Venezuela 26
The Most Difficult Time
The Most Difficult Time
By
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
In December I saw people looking for food in the garbage… but it wasn’t Venezuela, it was the United States, not Caracas, but Los Angeles.
It’s clear that Venezuela is having a hard time. The question is why do the international networks and the channels of my country only report these cases in the Caribbean country and do not say a single letter when it happens in the lands of Uncle Sam.
I know of a country that imprisons children with officials who sexually abuse them because they are immigrants; but it is not Venezuela, it is the United States.
When millions of Colombians were fleeing the internal war and the criminal regime of Álvaro Uribe, both Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Rafael Correa in Ecuador received them fraternally. In the reign of Donald Trump, in late February a complaint against his policy of separating immigrants from their children exposed the sexual abuse to which minors were subjected in captivity. Democrat Congressman Ted Deuch said 154 officials are accused of assaulting children in detention centers in the border area, where two children have already died. 4556 complaints from the Refugee Bureau supported his words.
I know of a country where the popular will is mocked and whoever gets to the presidency is not the most voted in the polls; but it is not Venezuela, it is the United States. Hillary Clinton got 2.8 million more votes than Donald Trump; but the incomprehensible American electoral system prevented her from occupying the White House. As former President Jimmy Carter put it, “The best electoral system in the world is that of Venezuela; the worst is that of the United States.
I also know of a country where one of its provinces has legalized work for 10-year-old children; but it is not Venezuela, the country is Argentina and the province of Jujuy.
I know of a country where there are thousands of opposition journalists persecuted, fired and harassed; but it is not Venezuela, but Argentina. The case of Uruguayan Víctor Hugo Morales, to whom the judges dependent on the Clarín Group and the macrismo fabricate causes left and right, is emblematic, but not unique. Among the most recent cases are those of the El Destape mobilist Lucas Martínez, beaten by the City Police, and the photographer of Página 12, Bernardino Ávila, who after portraying a woman taking a vegetable from the ground (during the so-called “Cuadernazo”) was detained along with other demonstrators for 11 hours.
I also know of a country where its president despises women, blacks, indigenous people and gay people; but it is not Venezuela, but Brazil. Recently, two members of the Landless Movement were assassinated, but neither Almagro nor Trump asked the government for explanations, nor did the large international chains of disinformation give them the space they would have given if they had occurred during the presidency of Nicolas Maduro.
I know of a country that is one of the most corrupt in the world; but it is not Venezuela, but Paraguay, with its eternal Colorado Party, a minimum wage of $370 dollars and an industry minister who boasts that half of Paraguayan workers earn less than that figure. As Oscar Andrade has pointed out, he did not say it with pain, but with pride and satisfaction. It should not be forgotten that the governments of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay have been applauded by the Uruguayan opposition right-wing.
I know of a country where every four days a trade unionist is murdered, but it is not Venezuela, but Colombia. The denunciation was presented by the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores de Colombia before the International Labor Organization and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, but impunity prevails. Threats are focused against union leaders in the oil sector, teachers and agriculture. Neither CNN nor Almagro have shown themselves with their souls split in two for these crimes that already imply a blatant attempt to exterminate trade unionism on the part of the right-wing and the Colombian business community.
I know of a country where anyone who dares to criticize the ruler, who, on the other hand, holds power without ever having been endorsed by the ballot box, is punished with imprisonment; but it is not Venezuela, but Spain. It is incredible that in the 21st century the monarchy persists, a real attack against the intelligence of the peoples of Spain, England and Canada, among others; but it is even more incredible that such monarchies pretend to teach democracy to their former colonies.
And I also know of a people that neither sells nor gives up, that neither breaks nor surrenders, that neither fears nor trembles, in spite of the permanent harassment and the immense power of its adversaries… but it is not that of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Spain, Colombia or the United States…
It’s the one from Venezuela.
(Taken from the magazine Revista Caras y Caretas)
The eight years of “spring”
The eight years of “spring”
Libya is a very clear exponent of what U.S. military intervention has left the world.
————————————————————————————
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
Libya devastated by endless conflict. Photo: Sputnik
In 2011, the Middle East underwent a reconfiguration of its political map through protests stimulated from outside, and interventions disguised as aid. This series of events went down in history as the “Arab Spring”. However, the similarity with the word that refers to one of the most festive seasons of the year is only in nomenclature, as this geographical region has since been plagued by continuous internal crises, resulting in a climate of permanent instability.
In this situation lives Libya, a nation that for four decades had traveled paths of stability and progress under the hand of President Muammar Gaddafi, a leader who promoted social and economic development in this North African country.
What happened? An accurate formula of manipulation, lies and “humanitarian intervention” designed by the US government and supported by the European Union (EU) was applied against Libya, which sounds suspiciously familiar to the situation facing the Venezuelan people today.
The opposition forces were armed to fight Libya’s army, a conflict was constructed in the media that, it is known, had as real scenario of development film and television studios, hired extras, stuffing extras, where battles, massacres, bombardments were filmed, in the best style of Hollywood cinema. Through this, they manufactured the necessary pretext that “justified” the intervention of the US-NATO duo, under the pretext of “preserving human lives”.
Invented bloggers emerged, supposedly writing from Tripoli about events in real time, but months after the end of the staging it became known that the vast majority of that “citizen journalism” was made thousands of miles away from Libyan land, from comfortable offices in London, New York or Berlin.
In order to sow chaos, the international mass media carried out a “mythification” of the Libyan president, spreading the story that he was governing through blackmail and humiliation.
This false image, paved with fake news about the execution of civilians in the confrontation between the army of Gaddafi and the militias, was amplified by the large newspapers and right-wing publications, which gave them greater validation.
All these lies responded to the simple reason that in this country there are the largest reserves of light oil in Africa and the Western oil companies wanted to take them. Also, months before, Gaddafi had urged African and Muslim countries to adopt a single currency: the gold dinar. In that way, the dollar would have been excluded, threatening the empire’s currencies.
But the truth had nothing to do with this story. The media montage combined with the actions of the US and NATO bombings not only ended the life of the Libyan leader, but also turned that nation into the failed state that it still is today.
FORTY YEARS OF PEACE
Libya was an Italian colony until the Second World War when, by agreement of powers such as Britain and France, and the United Nations, it was administered by both countries. The British ruled the destinies of the regions of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania, and the French occupied the area of El Pezzan, until 1951 when the nation achieved its independence.
However, until 1969, when Gaddafi overthrew the monarchy of King Idris, the people of that country lived in difficult conditions. They had low rates of development, as exemplified by an article entitled “Libya according to the UN and the harsh reality,” by Thierry Meyssan, a French journalist and political activist, which states, among other elements, that only 250,000 inhabitants of the 4 million total knew how to read and write.
With independence and the subsequent construction of a state characterized by social achievements, Libya reached one of the highest indices of human development and the highest nominal per capita GDP in Africa.
Several sources say that Gaddafi led his country to set an example for Africa and the Arab world by unifying the nation and creating institutions and ministries to strengthen institutionality.
The movement promoted by Gaddafi was known as “The Green Revolution”.Among its achievements were the beginning of an agrarian reform, the impulse of a social security system, putting health within the reach of all and that the profits of resources such as oil, could be really exploited by the people.
In order to achieve this objective, the Libyan government nationalized the so-called black gold industry, taking those large incomes to subsidize minimum human rights such as access to drinking water or education, which before were considered true luxuries.
The Libyan leader allowed peasants who wanted to till their own land to do so and the state helped them to do so. It also promoted housing as a right for all as well as access to electricity.
According to Telesur, loans of any kind had a zero percent interest rate and the Central Bank of Libya was a sovereign institution at the service of citizens.
Gaddafi worked for the cooperation of African countries through the African Union (AU), founded in May 2001, with the aim of finding a way to empower these countries without the intervention of Western powers.
FAREWELL TO DEMOCRACY
El País, a well-known Spanish newspaper, included in many articles the vision of a Gaddafi obsessed with power and sex. However, in 2016, five years after his physical disappearance, they had to accept and publish that Libya was living a real nightmare, where the people were the least.
An example of this is political instability. Today, Libya has up to three governments, two in the capital, competing for leadership in the west of the country, and another in Tobruk, which dominates the eastern regions and controls the main oil resources.
On the other hand, Usef Shakir, an expert on the subject, comments for Sputnik that “Libya used to be secure and stable: the state worked well, the country was developing. Years later the country is in chaos and terror. Some of its cities are still under the control of armed groups. We can deduce that Libya has degenerated from a sovereign country to a mixture of fragmented groupings.
It should be noted that since 2011 more than 5,000 people have lost their lives and almost one million have fled their homes because of fear and insecurity. Also, crude oil exports have fallen by 90% and the losses of its GDP are accounted for around 200 billion euros over the last eight years, according to figures collected by Middle East Monitor.
Women’s rights, respected during the former president’s government, are outraged without the slightest remorse. According to Amnesty International’s official website, “the ongoing conflict is particularly damaging to women, disproportionately affecting their right to freedom of movement and to participate in political and public life”.
Libya is a very clear example of what US military intervention has left the world: chaos, political instability, appropriation of resources by Western transnationals and an “oasis” where terrorist groups, local militias and others converge, in addition to being an example of human trafficking and extortion to those who arrive there in search of a quick way to Europe through the Mediterranean.
IN CONTEXT:
In January 2011 several Middle Eastern countries were shaken by revolts, uprisings, protests and covert interventions that resulted in a reconfiguration of the map of the region. These events were referred to by the West as the “Arab Spring”.
It began with the so-called Tunisian revolution, whose starting date is usually counted from the immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi, a 26-year-old young man who protested against the police, on 4 January 2011.
Behind all these uprisings soon became visible the hand of Western powers, as always, with the U.S. and France, among other countries at the forefront.
An external intelligence report, quoted by French journalist and intellectual Thierry Meyssan, said that on February 4, 2011 NATO organised in Cairo a meeting to launch the “Arab Spring” in Libya and Syria. According to the report, John McCain chaired the meeting.
SOURCE: TELESUR
Venezuela Won the First Round
Venezuela Won the First Round Against the Empire
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The clash between Venezuela and the Empire last weekend ended with a humiliating defeat for Elliott Abrams, the alleged designer of the operation.
What the neocons initially planned may never be known, but what is known is that they could not culminate in an invasion or another false flag operation.
The most notable facet of the confrontation, according to the most objective international experts and observers, has been the scant effect that Anglo-Zionist propaganda had inside Venezuela.
Although certainly a few senior officers and Venezuelan soldiers betrayed their country by uniting with the enemy, the overwhelming majority of the Venezuelan military remained faithful to the Constitution and their homeland.
President Maduro and his government successfully carried out a strategy that combined roadblocks, a musical concert on the Venezuelan side, and the minimal – but effective – use of riot police to keep the border closed and order throughout the homeland. Most notably, the “unidentified snipers” did not seem to shoot on both sides (the Empire’s favorite tactic to justify its interventions).
Outside Venezuelan national territory, this first confrontation was also a defeat for the Empire. Not only because most countries in the world refused to recognize Washington’s puppet, but because the level of rejection of a possible invasion proved remarkably intense, and the Internet and the blogosphere overwhelmingly opposed U.S. intervention. This situation created many internal political tensions in several Latin American countries whose public opinion is firmly opposed to any form of U.S. interference in Latin America, even if not with the historic oligarchy.
The leaders of the Empire and their puppets do not hide the fact that their goal is to overthrow the constitutional government and to replace it with the kind of regime that Washington seems to have been able to impose on Colombia. Pompeo, Abrams, Pence, Elliot Abrams and Marco Rubio were particularly hysterical in their threats, although the oligarchies (not so the peoples) of the “Lima Group” countries submissively abided by them.
Certain American politicians resorted to their usual childish language for threats in situations of gravity as an obvious show of contempt for their own population. For those bewildered because adult politicians used the language.
No one should be surprised when they claim that Maduro is a “new Hitler” who commits a “genocide” against his own people. Or that he is accused of using “chemical weapons”.
Last weekend’s military defeat of Venezuela’s self-appointed interim president, Juan Guaidó, has been publicly reproached by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence. The White House has attempted to evade responsibility for what its espionage and subversion agencies have been unable to achieve. They’d saught the adherence of an emblematic number of traitors from the Bolivarian National Armed Force (FANB) to the action of the alleged coup plotters, and failed to get it. Pence reproached the supposed interim president of Venezuela for the failures suffered after his recognition last January 23, actions called to justify the military intervention designed by Washington.
Their main demand was against the support of the FANB for the legitimate president, Nicolás Maduro.
Guaidó had promised the U.S. government that if the majority of world leaders recognized him as president of Venezuela, at least half of the FANB officers would defect, which did not even remotely happen.
The U.S. official also questioned the uncommitted attitude of Venezuelan millionaires abroad who “were expected a more determined contribution of money to finance the bribery of police, military and politicians and their adherence to the Guaidó sphere, which did not happen either.
Important international decision-making centers allied to the Trump regime have warned that the Venezuelan opposition “could lose the momentum” that the U.S. supposedly provided with the sudden appearance of the puppet Guaidó. He certainly has not yet found territory to govern and perhaps would have to do so from Colombia or another nation whose government is not ashamed to cede a piece of its sovereignty to the United States.
March 4, 2019.
This article may be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
A FORECAST OF DONALD TRUMP’S FIASCO IN VENEZUELA
A FORECAST OF DONALD TRUMP’S FIASCO IN VENEZUELA
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
In late November, President Donald Trump announced that Washington had withdrawn its recognition of Nicolas Maduro as the President of Venezuela, and has now given it to the Head of the National Assembly in contempt, José Guaido.
In this way, the United States will openly support the regime change in Caracas This has been the dream of the Neo-cons for a long time and can become a nightmare for Trump.
“Why does the American President act like this?” Ronald “Ron” Paul wonders on his blog. Paul, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, member of the Republican Party and former representative to the House in the U.S. Congress, who holds the largest record of conservative votes for a representative in Congress since 1937.
He has been called the “intellectual godfather” of the Tea Party. He has achieved notoriety for his libertarian positions on many political issues, often clashing with the leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties. Paul has run for the Presidency three times: in 1988 as candidate of the Libertarian Party, and in 2008 and 2012 as a Republican.
“According to the U.S. State Department, the Administration is acting to help enforce the Venezuelan Constitution… As if the Administration were so anxious to enforce its own Constitution!” Paul ironically wrote on January 29.
It’s also ironic that Trump — a president who has spent his first two years in office fighting accusations that a foreign country interfered in U.S. elections– not only meddles in a foreign election, but also grants himself the right to appoint the president of a foreign country.
“How would we react if the Chinese and the Russians decided that President Trump is not upholding the U.S. Constitution and recognized Nancy Pelosi as President of the United States?” asks Paul.
Even those who would like to see a change of government in Venezuela should reject any notion that such change must be “helped” by the United States. According to news reports, Vice President Mike Pence was so involved in Venezuelan internal affairs that in fact he urged Guaido to name himself president and pledged America’s support. This is not just foolish but also very dangerous. A Venezuelan civil war would result in massive death and even more economic misery.
Regime change has long been the U.S. policy for Venezuela. The United States has been waging an economic war against it practically since Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chávez, was first elected in 1998. The objective of the U.S. sanctions and other measures against Venezuela and other countries targeted by Washington’s is to make life so miserable for the average citizen that it would make them stand up and throw out their leaders. But, of course, once they do, they must replace those leaders with someone approved by Washington.
“Remember,” writes Paul,” after the “Arab Spring” in Egypt, when the people rose up and overthrew their leader, the “wrong” candidate was then elected. The army moved and deposed the elected president and replaced it with one approved by Washington. The then Secretary of State, John Kerry, called that “restoring democracy.”
“It’s tragicomic,” says Ron Paul, “that Trump appointed the convicted criminal Elliot Abrams, as his key person to “restore democracy” in Venezuela. Abrams played a key role in the Iran-Contras scandal and became one of the main architects of the disastrous U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. His role in the promotion of the horrible violence in Latin America in the decade of the 1980’s should disqualify him from returning to any public office.
“Instead of this coup d’état, a better policy of ours to relate to Venezuela in the last 20 years should have been one of commitment and trade. If we really believe in the superiority of a free market system, we must also believe that we can only preach by example, not by forcing our system on others,” stresses Paul.
Just four months ago, President Trump said at the UN that he respected “the right of every nation to practice its own customs, beliefs and traditions. The United States cannot tell others how to live, work or worship. In return, we should only ask respect for our sovereignty.”
“Unfortunately, it seems that these were just empty words. We know from what happened in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. that this will not end well for Trump… or for the United States. We must leave Venezuela in peace!” concludes Ron Paul whom no one can accuse of being a defender of Socialism.
January 31, 2019.
Paranoia For Intervention in Venezuela
Paranoia For Military Intervention in Venezuela
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
“Bomb, invade, occupy a country to see it flourish.” Such is the logic of the absurd philosophy of imperialist interventionism that has been applied by the United States throughout the world in the name of the defense of freedom and western culture.
But war is the worst human calamity and, despite the feverish hopes and utopian promises of its promoters, humanitarian interventions almost always result in unimaginable killings, devastation, horror and suffering added to the situations that “justified” them.
The most recent United States wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria) should serve as sufficient proof of this fact: Future humanitarian warriors make serious professions of humanitarianism and end up killing many of those they promised to help.
I consider it very interesting to assess this dilemma from the point of view of the defenders of humanitarian warfare as an ideal mechanism to ensure its geopolitical and/or class advantages in circumstances such as the current ones we are analyzing here.
Let us examine what the imperialist camp is proposing about a possible U.S. military intervention in Venezuela by Doug Bandow. He is a senior researcher at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank founded in Washington D.C. in 1974 as the Charles-Koch Foundation, dedicated to lobbying and promoting capitalist public policies that challenge socialism based on the free principles of individual freedom, limited government and the pro laissez faire markets.
Bandow was President Ronald Reagan’s assistant and author of the book “America’s New Global Empire.
Previously, the warmongering “humanitarian” interveners went straight to looting but, over time, they refined their rhetoric and began to talk about trade and investment opportunities, increases in GDP and other more subtle forms of robbery.
According to Bandow, last year, President Donald Trump asked his aides if the United States should intervene militarily in Venezuela. Everyone argued against the idea. He then asked for the opinion of several Latin American leaders who also strongly opposed it.
However, the US intervention had to be assessed from the point of view of the economic benefits that this could bring, both for the oligarchic sectors of Venezuela and for the hegemonic interests of the United States.
Cynically, it was argued that the number of people killed by an American assault on Venezuela would be reduced. Extrapolating data from the U.S. assault on Panama cites an estimate of 3,500 civilian casualties.
He didn’t consider that war is not just another political tool. It is based on death and destruction. No matter how well-intentioned, military action is often indiscriminate. The course of the conflict is unpredictable and often unexpected.
Bandow admits that the pinkish predictions about the results of a U.S. expeditionary force landing in Venezuela are highly questionable. Such intervention could result in a mixture of civil war and insurgency in which the “good guys” would undoubtedly win, but the costs would be severe.
The Cato Institute researcher acknowledges that it is grotesque to try to justify military action on the grounds that fewer people could die if it didn’t happen. Should lives be treated as abstract numbers in an account balance? Whatever the number of victims, a war would mean that thousands of people would otherwise be alive and would die.
Who authorized US politicians to make that decision? who anointed Washington to play God with the future of other peoples?
If the security and humanitarian arguments are insufficient, the economic justification is laughable: How much economic benefit for life, American or Venezuelan, justifies war? Imagine a president writing to the families of the dead soldiers explaining that his sacrifice was justified because it helped to increase Venezuela’s annual GDP rate.
And then the height of cynicism: “The most important thing would be the impact on the United States. The main responsibility of the U.S. government is to protect its own people, and its uniformed officers, who should not be treated as pawns on tactics in some global chess game. Their lives should only be in danger when their own nation has something substantial at stake.”
Finally, it is striking that these assessments emanate from the ranks opposed to Chavism, and it is certainly the case that attempting a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela would be the worst, and perhaps the last, madness of U.S. imperialism!
August 29, 2018.
This article may be reproduced by citing the newspaper POR ESTO as the source.
Conspiracy Against Venezuela
The Actors in the Conspiracy Against Venezuela
By Eduardo Andrade Bone*, Resumen Latin Americano Summary, August 7, 2018.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
https://walterlippmann.com/conspiracy-against-venezuela/
The recent assassination attempt against Nicolás Maduro, whose drone operation was neutralized by members of the Bolivarian National Armed Force, is part of a long-standing plan to end the process of change in Venezuela, known as the Bolivarian Revolution. But it was also an attempt to warn the armed forces, with the aim of dividing them and adding a sector to promote a coup d’état.
Now the U.S. offensive to end the Maduro administration dates back to the administration of Barack Obama, who issued the executive order (decree 2015) declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy. Subsequently, US President Donald Trump ordered a one-year extension of the “National Emergency” against Venezuela. This has also taken the form of economic sanctions, sanctions against government officials and the armed forces. The US government has also promoted the blockade of food products and various medicines, all within the destabilising plans of the White House.
Attempts to destabilize the Venezuelan government have many sides and also many actors who, directly or from the shadows, constantly conspire against Venezuelan democracy. Venezuelan U.S. lackeys, foreign plotters, U.S.-funded NGOs, organizations of diverse professionals, the national plutocracy and the most reactionary and conservative section of the Catholic Church are often the main plotters in the Caribbean country.
Among these various actors, who play a leading role in putting an end to the Bolivarian revolution, is the Organization of American States, whose Secretary General Luis Almagro is a good vassal of U.S. interests for the region and one of the leaders leading the conspiracy, as well as coordinating actions with the European Union and some NATO member countries (Colombia).
The new Colombian president, Iván Duque, also insisted that the region should support the secretary of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, in his efforts to continue to plot against the Maduro government before the International Criminal Court (ICC). Duque met with Almagro last July 1, during his visit to the United States after his election.
We also have the so-called Lima Group, made up of right-wing governments whose presidents are mostly members of the ranks of the presidents linked to corruption (Odebrecht+-), among them the Macri family (Argentina), bank swindler Sebastián Piñera (Chile), Juan Manuel Santos (Colombia) and Peña Nieto (Mexico), who have almost completed their terms. The corrupt and de facto president of Brazil, Michel Temer. In addition to countries traditionally servile to U.S. policies such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Peru, also with leaders questioned for corruption.
Recently and before the end of his term in office, Juan Manuel Santos told the press that… “I see the fall of the government of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela coming,” said the outgoing president of Colombia, and then added that Maduro would fall, hopefully in a “peaceful way”. However, Santos insisted, “I wish that tomorrow” Maduro’s government would end, exposing him as one of the main plotters against Venezuela.
Now the successor of Juan Manuel Santos (Colombia), the already president of Colombia, Uribe’s Ivan Duque, agreed in his visit as president-elect with the White House with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence (July 5, 2018), to continue pressuring the Venezuelan government. “We talked about the situation in Colombia, about our security agenda, we also talked about the situation being experienced in the continent by the dictatorship in Venezuela,” Duque told the press.
For his part, Pence told a Tweet that he had spoken to Duque about the bilateral “strategic alliance“”in the fight against drug trafficking” and that they had “reiterated the need to maintain pressure on the regime of (Venezuelan President Nicolás) Maduro to face the tragic collapse of democracy in Venezuela”.
Duque gave Pence a glimpse of a possible military route in Venezuela after the White House confirmed to the Efe agency that U.S. President Donald Trump asked his team last year about an invasion of the Caribbean country and, although he never really planned for it, that option has not been ruled out.
But that wasn’t all, as Duque concluded his trip to Washington where he met with other U.S. officials including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, CIA Director Gina Haspel and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Also with the Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, and the directors of the World Bank, all this happened on July 5 of this year.
He later stated that he had invited Pence to his inauguration on 7 August and hoped that “the US would have the highest possible representation”. Now, in the act of assassination of Duque, he has been considering a coordination meeting with Mike Pence and Luis Almagro, as well as with some representatives of the opposition to the Maduro government, with the aim of refining and coordinating the way in which they are trying to put an end to Nicolás Maduro and his government, whose final objective is none other than to appropriate Venezuela’s natural resources, especially one of the largest oil reserves in the world, which the Caribbean country has.
Hence, all the cards are already out on the table and they are none other than the economic suffocation, the assassination attempt as has happened during these days, the possibility of creating conditions for a coup d’état by dividing the armed forces, promoting terrorist actions that disconcert the population, unleashing a civil war or producing a direct military intervention, whose cannon fodder first is the paramilitaries and drug trafficking cartels of Colombia, and then continuing with the U.S. military personnel who are based in the eight military bases that the United States has in Colombia.
It is also worth noting that the Empire has an important ally for its destabilizing attempts, the various radical left-wing groups that do not support and do not contribute anything to the process of change and that from certain media through the Internet, are dedicated to ranting against the Bolivarian revolution by playing into the hands of the coup plotters, a factor that must also be taken into account when analyzing Venezuela’s domestic policy.
Hence, the story of the humanitarian crisis, the human rights problems and the character of dictatorship are elements that are exploited by the Western media with the aim of creating all the propitious conditions to facilitate and justify the destabilization of the government of Nicolás Maduro and the process of change in Venezuela.
For the Venezuelan oligarchy, the big businessmen and the geopolitical interests of the U.S. in the region, anything goes, including plunging Venezuela into a bloodbath, where the big losers will be the working class, the social sectors that support the process of change, the members of the armed forces that support the Bolivarian revolution and the loss of control over its natural resources, as simple as that.
Eduardo Andrade Bone is an AIP/MP press correspondent.
Venezuela Has Been Strengthened
The Bolivarian Revolution Has Been Strengthened
By Manuel E. Yepe
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com/
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann.
The frustrated assassination attempt against President Nicolás Maduro Moros on August 4 in Caracas will decisively strengthen the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela and make it invincible.
It would seem that such a crime was all that was left for the Venezuelan counterrevolution to completely lose the credibility it has enjoyed among the few sectors of the population that have been supporting it. They are interested in recovering the privileges they enjoyed before the Chávez revolution. They also want to win over those who had been won over by the siren songs of Washington, whose endless capitalist propaganda about the possibility of maintaining the social benefits recently achieved by the revolution in a more just, but still unequal, society in which they could already be part of a less poor class.
It is evident that the once-opulent Venezuelan oligarchy – pulling strings from the current violent opposition – in alliance with the mafia, both subordinated to the U.S. strategy and limperialist command, carried out this action. Their objective was of turning history around, regaining control of Venezuela’s oil wealth, and once again returning the homeland of Bolivar and Chavez to the status of a U.S. puppet.
Only problem was that Venezuelan revolutionaries and patriots think very differently. The previously-dispossessed classes, along with advances in their material well-being, have seen their political culture and social consciousness grow. They are and are less polluting and less seduceable by imaginings of material progress. The humble are also the most conscious as members and allies of the working classes in the revolution.
The measures recently announced by Nicolás Maduro, in relation to fuel control, and his new approaches to the country’s economy, have taken a heavy toll on the enemies of the Bolivarian process. It was this which, according to all indications, led them to take action on August 4th. Their foolish calculation was that the elimination of Maduro would put an end to a process whose roots are, in fact, much deeper.
At the time of the failed criminal attack, the President was at a meeting in Caracas, commemorating the 81st anniversary of the Bolivarian National Guard. In the middle of his speech, two strong explosions were heard. “Madurop called for an honest and hard-working Venezuela: let’s bet on the good of our country. The time has come for economic recovery.” Maduro said this at the moment when, according to later unofficial information, a drone with a C4 plastic explosive charge exploded near the presidential box.
The President, his wife Cilia Flores, and members of the Cabinet were not injured. They were quickly moved to safety, according to official information. This act of terrorism sought to overthrow a government that is the result of the democratic will of the Venezuelan people. This people’s support for the Chavista revolution has been reaffirmed on many occasions at the ballot box. It constituted a desperate attempt to achieve, by means of assassination, what they have not been able to obtain in several elections.
Nor have they achieved it through coups d’etat like the one of 2002 against the then President Hugo Chávez. Same with the oil coup of 2003 and the extensive and intense imperialist policy of harassment to overthrow the Bolivarian Revolution. This includes the arbitrary and aggressive US Executive Order describing Venezuela as “an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security and foreign policy” of the superpower. They have unilaterally imposed economic sanctions violating international law. The US Secretary of State declared the full validity of the Monroe Doctrine, He called for a military coup against the constitutional government of Venezuela. Trump warned against “a possible military option” against Venezuela.
The aggression and the coup against Venezuela hurt all of Latin America. It benefitted only the interests of those who are determined to divide the countries and peoples of the region so they can exercise their domination over our nations.
These people support the empire of the North in their maneuvers are using unconstitutional means to overthrow the Bolivarian and Chavista revolution. They don’t care if this generates conflicts of incalculable consequences for this region. Sooner or later they will have to assume a serious responsibility before history and answer for this before their peoples.
Nobody doubts that the failed attempt of assassination in Caracas is a powerful further reason for Latin American and Caribbean unity against imperialist domination!
August 6 of 2018.
Venezuela Will Continue to Resist
Venezuela Will Continue to Resist
By Lázaro Fariñas
digital@juventudrebelde.cu
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
With reference to the last elections that took place in Venezuela only a few days ago, we must remember those who said: do what I say, not what I do’. Those who call themselves the international community’ are furious that the Venezuelan government has called a presidential election, carried it out and won it.
Aren’s elections one of the demands made by these so-called constitutional governments of the West? If so, why were they opposed to Venezuela carrying them out? Why did they demand that the opponents boycott them? Afraid they’d go to the polls and lose?
They got it right and came to the conclusion that it would be impossible for them to beat Nicolás Maduro at the polls, so they decided to boycott the electoral process that they themselves had demanded so strongly.
When mobs took to the streets to burn down buildings and some declared that they wanted elections immediately, when part of this fragmented opposition went to the talks in the Dominican Republic, the first demand was also for “elections now”.
It was then that they realized that, if they lost in the elections, they had only two options: to declare that a fraud had occurred or to recognize the legitimacy of the Bolivarian ruler and, therefore, to accept him before public opinion as the legitimate president of the country. Since that is not what they wanted to do, they decided to go down the road of non-participation and denunciation.
First, they left the Mesa de Diálogo and then they began with the international campaign, in which they declared the election call spurious. Then they accused accusing the opposing candidates, who did agree to participate, of playing the Chavistas game. In other words, they saw as illegitimate an action that they themselves had previously demanded from the Bolivarian government.
The votes, according to their criteria, were fraudulent. But how could that be if they hadn’t even been cast? In this they were not even original, as they were copying what Donald Trump had previously stated during his election campaign for the presidency of the United States.
Although perhaps I am exaggerating a little when I say that they were not original, since on second thought, they have said this every time they have participated or not in the marathon electoral processes in Venezuela during the last 20 years. In those leaderships, the opposition won twice and the government acknowledged the results, but when the government won, the word fraud was always used.
The 2013 presidential election, in which Maduro beat Capriles by just over 200,000 votes, by just over one percent, was a cheat for part of the opposition. How was it possible that the government had engaged in fraud and succeeded by such a small margin? Who would think of cheating and getting so small a margin of victory?
On this occasion, as on so many others, the opposition was accompanied by the so-called “international community”. It’s is made up of the United States Government, the governments of the European Union and their loyal followers in Latin America. For example, Brazil, which is governed by the most unpopular president in its history and is also the product, not of the results of elections, but of a parliamentary coup d’état, and Peru, where the president was appointed in the face of the resignation – due to corruption – of the constitutional president.
This misnamed “international community” says it does not recognize the Venezuelan elections and their results. We should ask ourselves what matters to Venezuelans what this group of nations recognizes or does not recognize?
In 2013, opposition candidate Henrique Capriles had no choice but to acknowledge his defeat, but since then, European governments, the United States and other nations have accused Nicolas Maduro of being an illegitimate dictator and have imposed unjust sanctions on him.
The campaign against Venezuela has been intense by the big media allied to the international right, by the colonized opposition, by the parliaments and by the governments of the West. However, the Bolivarian government has resisted. Who says it’s not going to resist now?
Venezuela: A Liberating Vote
A Liberating Vote, Against All Odds
This Sunday’s presidential elections in Venezuela are being held under a rarely seen siege, and will once again test the foresight and courage of those who oppose foreign intervention.
Posted: Saturday 19th May 2018 | 08:51:34 PM
By Marina Menéndez Quintero
marina@juventudrebelde.cu
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
The Chavista legacy will also be present at the polls. Author: Héctor Planes/Latin American Summary Published: 19/05/2018 | 08:34 pm
NOT in vain Nicolás Maduro, a candidate of the Bolivarian forces who seeks re-election, has said that the main task of another term will be in the economy.
This Sunday’s elections in Venezuela are taking place under a foreign siege rarely seen, largely responsible for the narrow economic and financial situation, while the lack of supplies, rising prices and emigration are being manipulated to blame the Bolivarian executive for a crisis that it has not created, but that other war.
In addition to the U.S. sanctions, which have been preventing transactions with the main Venezuelan company – PDVSA – since August. There has been pressure from a European Union that is questioning the presidential elections along with more than a dozen Latin American nations, which are also following a political strategy forged in Washington: to ignore and illegitimize the elections, the only way which the Bolivarians can peacefully defeat the conspiracy against their political, economic and social system.
And the age-old U.S. gamble to justify armed aggression has been defeated, so far. Thus, the falcons also have their sights set on the elections.
At the international level, their appetites found a fence in the countries of the Caribbean and the members of ALBA which, within the framework of the OAS, have prevented the completion of the interventionist stratagem based on the allegation of a “lack of democracy” in Venezuela.
That speech was later accompanied by questioning of the calling of these presidential elections, under the argument – equally invalid and interfering – that they were premature. After using the issue to attack Latin American and Caribbean unity with the formation of the anti-Venezuelan Lima Group, ago the OAS three weeks ago still called for an extraordinary meeting of its executive council to implement new measures of punishment against Caracas.
Of course, such a position used as a breeding ground the most twisted right-wing opposition within the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD). Their leader, Julio Borges, served the diners a snack on a plate with the frustration of the dialogue he had with the government in the Dominican Republic at a time when, as he said, the agreements were ready.
It could not be surprising that these U.S. acolyte parties, after the lists of candidates for the presidency came out, were absent. It was the only way they had of calling the electoral tournament illegitimate. Now they now accuse it of being fraudulent, since three opposition candidates (Henry Falcón, from Avanzada Progresista-AP, Movimiento al Socialismo-MAS and the Partido Socialcristiano-Copei; Reinaldo Quijada, from Unidad Política Popular 89-UPP89; and Javier Bertucci, independent) inflicted a defeat on them when they registered [to participate] in the electoral battle against Maduro.
But their reluctance to nominate candidates could also have another cause: the division of positions in the face of some elections that some of the MUD parties rejected and others wanted to embrace, which is why they could not be able to run with a single candidate either.
Meanwhile, the imperial desire for intervention encountered decisive obstacles, from Venezuela’s borders inwards. These included in the lucidity and courage of the more than eight million citizens who, in July 2017, came to vote for the Constituent Assembly and in whom, later, they gave a large majority to the candidates of “Chavismo” during the gubernatorial elections, and in that of mayors.
They stopped the Manichean discourse of imperialism and those who join it, about the alleged political isolation of Nicolas Maduro within the country. What “dictatorship” was that?
It is that same long light that must be present today to that part of the electorate that wants peace and stability, but also a better life for Venezuela.
To understand it in the midst of so much media harassment and daily narrowness will be as compelling a test of consciousness as the vote for the Constituent Assembly was.
If it then threatened a violence that the Bolivarians had the courage to stoically endure, so as not to create chaos and offer a stepping stone to intervention, the scenario today, amidst economic scarcity and the financial crisis, is equally overwhelming.
Community social programs such as the Local Councils for Supply and Production (Clap) have been the government’s alternative for alleviating the lack or increase in the price of basic food products, at the mercy of right-wing entrepreneurs.
Meanwhile, in the external area, Caracas was seeking respite with a new currency: the Petro, whose digital character allows it to carry out the necessary transactions and circumvent the banks supervised by the powerful OFAC (U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control).
However, this has not been enough to stop an aggression that will only be satisfied with the overthrow of the Bolivarian Revolution. Until 15 days ago, US Vice President Mike Pence called on the countries of the region to “sanction” Nicolas Maduro.
Hence the necessary role of the masses, and the importance of these elections. No “dictation” of foreign powers can have more force and more weight than the vote of the people. Don’t those who attack claim to defend democracy?
However, the political elites of the hemispheric right and the State Department will try to disregard any outome that may be the result of the Bolivarian victory.
It will be necessary to see how the nations captured by the White House in its campaign react if the vote in favor of Maduro and the Revolution were as profuse as the polls showed.
Attendance at the polls will also be crucial to certify the popular support of these elections. The last call of the most reactionary in the divided and almost non-existent MUD has been to abstain, while the Bolivarian forces said they aspired, in principle, for ten million votes; a figure, in fact, high, taking into account that the historical level of the Bolivarian forces in elections is just over eight million votes.
Of course, the electoral roll has increased since Bolivarian leader Hugo Chávez obtained 8.1 million votes in 2012 against right-wing Henrique Capriles Radonski. In those historic elections, just over 18 million Venezuelans were eligible to vote. Today, more than 20 million people are registered. Only they can attest to their democracy.
Against all odds, the presidential elections are being held this Sunday to assert national sovereignty and, like so many other times in that country, morer than its future will be decided.
Ultimately, achieving the defeat of the Bolivarian Revolution is the “turning point” that right-wing hemispheric forces are seeking to achieve. They aim to ensure, as in the “golden times” of Francis Fukuyama, that the end of history has come and that in Latin America the “backwards march” has taken place… Even if once again it is the wrong prediction.
This election
More than 200 personalities from institutions and different countries around the world are part of the Accompanying Mission that will testify to this Sunday’s elections.
Today, the members of the legislative councils of the various states and municipalities are also elected and nominated by various political organizations at the national and territorial levels.
This is the 24th election in Venezuela in the last 18 years.
Maduro’s massive closing of the campaign showed the united strength of the Revolution. Photo: News front
All Out to Defend the Bolivarian Revolution
All Out to Defend the Bolivarian Revolution
By Manuel E. Yepe
Exclusive for the daily POR ESTO! of Merida, Mexico.
http://manuelyepe.wordpress.com
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.