By Manuel E. Yepe
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.
By Eduardo Andrade Bone*, Resumen Latin Americano Summary, August 7, 2018.
Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews.
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.
By Manuel E. Yepe
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.
By Lázaro Fariñas
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?
By Marina Menéndez Quintero
A CubaNews translation.
Edited by Walter Lippmann.
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.
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.
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.