By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
It is evident that U. S. military intervention in Venezuela is already something determined and underway. It’s the prow of an imperialist strategic plan aimed at politically liquidating the Bolivarian integrationist example and appropriating the great energy, aquiferous and jungle mineral wealth of this nation.
The vitality of the Bolivarian liberating process, in spite of how much the oligarchy spends, and especially Washington, to regain control of that nation, has driven the empire to despair.
The recent tour of Latin American countries by U. S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, had the unhidden purpose of increasing tension in the region, arousing support for coup action in Venezuela, tightening political and financial isolation against Caracas and proclaiming that the United States has brought back the Monroe doctrine, whose motto “America for the Americans” reflects its true imperialist meaning.
In Latin America, the harassment of the Venezuelan government, orchestrated by the extreme right-wing warrior which follows Washington, has formed a bloc led by the presidents of the countries of the Pacific Alliance. Collectively and individually, they cynically declare Venezuela must “recovers freedoms, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights and must overcome the serious economic and humanitarian crisis that is causing suffering to the Venezuelan people”.
Central American journalist, lawyer, writer and anthropologist Ollantay Itzamná has pointed out how, after discrediting and politically punishing several of the honest precursors of Latin American dignity promoted by MERCOSUR, CELAC and ALBA, the U. S. government has turned to its very helpful and grotesque tactics of using the OAS and the fourteen subservient and corrupt governments of the Lima Group (Argentina, Brazil, Canada, child, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and St. Lucia). to support Washington in its infamous plan to invade and loot Venezuela.
And what is the democratic and moral quality of these anti-Venezuelan governments? The leading analyst asks himself and describes some of them:
Mauricio Macri, president of Argentina, who is still in power thanks to pacts with corrupt politicians. As soon as he took office, evidence emerged of his tax evasion in the Panama Papers cases. Then, he was involved in the great Odebrecht scandal, with the corrupt Brazilian businessman who bought Latin American presidents and legislators at prices lower than those of the beasts of burden during the colonial era.
Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras through fraudulent and unconstitutional elections. During his first administration, he turned his impoverished country into the most violent and hungry in Latin America. To the massive protest over the manipulation of the results of the unconstitutional re-election, he responded by killing almost fifty political activists and imprisoning many others.
Jimmy Morales, current president of Guatemala, was denounced and investigated by the International Commission against Corruption and Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) for having used drug money for his election campaign.
Juan Manuel Santos, president of Colombia who negotiated the pacification of the country but, in this “Colombia at Peace”, a massacre is carried out of human rights defenders, indigenous people and peasants who demand the restitution of their lands.
Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, host and mainstay of the so-called Lima Group, serves as president of Peru thanks to the purchase of deputies from Alberto Fujimori, who with his votes, prevented the removal and punishment of this American citizen who, in order to govern the Andean country, had to renounce his U. S. citizenship.
Michel Temer, president of Brazil without having won any election at the polls. He is one of the corrupt politicians of that country who led the coup d’ état against Dilma Rousseff and stopped investigations against corruption.
And Donald Trump is counting on this team to impose his will on Venezuela. This is the same logic with which he proposed to arm teachers to ward off the increasingly frequent shootings in U. S. educational centers.
Determined to consolidate their revolution, the Venezuelan patriots are ready to defend it with the weapons of democracy, while this is possible!
Latin America – and Humanity as a whole – hopes that the Venezuelan will to silence arms using democratic measures will stop imperialist barbarism without the peoples having to resort to revolutionary violence to defend it, and thereby set the prairie on fire.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Distant in time but so similar in their ideas that the dates cannot separate their lives, Bolívar and Martí were born, as if by history’s mandate, to serve the noblest ideals of the emancipation of Latin America. Three–quarters of a century after Simón Bolívar’s death, Jose Marti warned that what the Liberator had not been able to do was yet to be done, and so he dedicated his enormous talent to it and gave his life for it.
Cuba’s national hero soon realized that America was not what the great Venezuelan had dreamed of. He knew that the misery and inequality of the continent stemmed from the unjust administration of the freedom that the great Bolívar had won for America.
Bolívar and Martí dreamed, each in his time, of the impregnable union and integration of the peoples that had won independence from Spain. The Gran Colombia unveiled to Bolívar as much as to Martí the idea of uprooting from the Cubans the divisions that had ruined the 10–year War “in order to avoid, through the independence of Cuba, that the United States would fall, with full force, on the peoples of our America.” Martí founded the Cuban Revolutionary Party to correct that evil, which would, like a merger of wills lead to Cuban independence from Spain. That is why he remembered Bolívar when he repeatedly spoke in his effort to add consciousness and arms to the will for independence.
Thanks to the unity that Martí had forged in the revolutionary ranks, when the United States –without being called upon by the Cubans to do so– intervened in Cuba’s war for independence. A Cuban victory was near and inevitable, the patriotic sentiments in the island were too strong to be ignored. The seed of Martí’s patriotism had germinated and its fruitfulness could not be frustrated by converting Cuba into a colony, not even by means of pseudo-independence.
In his longing for freedom, for a Cuba that was still enslaved, Martí remembered Bolívar, more than half a century after his death, as “a truly extraordinary man”. Martí wondered, for himself and his audience, what place the Liberator would hold in Hispanic American history.
Almost a century after Marti’s founding of the Cuban Revolutionary Party, and almost two years after the birth of the Liberator, in 1982, Venezuelan captain Hugo Chávez endorsed the words of the Cuban apostle when he said “Bolívar still has something to do in America”, referring to Bolívar ‘s unfinished work on the continent.
“Because what Bolívar did not do, remains without being done today,” emphasized captain Hugo Chávez. And he went on: “But there sits Bolívar , watchful and frowning, on the rock of creation in the sky of America, with the Inca beside him, and the bundle of flags at his feet. There he is, still wearing his campaign boots… “
Where will Bolívar go?, Martí had asked many decades before. And the answer seems to have been heard clearly by the young and idealistic Captain Hugo Chávez: “Arm in arm with men, to defend the land where humanity will be most blessed and beautiful, from the new greed and the stubborn old spirit!”
On the 109th anniversary of José Martí’s death in combat, on May 19, 2004, Hugo Chávez, then president of Venezuela, recalled the decision that accompanied the Cuban hero “building the homeland that was stolen and denied to us many times”.
Chávez, while imprisoned in the barracks in Venezuela, was able to read Martí, and the imprint of the Cuban leader was marked in his soul. He showed the imprint that the Cuban apostle left on him when he acknowledged in him, “a value bordering on audacity, temerity and glory. Martí had never fought in wars, arms in hand, but it was he who armed the Revolution, traveled the Caribbean, even the United States, seeking support. He brought together ideas and logistics, united the different trends that existed in Cuba; but, as he had not fought until then, he wanted to go to fight … “.
And fighting, he gave his life to his homeland, not without first confessing –in an unfinished letter to his Mexican friend Manuel Mercado– that all that he had done in his life with his life was to prevent, with Cuba’s independence, that the United States fell, with all its great force on the nations of “our America”.
On July 26, 1953, Fidel Castro credited Marti, with the merit of having conceived, organized and directed the assault on the Moncada Barracks. This opened the revolutionary process that led to today’s Cuban reality. Similarly, the call to the Bolívar ian Revolutionary Movement, coming from the hand and mind of Hugo Chávez, brought a new hope for Latin America which has always recognized Bolívar as its true promoter.
September 28, 2017.
By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México.
Distantes en el tiempo pero tan semejantes en sus ideas que las fechas no pueden separar sus vidas, Bolívar y Martí nacieron, como por mandato de la historia, para servir a los más nobles ideales de la emancipación de América Latina. Tres cuartos de siglo después de la muerte de Simón Bolívar, José Martí advirtió que lo que no había podido hacer el Libertador estaba aún por hacerse, dedicó a ello su enorme talento y entregó su vida a esa causa.
Supo prontamente el héroe nacional cubano que América no era lo que el gran venezolano había soñado. Sabía que la miseria y la desigualdad del continente derivaban de la injusta administración de la libertad que para América había ganado el inmenso Bolívar.
Bolívar y Martí soñaron, cada uno en su momento, con la unión inexpugnable y la integración de los pueblos independizados de España. La Gran Colombia desveló a Bolívar tanto como a Martí la idea de arrancar de los cubanos las divisiones que habían echado por tierra la Guerra de los 10 años “para evitar con la independencia de Cuba que Estados Unidos cayera, con esa fuerza más, sobre los pueblos de nuestra América”. Martí fundó para corregir ese mal el Partido Revolucionario Cubano como aglutinador de voluntades que conducirían a materializar la independencia cubana de España. Por eso recordaba a Bolívar cuando hablaba sin descanso para sumar conciencias y brazos a la voluntad independentista.
Gracias a la unidad que forjó Martí en las filas revolucionarias, cuando Estados Unidos intervino -sin ser llamado por los cubanos a hacerlo- en la guerra cubana por la independencia y ya era próxima e inevitable una victoria cubana, los sentimientos patrióticos en la isla eran demasiado fuertes como para ser ignorados. La semilla del patriotismo martiano había germinado y su fructificación no pudo frustrarse con la conversión de Cuba en una colonia, ni siquiera con el invento de la seudoindependencia.
En su sueño anhelante de libertad para una Cuba que todavía era esclava, Martí evocaba a Bolívar, a más de medio siglo de su muerte, como “un hombre verdaderamente extraordinario” y se preguntaba, para sí y para sus auditorios, qué sitio ocuparía el Libertador en la historia hispanoamericana.
Casi un siglo luego de la fundación por José Martí del Partido Revolucionario Cubano, y a casi dos del natalicio del Libertador, en 1982, el capitán venezolano Hugo Chávez hizo suyas las palabras del Apóstol cubano al referir que “Bolívar tiene qué hacer en América todavía”, refiriéndose a la obra inacabada de Bolívar en el continente.
“Porque lo que Bolívar no dejó hecho, sin hacer está hoy”, enfatizó el capitán Hugo Chávez. Y siguió: “Pero así está Bolívar, vigilante y ceñudo, en el cielo de América, sentado aún en la roca de crear, con el inca al lado y el haz de banderas a los pies; así está él, calzadas aún las botas de campaña…”.
¿A dónde irá Bolívar?, había preguntado Martí muchas décadas antes. Y la respuesta parece haberla oído claramente el joven e idealista capitán Hugo Chavez: “¡Al brazo de los hombres, para que defiendan de la nueva codicia y del terco espíritu viejo la tierra donde será más dichosa y bella la humanidad!”
En el aniversario 109 de la caída en combate de José Martí, el 19 de mayo de 2004, Hugo Chávez, ya presidente de Venezuela, recordaba la decisión que acompañaba al héroe de la isla antillana de “construir la Patria que nos robaron y nos negaron tantas veces”.
Chávez, quien preso en los cuarteles de Venezuela, pudo leer a Martí, sembró en su alma la huella del líder cubano. Daba fe de la impronta que el Apóstol cubano dejó en él al reconocerle, “un valor rayano en la audacia, en la temeridad y en la gloria. Martí no había combatido nunca en guerras, con armas en la mano, pero fue quien armó la Revolución, viajó por el Caribe, incluso por Estados Unidos, buscando apoyo. Armó las ideas y la logística, produjo la unión de las distintas corrientes que había en Cuba, pero como él no había combatido hasta entonces, quiso ir a combatir…”.
Y combatiendo entregó su vida a su Patria, no sin antes confesar, en carta inconclusa a su amigo mexicano Manuel Mercado, que todo cuanto en silencio había tenido que hacer en su vida era por evitar con la independencia para Cuba, que los Estados Unidos cayeran, con esa fuerza más sobre las naciones de “nuestra América”.
Así como el 26 de Julio de 1953 Fidel Castro cedió a Martí el mérito de haber concebido, organizado y dirigido el asalto al Cuartel Moncada que dio inicio al proceso revolucionario que condujo a la realidad cubana de hoy, la arenga del Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario, que de la mano y la mente de Hugo Chávez inauguró una nueva esperanza para América Latina ha reconocido siempre a Bolívar como su promotor verdadero.
Septiembre 28 de 2017.
By Manuel E. Yepe
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
Anti-Chavism has become the ideology of the ultra-right in the region because Chavismo, from its inception, changed regional geopolitics, changed the political world of Latin America and the Caribbean and impacted many other regions of the world. Chavismo is the new Bolivarianism of the 21st century.
The revolutionary forces that emerged from the leadership of Comandante Chavez succeeded in articulating the progressive, advanced and revolutionary forces of the entire continent to become a worldwide reference for the possible changes and changes that Latin America and all of humanity needed .
Such are some of the concepts raised by Nicolás Maduro, the President of Venezuela, in his replies to an interview conducted in Caracas by the celebrated Venezuelan journalist and political scientist José Vicente Rangel.
The Latin American right, so widely-publicized and subordinated to US imperialism, long ago adopted as its central banner the defeat of the Bolivarian revolution.
Anti-Chávez, anti-Bolivarian and anti-Venezuelan campaigns became the axis of the speech of this right-wing, which, by the way, has arrived at government with a rather meager vote. In Argentina, it barely achieved a thirty-one percent vote to choose the president of that nation; Or, as in the case of Brazil, avoided electoral confrontation and opted, instead, for a covert coup in which the OAS and the corporate media served, in silence, as an accomplice.
That right has reached political power in some key Latin American countries, fueled by anti-Bolivarian, anti-Chavez doctrine … and much fear, almost terror, by the force of ideas and the example emanating from the Bolivarian revolution.
“I hope that the National Constituent Assembly (ANC), with its great power, will give me special support for the fight against corruption, which is a pending bill that we have.
“We will need it, not only from the punitive point of view, also in the educational, cultural and moral aspects. We will continue to insist on building a society with values of respect, honesty and transparent practice in the management of public affairs.
“It is a great battle, we can not guarantee that we will win it in months or years, it is a battle that will take us a long time, but Venezuela has in me a President committed to the end in the fight against corruption and those who are corrupt.
Maduro showed that Venezuelans today have been lucky enough to live the total bankruptcy of the model of oil dependence protected by the socialist Chavez social model.
He recalled that many experts predicted that the oil model would begin to decline in 2030, 2040 or 2050. But, thanks to the “miracle” of the revolution, it happened that it had taken place suddenly and the country went from one day to the next to receive, from 120 dollars a barrel to 20 dollars, “and here nobody lacked school, work, income or food with the problems that had to be faced. We do not stop building housing, we do not stop building public works
Fundamentally, we made guts heart and I believe that we made a social miracle of salvation of the country. That must be recognized, we made a social miracle of salvation of the country. In the midst of bankruptcy. “Maduro stressed that after having overcome the three demons (the bankruptcy of the oil dependency system, the international financial and commercial war and induced inflation) we will have a people protected by a social system that will support economic recovery.
“We must be clear that we have a correct strategy and policy. The strategic engines of our Bolivarian Economic Agenda (the industrial engine, agri-food, petrochemical, tourism, socialist communal economy, heavy industry, etc.) are the correct strategy for economic independence and development of the potentialities to get rid of oil, which is the most important thing we are doing.
“The Constituent Assembly arrived and peace was made. And I have a great faith in the full exercise of our national sovereignty, without accepting blackmail or pressure from anyone in the world, and less from North American imperialism. The Constituent Assembly will put order in justice, in institutionality, in the state and in the economy,” said Maduro. He predicted that Venezuela will end the year 2017 with a good level of general recovery of society, the country, politics and peace, said the President reflecting the optimism with which Venezuelans are proud, proud of their history and confident that they will still need to wage many battles for independence, because that is the cost of the privilege of having a country with so many resources that excite imperialist greed.
August 23, 2017.
A complete and excellent translation of Jose Vicente Rangel’s interview with Maduro:
By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusive to the daily POR ESTO! Of Mérida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
For US imperialism and the continental right, July 30th in Venezuela should be a conclusive political lesson. It should also be a lesson for the organizers of the media campaigns against popular processes. Their reliability has been demonstrated by the mass exercise of their rights by a mature and determined population who rejects them.
The election on that day of the members of the Constituent National Assembly (ANC), according to the Constitution and the laws of the country, involved an enthusiastic participation of more than 8,090,230 Venezuelans –41.53% of the electoral roll– who said yes to Constituent Assembly and the Bolivarian revolution.
The President of the United States threatened the Venezuelans with an increase in economic sanctions. The election would certainly take place, no doubt assuming that the people, intimidated, would repudiate the democratic act and refrain from participating in it.
But, on the contrary, Trump’s threats and terrorist actions against the voters stimulated their attendance because patriotic motivation was added.
The Bolivarian government called on democratic and peace-loving people to be alert to this new interventionist escalation of US imperialism. They called for a categorical rejection of the violent, fascist, racist and criminal actions of the Venezuelan opposition who are so afraid of this democratic, legal, sovereign, peaceful and civilized act .
For his part, the angry American president, who has been forced to move all his chips at the same time to coincide with other serious clashes unleashed separately against Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. This has led Washington to impose sanctions on Venezuelan President, Nicolás Maduro, according to a statement from the US Treasury Department.
The statement specifies that all assets of President Maduro which are or may be under US jurisdiction will be frozen. In addition, US citizens will be prohibited from any agreement with Maduro. He, in turn, has reiterated that, as President of Venezuela, he does not have to answer to anyone but Venezuela’s women and men.
The Venezuelan president has described the day [of the election] as the “biggest” of the Bolivarian Revolution and has based its success on the option that made the peace proposal his banner of struggle in such complex circumstances.
Maduro stressed that, until the last moment, he kept the doors open for the Venezuelan opposition, which did not cease to call for violence and destabilizing actions on election day. He revealed that a delegation of his government had been meeting for several weeks with opposition leaders. Among these he mentioned the President of the Parliament, Julio Borges, to try to add them to the constituent assembly initiative. “Two weeks ago I proposed to the opposition that they register for the Constituent Assembly. But they did not accept,” said the leader.
“In the last six weeks, there have been direct talks between the delegations of the Democratic Unity Roundtable and a delegation presided over by Jorge Rodríguez, Delcy Rodríguez and Elías Jaua,” head of state Nicolas Maduro announced Saturday.
To reach an agreement to publish a statement approved by all parties of the MUD,” said the First Minister. He added that the leadership of the right “wanted to be registered before the National Electoral Council (CNE) for the elections of governors and governors. I called on them to get into the Constituent Assembly and they were afraid.” The meetings held were kept hidden at the request of the opposition sector.
President Maduro spoke at Bolívar Plaza in the city of Caracas, after the National Electoral Council (CNE) issued the first bulletin with results. The Venezuelan president stated that the Constituent National Assembly had been born amid great popular legitimacy. “Not only does the Constituente have power, but it has the strength of legitimacy, the moral force of a people who heroically, warlike, came out to vote, to say: we want peace and tranquility,” said Maduro.
“The newly-elected Constituent Assembly had the support of a people who were not intimidated by the destabilizing climate that the Venezuelan opposition intended to create. It is the largest vote that the Revolution has had in all electoral history. The one who has eyes that sees and the one who has ears that hear,” said the president.
July 31, 2017.
By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusive to the daily POR ESTO! Of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
“Venezuela may be marching along the Cuban road, according to congressmen” is the title given by NBC-News to Suzanne Gamboa’s article dated Washington D.C. On July 19, 2017, citing words from New Jersey Democratic senator Bob Menendez, a vehement promoter of the genocidal blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba for more than half a century.
“Castro has condemned his own people to poverty, hunger and immense suffering, while accumulating wealth and power,” this corrupt politician declared, without blushing. He’s had a criminal trial for corruption pending since 2015 that has seriously disturbed his political career in U.S. The trial against Menéndez is scheduled for the period in which the election process will take place that will elect his replacement in a Senate seat the Democratic party does not want to lose. This has led Menéndez to conceal, as far as possible, his legal situation.
Many of the members of the US Congress who are now focusing their attention on the situation in Venezuela are of Cuban descent. It is not that they were born on the island but that they were formed in the heat of hatred for the island’s national independence and socialism. The extreme right of the United States and the oligarchies across the continent have played a key role in this struggle. Many are from Florida, Texas and New York, where the largest population of Venezuelan immigrants can be found.
Another American politician who has a leading role in the development of the current US right-wing campaign against Venezuela because of it’s winning back positions won in recent decades by the continent’s anti-imperialist left. That is Marco Rubio, a Republican senator from Florida.
Rubio played a significant role in the maneuver of the Venezuelan pro-imperialist opposition –which ended in failure two weeks ago– to call on Venezuelans to participate in an illegal “plebiscite”, which –except in the extremely pro-imperialist milieus– was totally obscured by the effort by the Venezuelan government which confirmed broad popular support for the process of choosing the Constituent Assembly on July 30.
Marco Rubio gained notoriety for his participation in the show recently starring President Trump in Miami to announce the implementation of new US government provisions against Cuba.
He gave those of Cuban for several years to take financially approve the U.S. establishment’s multi-million dollar campaign of hatred against Cuba. With this, he moved up in the ranks of his party and gained strong economic support until arriving at the first ranks of national policy like the “Cuban-American of extreme right”. He was among the possible Republican candidates for the presidency and lost in a hard race against the current president, Donald Trump.
Rubio had a serious setback when, at a certain moment in the representation of a false native identity, it was discovered that not only had he not been born in Cuba, but that he had not even been in his alleged country of origin.
Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, in May 1971, when the Cuban revolution had been in power for more than a decade. His parents were Cuban immigrants who left Cuba in 1956, under the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, and were naturalized as US citizens in 1975.
From a Catholic family, Rubio made an abrupt switch of faith. After his first Catholic communion in 1984, and his marriage, also Catholic, he became a Mormon, soon afterwards became a Catholic again and later he went to the Baptist church until he returned to Catholicism.
Rubio is in the conservative wing of the Republican Party. In 2010, he won a position in the United States Senate as a favorite candidate of the Tea Party movement, a political formation that is located to the right of the political spectrum, but is not formally linked to the Republican party.
His candidacy for the Senate has been tarnished by unfinished investigations into embezzlement of Republican party funds.
He competed for the Republican presidential nomination during the 2016 primaries, until he finally decided to withdraw from the race because of his defeat by politician and tycoon Donald Trump in Florida, the state from which he is a senator.
It is quite logical that in the struggles for its definitive independence there are many similarities between the current political processes of Venezuela and Cuba, as well as between the independence aspirations of all the Latin American countries that have in common the objective of liberating themselves from the condition of semicolonies of the United States.
July 28, 2017.
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/ Exclusivo para el diario POR ESTO! de Mérida, México.
“Venezuela pudiera estar marchando por los caminos de Cuba, según congresistas” es el título que dio NBC-News al artículo de Suzanne Gamboa fechado en Washington D.C. el 19 de julio de 2017, citando palabras del senador por Nueva Jersey del partido demócrata en el Congreso federal estadounidense Bob Menéndez, vehemente impulsor del genocida bloqueo que hace más de medio siglo impone Estados Unidos contra Cuba.
“Castro ha condenado a su propio pueblo a pobreza, hambre y sufrimiento inmenso, mientras que ha acumulado riqueza y poder”, declaró sin ruborizarse este político corrupto que tiene pendiente desde 2015 un juicio criminal por corrupción que le ha perturbado seriamente su carrera política en Estados Unidos. El juicio contra Menéndez está programado para el período en que tendrá lugar el proceso electoral que elegir a su sustituto en un curul senatorial que el partido demócrata no quiere perder. Ello ha llevado a Menéndez a ocultar, en lo posible, su situación jurídica.
Muchos de los miembros del Congreso estadounidense que están centrando hoy su atención en la situación en Venezuela son de ascendencia cubana. No es que sean nacidos en la isla sino que se han formado al calor del odio a la independencia nacional y al socialismo que contra Cuba han proyectado durante muchos años la extrema derecha de Estados Unidos y las oligarquías de todo el continente. Muchos son de la Florida, Texas y Nueva York, donde puede encontrarse la mayor población de inmigrantes venezolanos.
Otro político estadounidense que lleva voz cantante en el desarrollo de la actual campaña de la derecha estadounidense contra Venezuela por recuperar posiciones ganadas en décadas recientes por la izquierda antiimperialista del continente es Marco Rubio, senador republicano por el estado de la Florida.
Rubio desempeñó un relevante papel en la maniobra de la oposición pro imperialista venezolana -terminada en fracaso hace dos semanas- de convocar a los venezolanos a participar en un ilegal “plebiscito”, que –salvo en los medios extremadamente pro imperialistas- fue totalmente opacado por el ensayo convocado por el gobierno venezolano que confirmó el amplio apoyo popular al proceso de constitución de la Asamblea Constituyente de julio 30.
Marco Rubio ganó notoriedad por su participación en el show protagonizado recientemente por el Presidente Trump en Miami para anunciar la implementación de disposiciones gubernamentales estadounidenses nuevas contra Cuba.
Se las dio de cubano durante varios años para aprovechar financieramente la multimillonaria campaña de odio contra Cuba del “establishment” estadounidense. Con ello avanzó en las filas de su partido y obtuvo un fuerte apoyo económico hasta llegar a los primeros planos de la política nacional como “cubanoamericano de extrema derecha”. Fue así que llegó a situarse entre los posibles candidatos republicanos a la presidencia y perdió en dura liza contra el actual presidente Donald Trump.
Rubio tuvo un serio tropiezo cuando, en determinado momento de la representación de una falsa identidad natal, se descubrió que no solo no había nacido en Cuba, sino que ni siquiera había estado alguna vez en su presunto país de origen.
Marco Rubio nació en la ciudad de Miami, en el estado de Florida, en mayo de 1971, cuando ya la revolución cubana llevaba en el poder más de una década. Sus progenitores eran inmigrantes cubanos que salieron de Cuba en 1956, en plena dictadura de Fulgencio Batista, y se nacionalizaron estadounidenses en 1975.
De familia católica, Rubio ha hecho un abrupto recorrido de fe. Tras su primera comunión católica en 1984 y su matrimonio también católico, se hizo mormón, luego nuevamente católico y después se convirtió a la iglesia bautista hasta que volvió al catolicismo.
Rubio se ubica en el ala conservadora del Partido Republicano. Obtuvo en 2010 un puesto en el Senado de Estados Unidos como candidato favorito del Movimiento Tea Party, formación política que se sitúa a la derecha del espectro político, pero no está vinculado formalmente al partido republicano.
Su candidatura para el Senado se ha visto empañada por investigaciones aun inconclusas sobre malversación de fondos del partido republicano.
Compitió por la candidatura presidencial republicana durante las primarias de 2016, hasta que decidió retirarse definitivamente de la contienda a causa de su derrota frente al político y magnate Donald Trump en Florida, el propio estado por el que es senador.
Es absolutamente lógico que en las luchas por su definitiva independencia se manifiesten muchas similitudes entre los procesos políticos actuales de Venezuela y Cuba, al igual que entre las aspiraciones independentistas de todos los países de América Latina que tienen en común el objetivo de liberarse de la condición de semicolonias de Estados Unidos.
Julio 28 de 2017.
By Manuel E. Yepe.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The opposition, for its part, called for a plebiscite for the same first Sunday July 1. However it is illegal because it does not have the endorsement of the CNE, the only body legally authorized to carry out any electoral process in the country. It has a subversive character, and was designed to prevent the electoral process for the Constituent Assembly. Neither in the national constitution nor in any other Venezuelan law is the plebiscite a method of popular consultation.
But at what point is the struggle to consolidate the Bolivarian revolutionary process initiated by Hugo Chávez in the interest of the full assumption by the Venezuelan people of sovereignty over the natural wealth, history and future of that Caribbean and South American nation?
The National Directorate of the Bolivar and Zamora Revolutionary Current (CRBZ) of the Socialist Party [the PSUV: Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela] in a communiqué made public on July 3 in progress declares that the conflict in Venezuela is at a new level, not because of the will of the revolution, but because it was imposed by the coup plan in progress after two months of unsuccessful coup attempts.
The strategy is drawn up by the US State Department, the US Defense Department’s Southern Command headquartered in Miami and the Venezuelan economic and political right. To date, it has been observed using the deployment of different putschist weapons: the communicational, the psychological, the international, the economic, the institutional, and violence. They have tried and advanced each of them, as part of the fourth generation war, which combines the different forms of war. His greatest weakness has always been the lack of popular support.
It is in the institutional environment in which more work and beat today, betting on eventual fractures in the Chavista block.
Given its lack of popular support, the right has opted to implement several tactics at a time. One is to push the economy to raise prices, shorten and attack points of food supply and transportation in order to deepen the economic difficulties of humble people to push it to plunder.
Another is based on deploying clashes to siege entire cities for several days, leaving behind a trail of death, destruction, looting, fire, terror and other images that hit the social fabric, reports the CRBZ.
The radical aspect of the right-wing war is explained by the despair and the class character of the conflict. They seek desperately to regain political control and to lapse the historical project that is the Bolivarian revolution.
“Faced with this scenario, it is essential to maintain the unity of Chavismo, to defend the revolution not only from the State, but also from the popular protagonism, involving people in the organized protection of institutions, territories, hospitals, food centers. To ensure that doctors, workers, comuneros and neighbors, take care of their spaces so that the right does not destroy what the people have built in the exercise of participatory democracy and safeguard their conquests for so many years.
The other great purpose of Chavismo is to arrive on July 30, having started a process of participation and debate around the National Constituent Assembly. “We must activate assemblies in the territories, recreate politics from the grassroots, listen to criticism, build spaces for exchange that are not only to applaud leaders and repeat the same. That exercise will allow us to call the vote to the majorities on July 30 and have better conditions to face the next steps. “
Chavismo proposes to provide urgent answers to the material demands of people: gas, price stabilization, supply, drugs. And not from an electoral perspective, but from the imperative need to respond to needs that multiply in the territories and that are breeding ground for discontent, abstention and depoliticization.
“We are in a decisive month,” the Chavistas reckon, “the right, by US design, will do everything possible to attempt its final assault. The revolution has the strength to resist and keep moving forward. It is necessary to use all those forces, in particular that of the protagonism of the people “.
July 17, 2017.
By Manuel E. Yepe
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
A US State Department spokesperson repeatedly refused to comment on the momentous political crisis in Brazil during his June 3 press briefing. He gave evidence of the sharp contrast between his long and loquacious criticisms of neighboring Venezuela and Washington’s complicit tolerance of the parliamentary coup in Brazil.
This was reported on the alternative website AlterNet by journalist Zaid Jilani, who actively participated as a reporter in the press conference given on June 3rd by US State Department official spokesperson Mark Toner.
In a dispatch by Jilani, published by digital website The Intercept and other alternative media, it was reported that, when questioned about this sharp contrast, Toner, visibly excited, said: “I don’t have anything to comment about the ongoing political dimensions of the crisis in Brazil.”
The US “hard” foreign policy intends to apply to Venezuela the Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) imposed by the Washington on the continent following September 11, 2001. It’s goal was to strengthen United States domination in the context of the New York terrorist events used as a pretext for President George W. Bush President George W. Bush ‘s declaration of the “war on terrorism”.
In the case of Brazil, the United States tries to justify the “soft” parliamentary, judicial and media coup d’état against President Dilma Rousseff’s government. Her impeachment’s legitimacy has been rejected by most experts and observers who are not subject to the networks of international corporate media controlled by Washington.
The State Department has been extremely repetitive in its criticism of Venezuela’s progressive government. It accuses that government of applying popular policies contrary to the hegemonic interests of the global corporations. By contrast, it has been silent about the takeover of the government in Brazil by a staunchly right-wing, pro-business government that is making the privatization of state industry a priority.
The debate with Toner at the press conference began when The Intercept journalist (Zaid Jilani) asked Toner why the U.S. has been joining in regional criticisms of Venezuela’s government for its alleged democratic backsliding, but has ignored Brazil’s political crisis, where right-wing lawmakers voted on May 12 to suspend the democratically-elected President from government and to open impeachment proceedings against the head of state.
It was then that veteran Associated Press State Department reporter Matt Lee jumped into the fray, asking if the impeachment of former President Dilma Rousseff was itself “valid.”
Toner continued to dodge, declaring U.S. confidence in Brazilian institutions. “But we’re very concerned about the current development of political events in Venezuela…” he said.
“And why aren’t you very concerned about a similar situation in Brazil?” Lee probed.
“Again — well, look, I’ve said my piece. I mean, I don’t have anything to add,” Toner concluded.
When Pam Dawkins of Voice of America asked about Venezuela and “the state of democracy there” in light of the delay of a proposed recall referendum put forth by the country’s opposition, Toner’s tone changed dramatically. In a response that went on for two full minutes, Toner waxed moralistic, asking Venezuela to respect democratic norms.
“We call on Venezuela’s authorities to allow this referendum to move forward and thus ensure that Venezuelans can exercise their right to participate in this process in keeping with Venezuela’s democratic institutions, practices, and principles consistent with the Inter-American Democratic Charter.”
Lee felt obliged to note again the contrast between Toner’s long critical response about the situation in Venezuela and the two phrases about Brazil “which is a much bigger country and with which you have enjoyed better relations.”
Then another reporter jumped into the fracas, asking Toner if the composition of the new Brazilian cabinet –composed entirely of men, many of them tied to large industries in the country– that replaces the cabinet led by the first female head of state in Brazil’s history raised any concerns.
“Look, guys, I will see if we have anything more to say about the situation in Brazil,” Toner concluded, to get rid of the embarrassing situation in which he had been placed because of the ambivalence of the “two-faced” imperialist foreign policy.
June 11, 2016.
Por Manuel E. Yepe
Un portavoz del Departamento de Estado estadounidense se negó reiteradamente a comentar la actual crisis política en Brasil y estableció un inconsecuente contraste entre su larga y mordaz crítica contra el gobierno de Venezuela y la cómplice tolerancia de cara a los “golpistas parlamentarios” en Brasilia.
Así lo reportó en la red alternativa AlterNet el periodista Zaid Jilani, quien participó activamente como reportero en la conferencia de prensa que ofreció el 3 de junio, Mark Toner, funcionario de la cancillería estadounidense y su portavoz oficial.
En un de despacho de Jilani aparecido en la publicación digital The Intercept y otros medios alternativos se cuenta que, cuestionado acerca del agudo contraste en que incurrió, Toner respondió visiblemente excitado: “no tengo nada que comentar sobre las actuales dimensiones políticas de la crisis en Brasil.”
La política exterior “dura” estadounidense pretende aplicar a Venezuela la Carta Democrática de la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) impuesta por Estados Unidos al continente aquel nefasto 11 de septiembre de 2001, para fortalecer la dominación de Estados Unidos en el contexto de los acontecimientos terroristas en Nueva York que sirvieron de pretexto para la declaración por el presidente George W. Bush de la guerra contra el terrorismo.
En el caso de Brasil, Estados Unidos intenta justificar el golpe “blando” de estado parlamentario, judicial y mediático contra el gobierno de Rousseff, juicio político cuya legitimidad ha sido rechazada por la mayoría de los expertos y observadores no sometida a las redes de la prensa corporativa internacional que controla Washington.
El Departamento de Estado ha sido sumamente reiterativo en sus críticas al gobierno progresista venezolano, al que reprocha aplicar políticas populares contrarias a los intereses hegemónicos de las corporaciones globales, y sin embargo guarda sigilo respecto a la toma del gobierno en Brasil por un régimen pro empresarial, de derecha, incondicional partidario de la privatización de las industrias del estado como una prioridad de gobierno.
El debate con Toner durante la conferencia de prensa comenzó cuando el periodista de Intercept (Zaid Jilani) preguntó a Toner por qué Estados Unidos se había unido a las críticas y amenazas al gobierno de Venezuela por supuestos retrocesos democráticos, en tanto ignora la crisis política de Brasil, donde legisladores de la derecha votaron el 12 de mayo por la separación del gobierno de la Presidenta Dilma Rousseff e iniciaron un proceso de impeachment contra la democráticamente electa Jefa de Estado.
Fue entonces cuando se incorporó a la discusión el veterano reportero de la Associated Press en el Departamento de Estado, Matt Lee, preguntando si la destitución de la ex Presidenta Dilma Rousseff había sido legalmente “válida”.
Toner, desviando el sentido de lo que se debatía, se limitó a reafirmar la confianza de Estados Unidos en las instituciones brasileñas. “Pero estamos muy preocupados por el desarrollo de los acontecimientos políticos en Venezuela…”, dijo..
“¿Y por qué no les preocupa una situación similar en Brasil?”, preguntó Lee. “Bueno, miren, yo he dicho lo mío y no tengo nada más que añadir”, selló Toner. Cuando Pam Dawkins, corresponsal de la Voz de las Américas, preguntó sobre el estado de la democracia en Venezuela “a la luz de la demora en la aprobación de la propuesta del referéndum revocatorio que ha presentado la oposición”, Toner resurgió con una extensa respuesta de corte moralista enfatizando en que Venezuela debía respetar las normas democráticas.
“Hacemos un llamado a las autoridades de Venezuela para que permitan este referéndum y así aseguren que los venezolanos puedan ejercer su derecho a participar en este proceso en consonancia con las instituciones democráticas, las prácticas y los principios conformes con la Carta Democrática Interamericana.”
Lee se sintió obligado a observar una nueva vez el contraste entre la extensa respuesta crítica acerca de la situación en Venezuela y las apenas dos frases sobre Brasil, “que es un país mucho más grande y con el que hemos tenido más amplias relaciones.”
Cuando otro reportero se incluyó en el debate, preguntando a Toner si para él era motivo de preocupación la composición del nuevo gabinete brasileño – integrado enteramente por hombres, muchos de ellos estrechamente vinculados a grandes negocios del país, en reemplazo del gabinete liderado por la primera mujer Jefa de Estado en la historia de Brasil.
“Miren, chicos, tendré que ver si tenemos algo más que decir acerca de la situación en Brasil”, concluyó Toner para liberarse de la embarazosa situación en que se hallaba colocado a causa de la ambivalencia de la política exterior imperialista “a dos velocidades”.
Junio 11 de 2016.