact with the opposition. Mauricio Funes of the FMLN political party, born from the revolutionary movement, had just been elected president of El Salvador. Guatemala’s president, Alvaro Colom, who had undertaken his first presidential bid in 1999 as the candidate for another revolutionary movement turned political party, the URNG, brought some URNG associated political figures into his administration.

In Honduras, Manuel Zelaya had led his nation into joining ALBA, and consolidated an overwhelming base of support. Panama was ruled by Martin Torrijos, son of the “leftist” de facto military leader Omar Torrijos (1968-1981) whose 1981 death in a plane crash is widely speculated to have been the work of the CIA. A year before the 5th Summit of the Americas Torrijos had met with Raul Castro in Cuba to discuss signing an energy agreement. Oscar Arias, then President of Costa Rica, though a firm US ally is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and many consider him a moderate.

Central America Turns to the Right, with a Big Push from the North

Just three months after the 2009 Summit, Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was deposed in a coup broadly understood in Honduras to have been backed by the U.S. government. Guatemala’s Alvaro Colom was succeeded by Otto Perez Molina, a retired general and a firm US ally. Mauricio Funes, an outsider in the FMLN political party, has made many concessions to US interests, particularly in relation to security matters recently sweeping all FLMN aligned appointees from top security positions and replacing them with former military.

Panama’s Torrijos was succeeded by the right wing Ricardo Martinelli, who comes from one of Panama’s oldest economic and political oligarch families, and in Costa Rica Laura Chinchilla is considered right wing and very pro US. Daniel Ortega remains in office, though his 2011 reelection has been the focus of intense criticism from the State Department, former diplomats, and the media.

Political Opportunism: Drug Legalization Call from Guatemala’s Perez Molina

With three months in office, Perez Molina has leapt into the spotlight by promoting a debate around legalization of drugs, donning the hat of reformer as opposed to his previous fame as a former military intelligence chief implicated in war crimes like torture and genocide. Even before Perez Molina assumed office, in December 2010, he surprised all by advancing a call for dialog about the possibility of “depenalization,” ie. legalization, of drugs.

The strangeness of Perez Molina’s position stems from his wholehearted embrace of militarization in the framework of the war on drugs. During the first two months of his presidency his new appointees on repeated occasions have criminalized social protest, stating that those who block highways are backed by organized crime and drug traffickers.

On February 14, 2012 Guatemala’s Vice Minister for Security, former colonel Julio Rivera Clavería, referred to the leaders of the Sasiguan, Cunen indigenous community, which opposes the construction of a hydroelectric dam on their lands by the Italian energy company ENEL, as drug traffickers. On February 14 Sasiguan residents caught three police officers leaving the scene after the destruction of over 50 acres of crops, the latest in a series of actions harassing and intimidating the community. The three were detained and taken to the community’s traditional indigenous leaders. Rivera led a force of 600 soldiers to “rescue” three security guards, accusing community leaders of being drug traffickers.

Perez Molina has also enthusiastically promoted use of the Guatemalan military’s special forces unit, the Kaibiles, in anti-drug policing, while placing Kaibiles in the highest three command positions in the military. On April 6, 2011 Guatemalan Vice Minister of Security Mario Castaneda reported that current and former Kaibles were training members of the Zeta drug gang and participating in drug smuggling, while noting that a series of weapons robberies from military bases in Guatemala and Honduras had benefited Zetas.

The Mexico–Guatemala- Colombia Axis: Creating Latin America’s “Independent” Block Favoring Northern Businesses Interests

With his forceful yet polished personality, Perez Molina is quickly projecting regional leadership advancing statements that appear to confront US policy, like that Guatemalan troops are capable of fighting the drug war and that he did not intend to ask for US troop support. Strong words for a man who visited SouthCom together with his vice president and three highest ministerial appointees in November, even before taking office, to pave way for cooperation. In 1994 he was reported by an investigative journalist to have been a CIA asset, and he has been extremely close to the US embassy as his frequent appearances in Wikileaks documents attest.

Perez Molina is an adept politician and there is a lot of political capital to be garnered from appearing to challenge the US in Latin America, especially on drug policy. It is not lost on Latin Americans that the US is the main supplier of weapons to the region’s drug cartels, that it is US and Canadian consumption that drives the drug trade, and that most of the casualties in the US’s drug war are Latin Americans, and their democracies.

The first acting president in Latin America to clearly call for legalization was Colombian President Santos in November 2011, though in August 2011 Mexico’s President Felipe Calderon stated that if the US could not curb consumption it must implement ‘market based solutions’ to the importation of drugs to the States, solutions not involving illegal border crossings.

The Drug War Must End, But Is there a Hidden Agenda?

On February 23, 2009 the Wall Street Journal launched the current legalization debate, publishing a powerful op-ed by former presidents Fernando Cardoso, Cesar Gaviria and Ernesto Zedillo of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico respectively, asserting that “Prohibitionist policies based on eradication, interdiction and criminalization of consumption simply haven’t worked,” and calling for a review of US led drug war policies, noting that the “alarming power of the drug cartels is leading to a criminalization of politics and a politicization of crime. And the corruption of the judicial and political system is undermining the foundations of democracy in several Latin American countries.”

The US’s drug war in Latin America is criminal and must end. But the call to ‘debate’ drug policy is being advanced by the same US aligned political figures that have most embraced the militarization of the region in the name of the drug war.

The US’s agenda in Latin America is regaining hegemony. But US allies have been lacking political personalities capable of garnering strong support in their home countries. Openness to dialog or even limited reform on drug policy, which appears to challenge Uncle Sam’s agenda, could go a long way in gaining popular support, generating an apparently ‘independent’ block of right leaning political figures to challenge the South American lineup, while continuing security operations to impose transnational business interests through repression and criminalization.

Source

Video Exposes Chevron’s Decimation of Indigenous Groups In Ecuador’s Amazon

21 Feb

NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2012 — A Sordid Tale of Crime and Cover-up By Major U.S. Oil Company

NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In the Ecuadorian rainforest, far from the eyes of the U.S. news media, sits one of the world’s most devastating environmental disasters — one that has killed numerous people and likely will kill thousands more in the coming years from cancer and other oil-related diseases if not properly remediated.

The cruel impact of this disaster has been largely ignored by Chevron, the company that now faces an $18 billion court judgment for causing it. Instead of remediating his company’s contamination, Chevron CEO John Watson has squandered hundreds of millions of dollars of shareholder money on 39 different U.S. law firms in an increasingly futile attempt to evade responsibility for the consequences of this man-made catastrophe.

But the sordid tale of Chevron’s environmental disaster in Ecuador will be hidden no more.

Representatives of the rainforest communities that won the judgment have posted a video on their web site that reveals in graphic and shocking detail how Chevron intentionally contaminated the rainforest which, according to Amazon Defense Coalition spokesperson Karen Hinton, caused death and destruction to thousands of people. From 1964 to 1990, the oil giant (operating under the Texaco brand) admitted that it deliberately dumped 16-18 billion gallons of toxic waste water into rivers and streams relied on by local inhabitants for their drinking water.

The waste water included benzene, a known human carcinogen, as well as other toxic chemicals and heavy metals, according to evidence before the Ecuador court.

The video, “Chevron’s Amazon Chernobyl,” also shows how the oil giant in the 1970s and 1980s gouged over 900 unlined waste pits from Ecuador’s jungle floor to store the oil and toxic water left after drilling. Today, the contents of these enormous pits continue to flow via Chevron’s pipes into the soils and streams of the forest, poisoning residents and their food supply. See here and here for a photo of one of the pits.

The video also reveals how Chevron defrauded Ecuador’s court system during an eight-year trial by using bogus laboratory tests to undercount toxins in the soil.

“This video shows in devastating detail that that what Chevron did in Ecuador continues to cause tremendous harm and suffering to thousands of people,” said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the Ecuadorian communities.

“These people are invisible to Chevron CEO John Watson as he continues to play games with the law, bringing harm both to his company’s shareholders and to the foreign policy interests of the United States in Latin America,” said Hinton.

Despite multiple legal setbacks in the courts of Ecuador and the U.S., Chevron and its primary outside counsel Gibson Dunn & Crutcher continue to employ abusive and largely ineffective litigation tactics to evade complying with the law. See here and here.

Meanwhile, the indigenous people of the rainforest are forced to drink water out of poisoned streams. The video shows a little girl using a stick to twirl a gob of oily waste like a ribbon of taffy. In other shots, water glistens with the sickly greens and blues of oil as people swim and wash.

Chevron, the local residents say on the video, told them the oil contained “vitamins and minerals” and was good for them.

In several compelling scenes, the video demonstrates how Chevron ignored pollution standards, manipulated evidence, caused harm to human health, tried to entrap a judge in a bribery scheme, and ultimately proved the legal claims of the rainforest communities with its own evidence.

“This powerful film needs to be seen so the world can fully understand the depths of Chevron’s depravity when it comes to environmental protection,” said Hinton. “Governments the world over can watch this video to better understand the enormous risks to their citizens of doing business with Chevron.”

Source

Review of “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”

10 Dec

When someone writes and speaks out to expose a system of injustice from the perspective of a former insider, every effort is taken to discredit such a person. The more controversial the information they bring forward, the more their character is attacked, their motives questioned and their words responded to with labels.

John Perkins, with his book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004), has been so attacked. Yet his book has enjoyed immense popularity for what it promises: an insight into the murky world of extortion and exploitation that exists under the facade capitalism tries to construct for itself. It is this a hunger for the truth behind the actions of power, and a fear of the implications of such revelations, that elicit such varied and extreme responses to exposes like this one.

The Concept of an “EHM”

Perkins begins the preface of his book with his definition of the term “Economic Hit Man”:

Economic hit men (EHMs) are highly paid professionals who cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars. They funnel money from the World Bank; the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foregin “aid” organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources. Their tools include fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs, extortion, sex, and murder. They play a game as old as empire, but one that has taken on new and terrifying dimensions during this time of globalization. (Perkins xi)

Essentially, what Perkins describes here is a facilitator for imperialist exploitation, working in the role of encouraging “developing” nations to take on loans and debt which cannot be paid back, which will chiefly benefit US Corporations and a select number of the power elite in those countries, and will force those nations to surrender access to their natural resources to colonizing powers.

A Life Lived in the service of Imperialism

Throughout Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, Perkins describes how he was encouraged to provide inflated estimates of economic growth and development to encourage bigger and bigger loans for infrastructure. The money from these loans would be returned to US construction and engineering firms, leading to higher profits for them and higher debt for those countries subjected to the loans, which ultimately opened up those countries for plunder by energy companies and other corporations who could benefit from their resources.

Traveling from Ecuador to Indonesia, Panama to Saudi Arabia, and even to the Shah’s Iran, Perkins worked to advance the cause of imperialism using overly-optimistic economic models, predictions for power grid use and other infrastructure use that would necessitate more and more loan dollars to be used in employing construction firms. In one instance, Perkins describes how he facilitated a sexual relationship between a Saudi Prince and a woman he hired from Boston during the 1970′s for the purpose of opening Saudi Arabia’s oil to the west.

Dirty Deeds for a Dirtier System

A strength of Perkins’ work is that it endeavors to expose a multi-faceted system of exploitation, highlighting the role of intelligence agencies and the military, as well as the role of corporations and Economic Hit Men.

When the EHMs are unable to encourage a bad deal, the CIA “jackals” (as Perkins describes them) take over through means of assassination, coup d’etat and other clandestine crimes. Perkins references the likelihood of President Torrijos of Panama and Jaime Roldos in Ecuador, citing the suspicious nature of their plane crashes and their resistance to certain ambitions of the US government and corporations. In a chapter on oil companies infiltrating Ecuador, Perkins even exposes the role of evangelist missionaries working in the Summer Institute of Linguistics colluding with oil companies working to crush indigenous peoples in the name of profit.

Can It Be Trusted?

Perkins’ book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man has been responded to with attacks on his character, with rebuttals and apologies aimed at defending the very exploitation Perkins describes. Nonetheless, it’s worth remembering that this account comes from someone whose job it was to deceive, to feed information designed to elicit a response that benefited the cause of imperialism, that he has admitted to taking a bribe and has, as well, been in the position of a bourgeois company owner and high-paid consultant. Some may ask “if this is true, then how are we supposed to trust his story as he’s written it?”

The answer to this lies in the narrative behind the narrative. The truth is, Perkins’ story is, as he is quoted as saying, as old as empire. His story is the story of imperialism.

Whether or not Perkins has lied about this or that, had this or that motive in mind, is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. To this effect, the essence of his confession is true to the broader pattern of capitalist exploitation.

Conclusion: Useful, But Not News

John Perkins’ exposé in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man makes for excellent reading, as it is written much like a spy novel. It is also a useful insight for those who are unaware of the everyday crimes of capitalism, of the shady underworld created by capitalism’s predatory aid, of assassination, genocide and the creation of horrible poverty.

Perkins’ work has the potential to be an essential eye-opener, an important first step, for those who have not yet found the consciousness to understand that capitalism and imperialism are the problem. Other than that, his conceptualization of what the problem is (a “corporatocracy” — rather than the overall system itself), his proposed solutions and the actual depth of his revelations of what is done in capitalism’s name will not be much of a revelation to a veteran activist. Nevertheless, Perkins is to be commended for his contribution, and reading his work would not be unhelpful for any who wish to expand their experience with the crimes of imperialism.

Resolution Supporting the Revolutionary Forces in Ecuador

26 Dec

[Update Jan. 15, 2011: "The Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE) was born in August, 1964 in rebellion against the revisionist leadership of the Communist Party of Ecuador (PCE) and its endorsement of the then Soviet-line of peaceful transition to socialism, the parliamentary road and peaceful coexistence with imperialism. Over the years the PCMLE, though still an underground organisation, has built mass organizations among students, workers, peasants and the general public and participates in elections at various levels to promote its vision of a new democratic and anti-imperialist revolution in Ecuador."]

Translated from Spanish

For years the working class, peasants, youth and indigenous peoples of Ecuador have been involved in the fight against imperialism, especially U.S. imperialism, for social progress and for their national emancipation.

It is this fight, they have always been able to count on the militant commitment of the Marxist Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador, of the MPD and of all the social and trade union forces that form the Popular Front.

These forces that are fighting for revolutionary change, against imperialism, for democracy, the revolution and socialism, have been at the forefront of the great popular movements that have developed in Ecuador; they have faced the harshest repression and never hesitated in supporting the policies and, at times even the governments, when these were in accord with the interests and aspirations of the peoples of Ecuador. These forces have called on the working class, the popular masses and the peoples to stand up whenever their interests have been harmed.

It is this policy that these forces have continued with a revolutionary spirit, contributing to the election to the Presidency of the Republic of R. Correa, in the drafting of the present Constitution with a progressive and anti-imperialist character. They have also always fought all the attempts of reaction, supported by imperialism, to corner political power and promote neoliberal policies, as they have always done.

The ink on the Constitution had not yet dried when President Correa and his allies began to impose a policy, by decrees and laws, contrary to its spirit and content.

This immediately developed a process of struggle and resistance, involving different sectors struck by the unpopular measures of the president and his government.

Obviously, the revolutionary forces have not only supported, but have been at the forefront of this resistance and have called on the president to change his policy, to respect his commitments and the Constitution and to meet the legitimate demands of the social sectors hardest hit by the neoliberal measures imposed in an authoritarian manner, with pressure, blackmail and arrogance by the president himself.

The rebellion of the troops of the police and the military on September 30 took place in that context of social confrontation, which is spreading and deepening among the people, the popular sectors, the teachers, youth, indigenous peoples, the trade union movement and the organized forces for the revolution, on the one hand, and the very regime that is making concessions to the oligarchy and imperialism, on the other.

Correa, resorting to provocations, to lies on a large scale, has described this rebellion as an attempted coup.

At no time was this a matter of bringing down the government; instead there was a large scale manipulation, nationally and internationally, by Correa and his allies.

One of the objectives of this maneuver is the criminalization of all social and political protest, especially when it comes from sectors of the revolutionary left.

Today the repression is focused against leaders of popular organizations, student unions, teachers and indigenous people such as Mery Zamora, William Pazmiño, David Tenesaca, Marlon Santi, Galo Mindiola and Luordes Tiban, whom Correa is trying to silence.

But Correa is mistaken if he thinks he can silence the workers’ and popular movement, the indigenous organizations, the social and political forces that have never ceased in their struggle for social progress, democracy and national sovereignty.

The ICMLPO and its parties and organizations present here:

1. Express our solidarity with the PCMLE, the MPD and all the trade union, social and political forces that are struggling for democracy, for social and national emancipation in Ecuador.

2. We strongly condemn the wave of repression unleashed by President Correa and his regime against those very forces that have always been on the side of the people, against reaction and imperialism.

3. We demand the immediate release of the imprisoned popular militants and an end to their harassment, and in particular we demand the freedom of comrade Marcelo Rivera, president of the FEUE [Federation of University Students of Ecuador], sentenced to 3 years in prison on the totally illegal charges of “terrorism”, who has been on a hunger strike in his defense and that of freedom of organization and expression. This is a blatant case of political repression under a completely false charge, and a subjection of judicial power to the control of the executive power, to the arrogance and authoritarianism of President Rafael Correa.

4. We call on the workers and the peoples of our countries, and on an international level, on organizations in defense of democratic freedoms and for solidarity with the struggles of the peoples, especially the peoples of Latin America, to expose and denounce the manipulation and maneuvers of the government of Rafael Correa, and express their solidarity with the forces fighting for social and national emancipation in Ecuador.

5. We commit ourselves to expand the solidarity with the anti-imperialist struggles of the peoples of Latin America.

6. We commit ourselves to develop an informational campaign confronting the disinformation, to clarify the true events that have occurred in Ecuador.

 

International Conference of Marxist Leninist Parties and Organizations

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Statements from the Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) & Indigenous Groups Regarding the Attempted Coup in Ecuador

4 Oct

The PC(AP), or in Spanish the Partido Comunista Chileno (Acción Proletaria) is a Marxist-Leninist party in Chile. It is a member of the ICMLPO (Unity & Struggle) along with the Marxist-Leninist parties such as the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party of Ecuador (PCMLE) and has issued a parallel statement in joint with the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), Ecuador’s largest Indigenous organization encompassing other major regional groupings of the Indigenous such as ECUARUNARI and CAOI.From the Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) and the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE):

THE POPULAR ORGANIZATIONS OF ECUADOR AGAINST THE POLICE REVOLT:  THE POLICY OF THE PARTY OF ACTION AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR REACTIONARIES AND IMPERIALISM TO PROMOTE A COUP D’ETAT!

Groups of comrades and friends,

The situation which crosses Ecuador today requires a full and dialectical analysis. It is necessary to focus our immediate and long-term interests toward the benefit of the workers and towns. One is not to be against all type of revolts–it is necessary to see them in light of the popular interests of the workers within their framework and not fall into the traps of reactionaries and the right. Thus, even though the revolt of the police occurred within the framework of them claiming that they are in defense of the economic interests that affect the troops and even the working public, it is not possible  to help but observe that it has support from the imperialists. The  problem is to know clearly who desires what politically and to whom the police revolt represents which has occurred in Ecuador. Even with the contradictions, the Party of Action along the workers and towns of Ecuador believe it is not possible to support the fascists and the coup participants. Next we gave an important declaration to them which represents the stance taken by the popular organizations of Ecuador, that gives their vision to us on the political situation that affects the Republic of Ecuador.

No More Dictatorships in Latin America!

Quito, September 30, 2010

In Latin America we have gone from bloody military dictatorship to the dictatorship of transnational capital to neoliberalism. The sectors that benefit from this have always been the same (bankers, commercial entrepreneurs, landowners). And we the impoverished, Indigenous, workers, men and women, have always been the victims, but we have always been fighters who stand for democracy of the oppressed. With this strength and legitimacy we reject any dictatorship from where ever it comes.

The political crisis in Ecuador at this moment caused by the insubordination of the police has been turned by police officers and some military sectors into a coup attempt, behind which is undoubtedly Ecuador’s right wing and the forces of imperialism.

We have no doubt that this political crisis is a right-wing reaction against the 2008 Constitution, adopted by the affirmative vote of 64% of Ecuadorians, and is therefore a clear threat to democracy, Plurinationalism, and the Sumak Kawsay (living well).

In the geopolitical dimension it is also a threat to the Venezuelan and Bolivian processes. It is not coincidental that reactionary sectors of the country celebrated the attempts of destabilization in the Venezuelan elections. They had this same attitude toward attempts to overthrow the Bolivian government. Now the conservative sectors of the country have been adding to these dictatorial attempts.

What is the position of the organized social sectors? The vast majority of popular organizations that resist against dictatorship and neo-liberalism of the pro-imperialist oligarchy in Ecuador, and despite our deep disagreements with the national government that has tried some of our leaders as terrorists, this is no reason to stand with our historic enemies. Behind the protest of the police and their wage claims is the claim of ignorance of the Constitution where we recognize many of our proposals and historical struggles.

Rafael Correa’s Citizen Revolution formed broad alliances with right-wing groups in mining, oil, agribusiness, etc., and attacked and persecuted popular left-wing organizations (especially the Indigenous movement) which leaves those reactionary sectors free to act in this way. Leaving no room for confusion, our position is:

1. Reject the coup attempt and defend the Plurinational State.

2. We declare ourselves in permanent assemblies and alert to mobilize in defense of plurinationalism.

3. As part of a plurinational democracy, the only revolutionary alternative is to fight against supporters of the dictatorship, and to deepen urgent changes in the process of agrarian revolution.

4. We gather ourselves in a large plurinational dialogue of all Ecuadorians, in an atmosphere of peace and democracy to build a large plurinational consensus as the best way to resolve the crisis peacefully.

We have already suffered too much with dictatorships, Honduras still hurts. No more dictatorship in Latin America.

For the Governing Council

Delfín Tenesaca

President of ECUARUNARI From CONAIE:

A process of change, as weak as it may be, runs the risk of being overturned or overtaken by the right, old or new, if it does not establish alliances with organized social and popular sectors, and deepen progressively.

The insubordination of the police, beyond their immediate demands, lays bare at least four substantial things:

1. While the government has dedicated itself exclusively to attacking and delegitimizing organized sectors like the Indigenous movement, workers’ unions, etc., it hasn’t weakened in the least the structures of power of the right, or those within the state apparatus, which has become evident through the rapidity of the response from the public forces.

2. The social crisis that was let loose today was also provoked by the authoritarian character and the non-opening to dialogue in the lawmaking process. We have seen how laws that were consensed around were vetoed by the President of the Republic, closing any possibility of agreement.

3. Faced with the criticism and mobilization of communities against transnational mining, oil, and agro-industrial companies, the government, instead of creating a dialogue, responds with violence and repression, as occurred in Zamora Chinchipe.

4. This scenario nurtures the conservative sectors. Already various sectors and people from the old right are asking for the overthrow of the government and the installation of a civil or military dictatorship; but the new right, from inside and outside the government, will use this context to justify their total alliance with the most reactionary sectors and with emerging business interests.

The Ecuadorian Indigenous movement, CONAIE, with its regional Confederations and its grassroots organizations states before Ecuadorian society and the international community their rejection to the economic and social policies of the government, and with the same energy we reject the actions of the right that in an undercover way form part of the attempted coup d’etat, and to the contrary we will continue to struggle for the construction of a Plurinational State with a true democracy.

Consistent with the mandate of the communities, peoples and nationalities and faithful to our history of struggle and resistance against colonialism, discrimination and exploitation of those who are below, of the poor, we will defend democracy and the rights of the people: no concessions for the right. In these critical moments, our position is:

1. We convene our bases to maintain themselves alert and ready to mobilize in defense of true Plurinational democracy and against the actions of the right.

2. We deepen our mobilization against the extractive model and the imposition of large scale mining, the privatization and concentration of water, and the expansion of the oil frontier.

3. We convene and join together with diverse organized sectors to defend the rights of workers, affected by the arbitrariness which has driven the legislative process, recognizing that they are making legitimate demands.

4. We demand that the national government firmly depose every possible concession to the right. We demand that the government abandons its authoritarian attitude against the popular sectors, that they not criminalize social protest and the persecution of leaders: the only thing this type of politics provokes is to open spaces to the Right and create spaces of destabilization.

The best way to defend democracy is to begin a true revolution that resolves the most urgent and structural questions to the benefit of the majority. On this path is the effective construction of the Plurinational state and the immediate initiation of an agrarian revolution and a de-privatization of water.

This is our position in this context and in this historical period.

Marlon Santi PRESIDENT, CONAIE

Delfín Tenesaca PRESIDENT, ECUARUNARI

Tito Puanchir PRESIDENT, CONFENIAE

Olindo Nastacuaz PRESIDENT, CONAICE
http://accionproletaria.com/2007/index.php


http://www.conaie.org/

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

US Strategy in Latin America was Wrong

15 May

Three years ago I wrote an article arguing that the political changes sweeping across Latin America were epoch-making and probably irreversible, and that they would fundamentally alter the relationship between the region and the United States. Some of the most important economic causes of the region’s shift to the left – including the unprecedented long-term growth failure since 1980 – were unrecognised then and remain mostly unacknowledged to this day.

At the time, Washington’s stated strategy was to isolate Venezuela from its neighbours. This was before the election of additional left governments in Ecuador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Paraguay and El Salvador. I argued that this strategy was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what was happening in the region, and that it would only succeed in isolating the United States from its southern neighbours.

All this has come to pass, but more interestingly, for the first time we have an acknowledgement of this failure from the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. At a press conference last Friday, she said in response to a question about Venezuela:

“When we look around the world, actually, we see a number of countries and leaders – Chávez is one of them but not the only one – who, over the last eight years, has become more and more negative and oppositional to the United States. … The prior administration tried to isolate them, tried to support opposition to them, tried to … turn them into international pariahs. It didn’t work.”

This is a remarkable confession, and it didn’t get a fraction of the attention it deserved. Clinton did not name the countries, but in Latin America, Bolivia would have to be included as a country where Washington has incurred resentment by supporting opposition movements against President Evo Morales. And of course there is the 47-year failure of the embargo against Cuba:

“We’re facing an almost united front against the United States regarding Cuba. Every country, even those with whom we are closest, is just saying you’ve got to change.”

She didn’t mention that they are also saying that Washington must change its policy toward Venezuela. President Lula da Silva of Brazil, who has consistently defended Hugo Chávez, has told Barack Obama as much and reportedly counselled him at the Summit of the Americas not to listen to his advisers – most of whom have appeared to seek continued hostility toward Venezuela and possibly Bolivia.

It is remarkable that pressure for a reality-based view of the world has had to come from the south, and says a lot about the state of civil society in the US. How is it that nobody from our leading foreign policy institutions could have figured this out years ago? On Cuba, there has been dissent – partly because there are powerful business interests that want access to the island, and partly because 47 years of failure is a long time even for slow learners.

But on Venezuela, the primary focus of US foreign policy in the hemisphere for the past seven years, there has been an overwhelming consensus of fantasy and hype. Chávez is the only democratically elected leader in the world, facing a media that is still overwhelmingly controlled by his political opposition, to be successfully maligned as a “dictator”. And a threat to the US – what exactly has he done to the US, anyway, other than provide a $100m annual subsidy to poor people here for heating oil?

n1269993204_241831_9587

The sad reality is that while the US has at least some civil society organisations that can present an independent view to the public on domestic issues, on foreign policy issues we are much more like Russia. The vast majority of expert opinion on foreign policy that is allowed access to major media in the US consists of government officials, former government officials or people who or are otherwise influenced by the government. This is one reason why it was so easy to invade Iraq and so difficult to get out of there or out of Afghanistan – in spite of the American public’s long-standing lack of enthusiasm for sending combat troops overseas.

Hillary Clinton also took note that Russia, Iran and China are gaining economic and political influence in Latin America, and recognised that we are operating in “a multi-polar world.” This is also obvious – China has recently invested billions in Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba and Ecuador, and agreed to a $10bn currency swap arrangement with Argentina. This week China also passed the US as the number one recipient of Brazilian exports. But Clinton’s recognition of a “multi-polar world” is unusual and probably unprecedented for a US secretary of state.

The signals from Washington remain mixed. The state department last week took another gratuitous swipe at Venezuela, listing the country as a “terrorist safe haven”, among other unsubstantiated allegations. (A few days later, Venezuela deported five Colombian guerillas to their home country). Obama’s top economic adviser Larry Summers recently made a point of saying that Argentina would not qualify for the IMF’s flexible credit line, from which Mexico had just received a $47bn commitment.

Washington is the IMF’s principal overseer. Mexico and Brazil also each have access to a $30bn currency swap arrangement with the US Federal Reserve. These are large commitments, and a reminder that Washington is still using its clout in a time of crisis to play political favourites, rather than contributing to regional balance of payments support.

But Clinton’s unprecedented reality-based remarks are an indication that she and Obama may have taken home some important lessons from their conversations with other presidents at the Summit of the Americas on 22 April. Such new thinking would be long overdue.

Source: 
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/05/07-10

Tags: , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 144 other followers

%d bloggers like this: