Karl Marx

Karl Marx died on March 14, 1883 - 125 years ago. His family and comrades buried him in London’s Highgate Cemetery. To commemorate and celebrate Marx’s life and historic contribution to the cause of the world’s exploited and oppressed, I am republishing here Frederick Engel’s brief report of the funeral that appeared in Der Sozialdemokrat, March 22, 1883. It includes the text of his eulogy at the funeral. The parting words of Marx’s political and intellectual partner reverberate through history in all languages. The text and the images of Marx and Engels are taken from The Marxists Internet Archive (MIA, http://marx.org/) at

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/death/dersoz1.htm

Che Guevara included Engels’s’ graveside address in his “Síntesis Biográfica de Marx y Engels,” recently published for the first time in the Centro de Estudios Che Guevara-Ocean Press book “Apuntes críticos a la Economía Política.” He believed that no better summary of Marx’s gift to humanity existed when he prepared his plan for his work “Apuntes…” I believe that is still the case.

The hired pens of the exploiters have killed Marx hundreds of times over since he physically perished in 1883. But his work and his discoveries live on. They surface in every battle for human emancipation and every attempt to lay bare the reality of social and economic relations in class society.

Carlos Marx y Frederic Engels, ¡presente!

Karl Marx's Funeral

Der Sozialdemokrat, March 22, 1883

On Saturday, March 17, Marx was laid to rest in Highgate Cemetery, in the same grave in which his wife had been buried fifteen months earlier.

At the graveside Gottlieb Lemke laid two wreaths with red ribbons on the coffin in the name of the editorial board and dispatching service of the Sozialdemokrat and in the name of the London Communist Workers' Educational Society.



Frederick Engels then made the following speech in English:

"On the 14th of March, at a quarter to three in the afternoon, the greatest living thinker ceased to think. He had been left alone for scarcely two minutes, and when we came back we found him in his armchair, peacefully gone to sleep-but forever.

"An immeasurable loss has been sustained both by the militant proletariat of Europe and America, and by historical science, in the death of this man. The gap that has been left by the departure of this mighty spirit will soon enough make itself felt.

"Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, art, and even the ideas on religion, of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which they must, therefore, be explained, instead of vice versa, as had hitherto been the case.

"But that is not all. Marx also discovered the special law of motion governing the present-day capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois society that this mode of production has created. The discovery of surplus value suddenly threw light on the problem, in trying to solve which all previous investigations, of both bourgeois economists and socialist critics, had been groping in the dark.

"Two such discoveries would be enough for one lifetime. Happy the man to whom it is granted to make even one such discovery. But in every single field which Marx investigated -- and he investigated very many fields, none of them superficially -- in every field, even in that of mathematics, he made independent discoveries.

"Such was the man of science. But this was not even half the man. Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force. However great the joy with which he welcomed a new discovery in some theoretical science whose practical application perhaps it was as yet quite impossible to envisage, he experienced quite another kind of joy when the discovery involved immediate revolutionary changes in industry and in historical development in general. For example, he followed closely the development of the discoveries made in the field of electricity and recently those of Marcel Deprez.

"For Marx was before all else a revolutionist. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being, to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its emancipation. Fighting was his element. And he fought with a passion, a tenacity and a success such as few could rival. His work on the first Rheinische Zeitung (1842), the Paris Vorw?rts! (1844), Br?sseler Deutsche Zeitung (1847), the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (1848-49), the New York Tribune (1852-61), and in addition to these a host of militant pamphlets, work in organisations in Paris, Brussels and London, and finally, crowning all, the formation of the great International Working Men's Association -- this was indeed an achievement of which its founder might well have been proud even if he had done nothing else."And, consequently, Marx was the best-hated and most calumniated man of his time. Governments, both absolutist and republican, deported him from their territories. Bourgeois, whether conservative or ultra-democratic, vied with one another in heaping slanders upon him. All this he brushed aside as though it were cobweb, ignoring it, answering only when extreme necessity compelled him. And he died beloved, revered and mourned by millions of revolutionary fellow-workers -- from the mines of Siberia to California, in all parts of Europe and America -- and I make bold to say that though he may have had many opponents he had hardly one personal enemy.

"His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work!"

Then Marx's son-in-law Longuet read the following addresses which had been received in French.

I.

On the Grave of Karl Marx - from the Russian Socialists
"In the name of all Russian socialists I send a last farewell greeting to the outstanding Master among all the socialists of our times. One of the greatest minds has passed away, one of the most energetic fighters against the exploiters of the proletariat has died.

"The Russian socialists bow before the grave of the man who sympathised with their strivings in all the fluctuations of their terrible struggle, a struggle which they shall continue until the final victory of the principles of the social revolution. The Russian language was the first to have a translation of Capital, that gospel of contemporary socialism. The students of the Russian universities were the first to whose lot it fell to hear a sympathetic exposition of the theories of the mighty thinker whom we have now lost. Even those who were opposed to the founder of the International Working Men's Association in respect of practical questions of organisation were obliged always to bow before his comprehensive knowledge and lofty power of thought which penetrated the substance of modern capital, the development of the economic forms of society and the dependence of the whole history of mankind on those forms of development. Even the most vehement opponents that he found in the ranks of the revolutionary socialists could not but obey the call that he and his lifelong friend sent into the world 35 years ago:

"'Proletarians of All Countries, Unite!'

"The death of Karl Marx is mourned by all who have been able to grasp his thought and appreciate his influence upon our time.

"I allow myself to add that it will be still more deeply mourned by those who associated closely with Marx, especially by those who loved him as a friend.

"P. Lavrov."
Paris, March 15, 1883.

II.

TELEGRAM

"The Paris branch of the French Workers' Party expresses its grief at the loss of the thinker whose materialist conception of history and analysis of capitalist production founded scientific socialism and the present revolutionary communist movement. It also expresses its respect for Marx as a man and its complete agreement with his doctrines.

"The Secretary, Lipine."
Paris, March 16, 1883.
The Marxists Internet Archive (MIA, http://marx.org/)


III.

TELEGRAM

"In my own name and as a delegate of the Spanish Workers' Party (Madrid Branch), I share the immense grief of the friends and daughters of Marx at the cruel loss of the great Socialist who was the master of us all.

Jos? Mesa y Leompart.
Paris, March 16, 1883.

Then Liebknecht made the following speech in German:

"I have come from the heart of Germany to express my love and gratitude to my unforgettable teacher and faithful friend. To my faithful friend! Karl Marx's greatest friend and colleague has just called him the best-hated man of this century. That is true. He was the best-hated but he was also the best-loved. The best-hated by the oppressors and exploiters of the people, the best-loved by the oppressed and exploited, as far as they are conscious of their position. The oppressed and exploited people love him because he loved them. For the deceased whose loss we are mourning was great in his love as in his hatred. His hatred had love as its source. He was a great heart as he was a great mind. All who knew him know that.

"But I am here not only as a pupil and a friend, I am here as the representative of the German Social-Democrats who have charged me with expressing their feelings for their teacher, for the man who created our party, as much as one can speak of creating in this connection.

"It would be out of place here to indulge in fine speeches. For nobody was a more vehement enemy of phrase-mongering than Karl Marx. It is precisely his immortal merit that he freed the proletariat, the working people's party, from phrases and gave it the solid foundation of science that nothing can shake. A revolutionary in science and a revolutionary through science, he scaled the highest peak of science in order to come down to the people and to make science the common good of the people.

"Science is the liberator of humanity.

"The natural sciences free us from God. But God in heaven still lives on although science has killed him.

"The science of society that Marx revealed to the people kills capitalism, and with it the idols and masters of the earth who will not let God die as long as they live.

"Science is not German. It knows no barriers, and least of all the barriers of nationality. It was therefore natural that the creator of Capital should also become the creator of the International Working Men's Association.

"The basis of science, which we owe to Marx, puts us in a position to resist all attacks of the enemy and to continue with ever-increasing strength the fight which we have undertaken.

"Marx changed the Social-Democracy from a sect, a school, into a party, the party which is now fighting undaunted and which will be victorious.

"And that is true not only of us Germans. Marx belongs to the proletariat. It was to the proletariat of all countries that his life was dedicated. Proletarians who can think and do think in all countries have grateful reverence for him.

"It is a heavy blow that has fallen on us. But we do not mourn. The deceased is not dead. He lives in the heart, he lives in the head of the proletariat. His memory will not perish, his doctrine will be effective in ever broader circles.

"Instead of mourning, let us act in the spirit of the great man who has died and strive with all our strength so that the doctrine which he taught and for which he fought will be put into practice as soon as possible. That is the best way to honour his memory!

"Deceased, living friend, we shall follow to the final aim you showed us. We swear it on your grave!"

Besides those mentioned there were also present at the grave, among others, Karl Marx's other son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, Friedrich Lessner, who was sentenced at the Cologne Communist Trial in 1852 to five years' imprisonment in a fortress, and G. Lochner, also an old member of the Communist League. The natural sciences were represented by two celebrities of the first magnitude, the zoologist Professor Ray Lankester and the chemist Professor Schorlemmer, both members of the London Academy of Sciences (Royal Society).

Signed: Fr. Engels

Silvio Rodriguez--Canción Urgente Para Nicaragua

On Sunday, March 2 our very much acclaimed Silvio Rodriguez came to Nicaragua to do a concert. Ten thousand or more enthusiastic fans turned out. It was chaos in the beginning because the commercial outfit that arranged the concert did zero planning in order to cut its costs to close to zero. There were not even any large screens to allow those far from the stage a better view of the Cuban performers.

Some fans paid fifty bucks for VIP tickets. Others, like me paid a little over fifteen dollars and most paid about ten dollars for their tickets. But many got in for free because the angry crowd, frustrated by hours of waiting in line, broke down the barriers and surged in, just in time to hear our outstanding performer and founder of the Nueva Trova movement in Latin American music. Most of us missed the Nicaraguan performers Silvio had invited to open the concern – the young Moisés Gadea, and Duo Guardabarranco (Katia and Salvador Cardenal).

Just before, Silvio had done concerts in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Silvio, as always, soared into the ears, hearts, and minds of his crowd – and we responded with voice accompaniment, cheers, chants, requests, and a good smattering of Cuban and Sandinista flags. Beer stands had their best night in a long while.

We were a mixed crowd in generational terms. Many were from the generation of the revolution – people who remember his electrifying April 1983 Managua concert where he gave us his unforgettable and inspiring Canción Urgente Para Nicaragua (see below). Most were from younger generations. Almost everyone, however, knew the words to Silvio’s songs and followed him in chorus.Silvio touched many hearts when he read a message in solidarity with the five Cuban political prisoners serving long terms and harsh conditions in various US prisons.

What I will remember most about the event is not that Sivio refused clamors from the crowd to sing “Cancion Urgente…” It is the image of two Nicaraguan army soldiers in uniform holding high two flags – Nicaraguan and Cuban. Around them were also FSLN flags. As the hours passed people passed them around to relieve one another of the weight and discomfort, or to go to a beer stand to fuel up.

I will also not forget meeting my friend Luis Enrique Mejia Godoy in the long lineup to get in. The wait was so long that I used to time to walk up and down the line to greet people I knew. He was way back in line and I have no idea where he ended up in the field used by the Pharos Casino for large events. But he avoided the temptation to buy a VIP seat and joined the low income crowd. He mentioned to me he will be making a cross Canada tour in May.

Why did Silvio not want to sing “Cancion Urgente…” I don’t know and see no value in speculating. He refused repeated entreaties from the crowd and at a certain point let it out that he has “some problems” with the song now. Some people speculate that he meant political problems with it because Nicaragua is now no longer in the lift of a revolution. Others hue closer to his words and say he has not played it for a very long time and felt not able to do it to standard. All I know is that I respect his right to determine his own program and to hold to his own artistic criteria.

If I had to make a complaint it would be that he allowed his Nicaraguan organizers to hold this concert on the grounds of the Pharos Casino. It simply is not set up to handle a crowd that size. The stage is too low to be visible through the heads and flags of those closer to the stage.

We should bring him back soon to a mass event in the Plaza of the Revolution or the National Stadium.

Silvio’s choice not to sing “Cancion Urgente…” only served to focus more attention on the song. Many, like me, probably played it later that night or went on the internet to find the video of the April 1983 concert.If you want to do that now, go to youtube. The scenes are uplifting, and the music, well it’s Silvio 25 years ago. His song is a call for urgent international solidarity with the young Nicaraguan Sandinista revolution, already under sustained attack by the United States through the proxy Contra war. Here’s the URL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnho2BQmhmk

Felipe Stuart

Managua

Brasil busca recuperar el control de su petróleo y Petrobras

This interview-article recounts the sad story and results of the privatization of Brazil’s petroleum industry – Petrobras.

Despite the controversy surrounding this sellout of Brazil’s national patrimony many news articles still refer to Petrobas as “Barzil’s state-owned oil company” or other variants of the same error. The government now has only 40% of shares in the gaint firm, compared to its former 87% share.

The privatization is again coming under question because of the stunning discovery of huge reserves of oil in the Atlantic Tupí fields off the south-east coast. It brings Brazil’s oil reserves up to at least 80 billion barrels, putting the country on a short list of major oil giants along with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela.

Fernando Siqueira explains the predicament the imperial USA finds itself in and why it is on a drive to regain or maintain control of oil reserves in the Americas, most importantly those of Venezuela, Mexico, and Brazil. The US currently pays around $300 a barrel for oil. How is that?

“In reality,” he says, “the United States today pays around $300 for a barrel of oil: 100 dollars for the cost of crude in the market and another 200 dollars to defray the cost of the military apparatus in the Mid East that guarantees the provision of oil from those fields.”

Felipe Stuart
Managua

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/03/12/index.php?section=economia&article=028e1eco
Entrevista a Fernando Siqueira
Director de la Asociación de Ingenieros de Petrobras

Empresas extranjeras se apropian de recursos, sostiene.

Ante la presión de Estados Unidos por privatizar los hidrocarburos de América Latina, el especialista dice que su país debe copiar a México el marco constitucional de control del Estado sobre sus recursos. “Ahora más que nunca Pemex es un paradigma”, afirma.

Roberto González Amador e Israel Rodríguez


Estados Unidos enfrenta una “difícil situación energética”, y la necesidad que tiene de lograr el control sobre los recursos petroleros de América Latina está detrás de las “enormes presiones” para privatizar los hidrocarburos en México y en otros países de la región. Habla Fernando Siqueira, director de la Asociación de Ingenieros de Petrobras (Aepet):

"En realidad, Estados Unidos paga hoy 300 dólares por barril de petróleo: 100 dólares por el costo del crudo en el mercado y otros 200 derivados de los gastos en el aparato militar en Oriente Medio para garantizar el suministro desde esos yacimientos”.

Crítico del proceso de privatización de Petróleos Brasileños (Petrobras), que se concretó en 1997, durante el gobierno del ex presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso –cuando se promulgó una ley que permitió a otras empresas competir con Petrobras en todos los ramos de la actividad petrolera–, Siqueira dice a La Jornada:

“En la discusión sobre el tema energético, México no debe ver el proceso de apertura en Petrobras como un ejemplo. En Brasil estamos en plena campaña para recuperar el control sobre el petróleo, y Brasil tiene que copiar a México el marco constitucional de control del Estado sobre sus recursos, y ahora más que nunca Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex) es un paradigma. Es necesario que Brasil recupere el control de su riqueza”.

Fernando Siqueira y Murilio Marcato, delegado de la Aepet en Minas Gerais, forman parte del movimiento que ha renacido en Brasil para que el país recupere el control de su petróleo. La Aepet, fundada en 1961, está integrada por 5 mil empleados de nivel medio y superior de Petrobras, la mayoría en activo. Entre sus objetivos está defender la propiedad del Estado sobre el petróleo y el fortalecimiento de Petrobras como una empresa energética pública.

De visita a México comentaron a La Jornada algunas de las experiencias del proceso de privatización del petróleo en su país. Entre ellas, la forma en que las empresas extranjeras penetraron los órganos de dirección de la Agencia Nacional del Petróleo (ANP), el órgano creado por el gobierno después de la apertura para coordinar la política petrolera, e incluso del intento –ya durante el gobierno del presidente Luis Inacio Lula da Silva– de cambiar el nombre de la empresa por “Petrobrax”, bajo el argumento de su director de que “era más fácil de pronunciar para los inversionistas extranjeros”. También de la manera en que los promotores de la privatización invirtieron millones de dólares en pagar a periodistas y “analistas independientes” para que influyeran en la opinión pública en crear un clima favorable a la privatización.

“La experiencia de Petrobras no fue buena ni para el país ni para la petrolera; se abrió a las compañías extranjeras que se convirtieron en propietarias del recurso natural. El gobierno tenía 87 por ciento de las acciones y ahora tiene sólo 40 por ciento. Las empresas participan en las licitaciones de lotes para explotar campos petroleros y se convierten en dueñas del terreno y del petróleo que encuentren, el cual pueden vender a quien deseen”.

La privatización de Petrobras, asegura Siqueira, no llevó nuevas inversiones a Brasil. Tampoco aportó tecnología. “Las empresas extranjeras vinieron a Brasil a aprender, Petrobras era un líder tecnológico”, asegura.

Debilitamiento premeditado

A la vez que se transfería a firmas privadas, principalmente extranjeras, la propiedad sobre el petróleo, el Estado comenzó a perder los recursos de la renta petrolera.

Explica Fernando Siqueira: las empresas privadas que participan en la explotación del petróleo brasileño pagan al gobierno una participación de 10 a 45 por ciento del precio a que vendan el crudo. La media internacional en cuanto al pago de contribuciones a los países propietarios del recurso, agrega, es de 84 por ciento del precio de venta. Es decir, las compañías que operan en el país sudamericano pagan al Estado la mitad de lo que se tributa en promedio internacional.

Otra merma para el Estado, luego de la privatización impulsada por el régimen de Fernando Henrique Cardoso y continuada en el actual, tiene que ver con el valor de los lotes, que son las partes del territorio que se adjudican a las firmas privadas mediante licitación.

Explican los expertos que el lote más costoso ha sido vendido por el gobierno brasileño a un precio de 300 millones de dólares. La firma que se lo adjudicó extraerá crudo por un monto equivalente a 8 mil millones de dólares durante la vida productiva del yacimiento.

La privatización de Petróleos Brasileños en 1997 fue el punto culminante de un proceso de debilitamiento intencional de la empresa iniciado 20 años antes, explican. “Petrobras fue obligada a comprar petróleo a precios internacionales de 25 dólares por barril y venderlo en el mercado interno a 14 dólares; la diferencia era cubierta por la producción nacional y esto provocó que la empresa no tuviera recursos para invertir y se descapitalizara”, dice Siqueira.

En 1994 ocurrió un intento de reforma a la Constitución brasileña para acabar con el monopolio del Estado sobre el control de los recursos naturales. “Se tergiversaban las cosas, diciendo que Petrobras era un monopolio, pero en realidad el monopolio era del Estado sobre el control de los recursos, y Petrobras sólo era la empresa encargada de poner en práctica la política estatal sobre petróleo”, añade.Había una creciente oposición a la privatización de Petrobras, que incluía al sindicato petrolero, entonces uno de los mayores del país, a empleados públicos de otros gremios, sindicatos de industria y organizaciones sociales. Cuenta que en 1995 el entonces presidente Henrique Cardoso emitió un decreto que prohibía a cualquier empleado público trasladarse a Brasilia, la capital federal y asiento de los poderes, a realizar cualquier protesta contra la decisión de abrir la empresa petrolera al capital privado, so pena de ser despedido. El objetivo, dice, era “quebrar” la resistencia a la política de apertura.

Un año después fue enviada la ley para eliminar el control total del Estado sobre el petróleo y permitir a empresas extranjeras extraer y hacerse propietarias del crudo brasileño. Fue aprobada un año después, a la vez que se creaba una Agencia Nacional del Petróleo que, asegura, respondía a los intereses de las grandes trasnacionales a las que entregó “todo el conocimiento que Petrobras había acumulado en 55 años de investigación sobre los yacimientos de petróleo en el país”.

Los modos de Halliburton

Una vez aprobada la ley que privatizaba la propiedad del petróleo brasileño, se instrumentó en la empresa una política de jubilación anticipada, que redujo de 35 a 30 años los años laborados antes del pase a retiro. En este proceso, la plantilla laboral de Petrobras se redujo de 60 mil a 30 mil empleados, aunque el plan de los administradores era de mantener sólo 15 mil empleados.

Una siguiente medida fue reconformar el consejo de administración de Petrobras, que hasta antes de la privatización estaba integrado por nueve miembros: seis directivos de la empresa y tres representantes de la sociedad.

Con las modificaciones legales se incluyó a consejeros externos de nacionalidad brasileña que, dicen los entrevistados, representaban los intereses del sistema financiero internacional.

A partir de esta reconformación del consejo se perdió control sobre las decisiones y el manejo de información estratégica. Un problema, desde su punto de vista, que llegó al extremo este año, cuando “se perdieron” tres discos duros robados a computadoras portátiles y que contenían la información sobre el gigantesco campo de Tupí, descubierto en diciembre pasado. Esos datos, como se ha publicado en la prensa brasileña y ahora recuerda el entrevistado, “aparecieron” en poder de Halliburton, la empresa propiedad del vicepresidente de Estados Unidos, Dick Cheney.

Se eliminó, además, al equipo de planeación de Petrobras y se compraron “activos podridos” en Argentina, pertenecientes a Repsol, firma que, dijo, “se sospecha es un brazo de la Shell usado por la petrolera anglo holandesa para eludir algunos controles a que están sujetas las mayores compañías energéticas del mundo”.

Fernando Henrique Cardoso dejó la presidencia en 2003 con una deuda interna por el equivalente a 60 mil millones de dólares, aun cuando durante su gobierno fueron vendidos activos públicos por 160 mil millones de dólares. “Entregó al país en bancarrota”, señala Siqueira. Murilo Marcato, delegado de la Aepet en Minas Gerais, recuerda que una vez iniciado el proceso de privatización, que ha llevado a que 40 por ciento del capital de Petrobras esté colocado en bolsas de valores, desde el Banco Nacional de Desarrollo Económico y Social (BNDES, similar a Nafin en México) se buscó adquirir acciones de la compañía petrolera para asegurar que una parte permaneciera bajo control estatal. “El gobierno impidió que siguiera la compra de acciones del BNDES, e incluso los directivos del banco que la promovían fueron cesados”. Actualmente, ese banco tiene alrededor de 10 por ciento del capital de Petrobras.

En cambio, se favoreció a las empresas privadas que compraban acciones de Petrobras a través de los mercados accionarios. Dice Marcato que en 1999 el estatuto de la empresa fue cambiado para permitir que su presidente fuera extranjero; en 2000 se vendió, a través de la bolsa, 18 por ciento de la participación estatal. Un porcentaje similar de acciones, también del gobierno, fue colocado en las bolsas en 2001. En total, 40 por ciento del capital de Petrobas fue vendido en la bolsa.
El gran consumidor

Los dirigentes de la Asociación de Ingenieros de Petrobras consideran que América Latina está sujeta a una mayor presión por parte del aparato industrial y militar de Estados Unidos, y de las grandes compañías petroleras que los abastecen, por el control del petróleo. Una presión que ha ido en aumento conforme el alza en la cotización del crudo llega a niveles que los expertos consideraban que ocurrirían después de 2010.

Explica Siqueira: “El choque de precios previsto para 2010 está ocurriendo en 2008. Se anticipó porque los picos de producción se han caído y la demanda ha subido. La era del petróleo barato ya se terminó y ahora la previsión es que el barril alcance 180 dólares en 2015 y una cotización de 300 dólares en 2020”.

En este contexto de precios cada vez más altos, Estados Unidos muestra una mayor avidez por petróleo. Ese país consume una cuarta parte de la producción mundial dentro de su territorio y casi otro tanto con sus instalaciones militares externas, señala el experto.

Así, con reservas de 28 mil millones de barriles, Estados Unidos requiere 8 mil millones de barriles por año para su suministro interno y otros 7 mil millones de barriles para su aparato militar, “por lo que si no garantiza un suministro confiable, en dos años puede colapsar”.

Agrega que el desarrollo de Estados Unidos está “montado” sobre la energía del petróleo, que es la materia prima de 3 mil productos que no son fácilmente sustituibles.

“Estados Unidos está en una situación crítica. Consume 15 mil millones de barriles por año y tiene 28 mil millones en reserva. En ese país, cada coche consume 28 barriles (al año), una computadora tres barriles, y el promedio de consumo por habitante es de 25 barriles por año, en tanto que en los países de Europa es de 11 barriles por persona al año”, asevera.

Una de las principales fuentes de abasto de petróleo para Estados Unidos es el Oriente Medio y en especial de Arabia Saudita. Según los entrevistados, el gasto militar estadunidense en esa región del mundo agrega un costo de 200 dólares por barril al precio del crudo, que ya tiene dos semanas arriba de 100 dólares. Para el aparato industrial y militar de Estados Unidos, el costo neto ha subido a 300 dólares por barril de crudo.

“Aun cuando Arabia Saudita es un aliado muy fiel de Estados Unidos, no tiene la capacidad para abastecer y garantizar el suministro de crudo”, agrega Siqueira. Estados Unidos, asegura, se encuentra en una situación difícil de abasto de petróleo y para ellos es más fácil tratar de garantizar ese suministro en América Latina que invertir en Medio Oriente.

“Ahora que la oferta de petróleo es prácticamente igual a la demanda, la lucha por el abasto y el control del crudo se intensifica”.

Estrategia mediática

La decisión del gobierno brasileño de privatizar su industria petrolera en 1997 tuvo un componente fundamental para asegurar su realización, cuenta el especialista. Fue “convencer” a la población, a través de los principales vehículos de comunicación de masas en el país, de que Brasil no podía solo.

Relata: “la campaña en los medios de comunicación hacía llegar a los brasileños el mensaje, insistente, de que si no había apertura al capital privado no llegarían al país recursos externos necesarios para explotar el recurso, y entonces, se decía desde el gobierno, se tendrían que desviar recursos de los ramos de la salud, educación y seguridad. Se nos insistía en que no teníamos recursos ni experiencia, por lo que necesitábamos ayuda de las compañías y que no permitir esa ayuda sería ruin para el país”.

Todas las afirmaciones para apoyar la privatización estaban sustentadas en mentiras, cuenta Siqueira. Fue una campaña muy bien elaborada y planeada, añade. Recuerda que la trasnacional Shell invirtió 100 millones de dólares para que especialistas y profesores escribieran artículos y aparecieran en los medios de comunicación para hablar a favor de la privatización. “Les daban espacios para defender la privatización, compraron conciencias de periodistas y académicos que después se volvieron célebres en los medios brasileños”.

Relata que los promotores de la privatización ofrecían a profesores universitarios triplicarles el sueldo para que aceptaran escribir artículos y participar en foros para hablar a favor de la apertura de la empresa petrolera al capital privado.
“Yo, como opositor a la privatización, realicé entonces visitas por todo el país para hablar sobre el tema. Y me llamó la atención cómo, sin importar la región de Brasil donde me encontrara, las preguntas de quienes me cuestionaban en los foros eran las mismas, como salidas del mismo sitio”.

Los periódicos y los medios electrónicos lanzaron una campaña en la que argumentaban que la nacionalización de los recursos petroleros “era algo retrógrado y que la globalización era lo actual”. Se desplegaron informaciones subliminales para convencer a la población, dice.

Recuperar el control

En diciembre de 2007, Petrobras anunció el descubrimiento del campo petrolero Tupí, en el sureste del país, en la costa del océano Atlántico, un yacimiento que incrementará la reserva de crudo de Brasil a 80 mil millones de barriles, lo que convierte a ese país en poseedor de una riqueza comparable a la de mayores dueños de reservas: Rusia, Arabia Saudita, Irán, Irak y Venezuela.

El descubrimiento de Tupí reavivó el debate nacionalista e infundió nuevos ánimos a un sector de la población que busca recuperar el control total de Brasil sobre sus recursos naturales. Una acción emprendida, entre otras organizaciones por la Aepet, ante un órgano autónomo de procuración de justicia, detuvo temporalmente una licitación de 41 campos cercanos a Tupí. Con este mandato judicial, el gobierno pospuso la venta de esos campos.

“La enorme riqueza descubierta hace necesario que Brasil recupere el control sobre sus yacimientos. Como están las cosas ahora ese control no existe, porque las empresas privadas, de acuerdo con la ley vigente, son propietarias del crudo que extraen”, dice.

En Brasil, asegura, ha crecido un nuevo sentimiento nacionalista que ha hecho suyo el lema “el petróleo es nuestro” –que fue una de las frases empleadas por Getulio Vargas, el presidente que nacionalizó el hidrocarburo en los años 50, quien tomó como ejemplo el decreto del presidente Lázaro Cárdenas de nacionalización en 1938.
Añade que la privatización de Petrobras tuvo otras implicaciones. Dio éxito a la idea de los grupos que controlan política y económicamente a Estados Unidos de que se debe impedir que países potencialmente hegemónicos se desarrollen.

“Antes de la privatización, en Brasil el 90 por ciento del desarrollo tecnológico se realizaba en empresas estatales, eso se perdió. Los países dominantes no quieren un competidor indeseable”.

Anti-Uribe Protests in Colombia and the World

Remembering March 6

March 10, 2008

By JAMES J. BRITTAIN
A significant rise in international opposition toward the militaristic policies of the Colombian state, under President Álvaro Uribe Vélez and Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón (2002-2010), has been realized over the past week. Much of this opposition has been centred on an illegal military campaign carried out under the direction of Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos, which saw Colombian forces deploy an air and ground assault against members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo, FARC-EP) shortly after midnight on March 1, 2008. The illegal clandestine mission, conducted by a special forces wing of the Colombia military via intelligence support from the United States, resulted in the deaths of Raúl Reyes, Julian Conrado, and twenty other combatants associated with the FARC-EP. Quickly, these events led both the President of Ecuador Rafael Correa and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to denounce the Colombian state’s blatant violation of international law and agreements established through the Organization of the American States (OAS) and the Andean Parliament, which prevent a nation’s sovereign territory from being violated.

Virtually every country in Central and South America, including the Caribbean, has denounced the Colombian state’s aggressions. During meetings of the OAS, state officials and representatives from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Mexico, and Nicaragua, condemned the assault. Critics of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution, such as Peruvian President Alan Garcia and Paraguay’s President Nicanor Duarte, have put aside their ideological positions and agreed that the Uribe and Santos administration not only overstepped their boundaries but must effectively guarantee that such a flagrant violation of international law cannot, for the good of the region, transpire again. Unsurprisingly, one of the only backers of the illegal military incursion was the US vis-à-vis President George W. Bush and J. Robert Manzanares, the United States’ representative during the OAS meetings.

While a consistent distain toward the Colombian state continues to resonate throughout various Latin American countries so too has a considerable opposition been witnessed within Colombia itself. A domestic condemnation appeared this past Thursday. Colombians from all walks of like not only protested the illegal incursion of their country’s forces on Ecuador’s territory but denounced human rights abuses against sectors of the Colombian populace at the hands of the Uribe and Santos administration and their links to the Colombian paramilitary.

In the past year, just under 80 governors, mayors, and Congressional politicians have been alleged or found guilty of having direct connections, meetings, and/or contracts with the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC), which led to oppositional political opponents being targeted for assassination, trade-unionists threatened, and various community organizers disappeared. Included in this list is Colombia’s Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderón, his cousin Defence Minister Juan Manuel Santos, President Uribe’s brother Santiago and their cousin former-Senator Mario Uribe.Promoted by the National Movement of Victims of State-Sponsored Crimes (Movimiento Nacional de Víctimas de Crímenes de Estado, MOVICE) and various social justice-based organizations, March 6 was a day of remembrance, homage, and protest against those tortured, murdered, and disappeared by reactionary sectors of Colombia’s past and present government, military, and paramilitary-linked factions. For months, human rights groups, sectors of organized labour, and politically conscious civilians worked together to create a domestic and international response to the atrocities committed. Luis Alberto Matta highlighted that 270 cities, medium sized towns, and large villages within Colombia had connected with each other to arrange and offer their support. Outside Colombia, an estimated 140 cities in twenty-three countries across Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and Latin America coordinated events outside Colombian embassies and consulates in conjunction with the day of protest.After months of preparation and days of travel across countless kilometers, Colombian men and women peacefully demonstrated their distain and opposition. Manuel Rueda reported that in total hundreds of thousands, throughout the countryside and urban centres, came forth to show their condemnation for the state’s coercive disregard for the plight of the many. Bill Weinberg and the BBC documented that over 40,000 arrived in Bogotá and surrounded the Casa de Nariño and the Plaza de Bolívar in protest. On March 6, 2008, Colombians from all socioeconomic brackets, religions, ethnic backgrounds, and racial categories flooded the streets to indirectly confront paramilitaries who forced communities and individuals to vote for the Uribe administration or face torture and death; publicly raped and molested children, women, and men; executed and/or mutilated civilians with chainsaws; inflicted castrations; cut off the limbs of non-combatants; murdered the mentally and physically challenged; suffocated children in front of their parents; committed acts of cannibalism; and decapitated suspected guerrillas and subsequently used their skulls during soccer games with the Colombian army.

While the demonstration was a great success, the state tried relentlessly to dissuade social and political participation through both direct coercion and psychological intimidation. A few weeks ago, President Uribe’s top political adviser, José Obdulio Gaviria, proclaimed the events scheduled for March 6 as nothing more than a rally coordinated through the FARC-EP. Such statements clearly de-legitimized the reality of the event by linking those who participate as ‘terrorist’. Coinciding with the states threats, Colombia’s popular media outlets, primarily El Tiempo, made a spectacle of the slaughtered FARC-EP Comandante Raúl Reyes. These media groups paraded photographs of the bullet ridden and mutilated corpse of Reyes on an hourly basis. Such propaganda was employed as a tool to psychologically intimidate and deter activists and socially conscious peoples within Colombia from participating in the protest. Through a more direct tactic of intimidation, paramilitaries within the southwestern department of Nariño threatened to attack any organization or person associated with the activities.

Days prior to the demonstration, in the face of threat and intimidation, indigenous communities, Afro-Colombians, and rural-based civilians began their procession to the Plaza de Bolívar in the heart of Bogotá. For example, Helda Martínez symbolically documented how roughly 700 people of various ethnicities and racial backgrounds – all of whom have been displaced by state and paramilitary forces – from Cauca, Chocó, Cundinamarca, Huila, and Tolima joined together at a bridge linking Flandes, Tolima and Girardot, Cundinamarca. The collective then proceeded to drop thousands of ‘flowers of all colours’ into the flowing current of the country’s famous Magdalena River, paying homage to those disappeared, tortured, and/or murdered by a select minority that seeks to uphold Colombia’s dominant class.

As the sun fell on March 6, it was clear that people in Colombia want peace with social justice. Ironically, as hundreds of thousands marched for an end to the civil war.

Surce: http://www.counterpunch.org/brittain03102008.html

James J. Brittain is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Acadia University, Nova Scotia, Canada and the co-founder of the Atlantic Canada-Colombia Research Group. He can be reached at james.brittain@acadiau.ca.

Bush And Uribe v. Chavez And Correa

Below are two important articles on the Colombian attack on Ecuador and the ensuing diplomatic struggle that culminated in the decisions of the XX Rio Group Summit in Santo Domingo.

The first is Stephen Lendman’ s “Bush And Uribe v. Chavez And Correa.” The item is long but well worth the time to read and absorb it, and well worth filing for reference. Lendman’ s blog can be read at sjlendman.blogspot.com

The second, much shorter item (but no less important) is “Se escribe Uribe, se lee petróleo” by Guillermo Almeyra. It appeared in the Mexican daily La Jornada on March 9.

[ http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2008/03/09/index.php?section=opinion&article=022a2pol ]

Both Lendman and Almeyra concur on the central purpose of the US-Colombian assault on the FARC encampment. It was intended to establish the legitimacy of the Bush doctrine of waging war against any state deemed to be a haven for or supporter of terrorists. The main immediate target of this thrust is not Ecuador, but Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution.

Because Almeya’s article is not translated to English I will make a few observations about it here.

Almeyras main point is that Uribe’s action against the FARC was not mainly aimed to cope with his political weakness within Colombia. Of course, the assassination aimed in part to put an end to the process of liberation of FARC prisoners, one that put Bogota under extreme pressure to release political prisoners held by Uribe’s government. It also led to a better understanding on the international level that the FARC is a liberation movement, not a terrorist outfit. It strengthened Chavez’s role in the struggle to achieve a political solution within Columba.

Plan Colombia is the main vehicle carrying forward this imperial thrust. It does have a more long term goal – once having dealt with Venezuela, the main object is Amazon region and control of its immense resources. That means targeting the Brazilian state and its plans for a Latin American pole under its hegemony.

That is why the victory of the ALBA-Correa led forces at Santo Domingo was so important. In essence the Bush doctrine was rejected. The Rio Group summit has laid the basis for even stronger Indo-Latin American unity. We should not forget that it essentially shoved into the background the earlier OAS meeting that had adopted a half-hearted compromise resolution that essentially said to Uribe that he should wash his hands before messing in the cookie jar. President Rafael Correa has since raised the idea of reforming the OAS to exclude the United States. If that is not viable, then expanding the Rio Group to include all the non imperialist countries of the Americas -- that is all but the United States of North America and the Canadian state. It is also most important to recognize that this process of Indo-Latin American unity is much more broadly conceived than the ALBA project. ALBA is essentially an expression of socialist internationalism.

The tendency expressed at Santo Domingo is related to a broad anti imperialist and Latin Americanist yearning for unity on a continental basis from the Rio Bravo to Tierra del Fuego, taking in the Caribbean nations. This Patria Grande, like Europe, is multilingual and multicultural. Aside from the native languages, its peoples speak Spanish, Portuguese, English, and French. At a minimum the meeting ratified the important principle that Latin American problems should be solved by Latin Americans, without gringo interference and manipulation.

Clarity on what was involved in Uribe’s raid into Ecuador and at the subsequent Rio Group summit is important. The main target is not the FARC. It is the Bolivarian revolution led by the PSUV.

Felipe Stuart
Managua
<*>

Bush And Uribe v. Chavez And Correa

By Stephen Lendman

Call it another salvo in Bush v. Chavez with Ecuador's Raphael Correa as a secondary target and Colombia's Alvaro Uribe as a proxy aggressor. The Ecuadorean incursion was no ordinary cross-border raid. It was a made in Washington affair that escalates a nine year attempt to remove the Venezuelan leader and return oligarchs in the country to power. It also threatens two regional leaders who know what they're up against in Uribe and Washington, "friendly" handshakes in the Dominican Republic notwithstanding. The situation is far from settled, and here's how events unfolded so far: -- on March 1, the Colombian military illegally entered Ecuadorean air space and invaded on the ground; the target was a FARC-EP rebel camp; US intelligence was key by identifying the precise location to bomb through satellite telephone tracking; Colombian Radio Cadena Nacional (RCN) reported it heard a FARC-EP leader - Chavez conversation three days before the raid; Colombian Noticias Uno TV said "foreign spy planes" photographed FARC-EP's precise location for the country's military to use in the raid;

-- it's also known that US Special Forces train Colombian counterinsurgents, accompany them on missions, and likely participated (covertly) in the March 1 operation;

-- Colombian (and likely US) forces attacked and slaughtered over 20 people in total, including 16 Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FACR-EP) members while they slept;

-- among the dead was FARC-EP's second-in-command, Raul Reyes; he was FARC-EP's public voice, its key peace negotiator since the 1990s, and the lead figure in the Chavez-arranged hostage releases; that and his prominence made him a target so his death may disrupt the process and current efforts toward resolving a 40 year conflict equitably; Washington wants it halted, so does Uribe, and that's where things now stand;

-- Hugo Chavez and other Latin American leaders were united in condemning the hostile act; the 35-member Organization of American States, however, was tepid in its formal March 5 response; Correa called it welcome but inadequate and insists on a formal condemnation; Chavez was even more forceful saying: "We demand condemnation of the Colombian government for this aberrant act," he called it a "war crime (and blamed the crisis on the US) empire and its lackeys;"

-- ahead of the March 7 Dominican Republic XX Rio Group Summit of Latin American leaders, foreign ministers from Chile, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil and Peru issued a statement demanding respect for their national sovereignty; Chavez called the meeting "positive" and advocated "cooling tensions;" he supported Ecuador and said: "We don't want war;"

-- Chavez, Correa and Uribe exchanged cool handshakes and pro forma conciliatory statements at the Summit; for what it's worth, Uribe issued a "formal apology" to the Ecuadorean government and its people; call it disingenuous diplomacy; it settles nothing in spite of how the media played it or that Venezuela and Colombia restored diplomatic ties; for his part, Correa said it will be "difficult to recover trust" and reestablishing normal relations "will take a little time;"

-- one example of media coverage came from correspondent Simon Romero of The New York Times; he's always disingenuous and never neutral; he reported "handshakes and warm embraces....ended the dispute" as though nothing ever happened and it's again business as usual; in fact, nothing is settled; the incident still simmers, it's just a matter of time before the next one erupts, and Chavez, Correa and other regional leaders know it; so does Washington that plans them;

-- earlier, Chavez also called Colombia the "Israel of Latin America" saying both countries claimed "a supposed right to defense," to bomb and invade neighbors on orders from Washington;

-- Uribe confirmed it by saying he "refused to rule out future military incursions into Ecuador or Venezuela," so expect more provocations ahead with full Washington backing;

-- at the same time, huge crowds of Colombians at home and abroad marched for peace and against terrorist acts; they denounced violence on both sides and want it ended, but a new disturbing report came out:

-- the Colombia weekly Semana wrote that ex-Israeli military men are fighting guerrilla organizations (meaning the FARC-EP and ELN), and Defense Minister Juan Santos confirmed that "A group of former Israeli military officials (including three senior generals, a lower ranking officer and three translators) is counseling the military's top brass on intelligence issues;" in addition, FARC-EP claims that Israeli commandos were engaged against them along with US and British forces.
The hostile words followed with Ecuadorean officials citing irrefutable evidence that Uribe's attack was premeditated and his worst ever aggression against their country. Correa expressed "outrage" and sees no negotiated settlement because "there is nothing to negotiate." In Brazil for a meeting with Lula da Silva, he said Ecuador is prepared to go "up to the ultimate consequences (over this even though) nobody wants war. But we won't fool ourselves. The war was started by Colombia. We were bombed."

Correa and Chavez both deployed troops to their borders, and each country went further. Ecuador severed diplomatic ties with its neighbor, and Correa called Uribe Washington's "unconditional puppet" for his blatant act of aggression. Chavez also expelled Colombia's ambassador, and called the strike "a cowardly murder, all of it coldly calculated" and planned in Washington. He also warned Colombia against similar Venezuelan incursions that he would interpret as a "cause for war."

Uribe, in turn, defiantly shot back that Colombia will charge Chavez in the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague for materially aiding the FARC-EP by "sponsor(ing) and funding genocidal" groups. Colombia's Radio Caracol then reported Uribe intends to "revise" or "examine" his charges with no further details given. And on the same day Vice-President Francisco Santos Calderon provocatively indicated that relations with Correa "may be recovered," but it will be "very difficult" to reach a diplomatic solution with Chavez. He and Uribe have long been antagonists and have been at odds for months over Chavez's hostage mediating success that embarrassed the Colombian president and Washington in the process.

Colombian officials heightened tensions further through misstatements. First, they claimed bombings occurred on their own territory. Then they changed the story saying: "Colombia has not violated any sovereignty, (we) only acted in accordance with the principle of legitimate defense," and responded to fire from inside Ecuador.

Both statements were untrue and Chavez reacted. He accused Uribe of lying and called him a "criminal" saying: "Not only is he a liar, a mafia boss, a paramilitary who leads a narco-government (that's) a lackey of the United States (but he also) leads a band of criminals from his palace."

The war of words continues with Washington's OAS ambassador, Robert Manzanares, accusing FARC-EP of "undertak(ing) repeated incursions and infringements of national sovereignty (against Colombia's) neighbors." Defense Secretary Robert Gates "applauded" Uribe's action, and when asked if US intelligence supported it said: "Well, I would just say that we are very supportive."

George Bush joined in, and jumped to his ally's defense. Well he should as Washington provides Colombia with over $600 million a year and all for one purpose - to support repression and the interests of capital at the expense of beneficial social change. On March 4, Bush phoned Uribe with assurances "America fully supports Colombia's democracy (and) firmly opposes any acts of aggression that could destabilize the region." He also called sending Venezuelan troops to the border "provocative maneuvers."

In addition, he used the crisis to push Congress to approve a trade deal that's been stalled over issues of Uribe's paramilitary links and the country's human rights record. Bush did what he always does. He cited national security and said ratification is a way to counter leaders like Chavez who destabilize the region. "If we fail to approve this agreement, we will let down our close ally, we will damage our credibility (and) will embolden the demagogues in our hemisphere."

Consider comments as well from US presidential candidates. On March 3, Barack Obama said: "The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the...FARC."

Hillary Clinton was even more hostile stating: "Hugo Chavez's order yesterday to send ten battalions to the Colombian border is unwarranted and dangerous. (Colombia) has every right to defend itself against drug trafficking terrorist organizations that have kidnapped innocent civilians, including American citizens. By praising and supporting the (FARC-EP), Chavez is openly siding with terrorists that threaten Colombian democracy and the peace and security in the region. (Chavez) must call a halt to this provocative action. As president, I will....press Chavez to change course."

Then there's John McCain who even scares some in the Pentagon and is virulently hostile to Chavez. He calls him a "wacko" and "two-bit-dictator" and advocates his ouster "in the name of democracy and freedom throughout the hemisphere." As president, he'd be the most likely to provoke a confrontation because he's ideologically committed to militarism "to confront a range of security challenges....in a dangerous world."

One writer calls him an "authoritarian maverick" and a man to fear as president. Another describes his "McCainiac mentality," his notion of occupying Iraq for 100 years or as long as it takes, and his belief that militarism, nationalism and honor are their own rewards. Still another expects a McCain administration to confront Venezuela and Cuba by allying with regional rightest forces for regime change in both countries. Add Ecuador as well and a determination to declare "mission accomplished" before his tenure ends if he's elected.

Disturbing evidence of his belligerence is in his October 2001 commentary titled: "No Substitute for Victory - War is hell. Let's get on with it." In it, he calls war "miserable business (but let's) get on with the business of killing our enemies as quickly....and as ruthlessly as we must....(post-9/11) we have only one primary occupation, and that is to vanquish international terrorism. Not reduce it. Not change its operations. Not temporarily subdue it. But vanquish it....We did not cause this war (but) we must destroy the people who (did)." Is this a man to trust as president who considers anyone unresponsive to US interests a "terrorist" and state enemy to be destroyed?

Democrats are no better, so expect the worst under a new president next year. The "war on terror" will continue, and Uribe will get full funding and support for internal repression and Washington-ordered regional aggression.

By that standard, Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro have every right to invade Florida to capture two resident terrorists for bona fide crimes against their countries - Luis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch. Posada is a former CIA operative who terror-bombed and killed 73 people in 1976 on Cubana flight 455 that Bosch likely masterminded. Yet South Florida's Cuban-American community and the Bush administration protect them as an expression of their judicial double standard.

Heated Rhetoric and Provocative Charges

Further heightening tensions, Colombia's vice-president, Francisco Santos Calderon, made an outlandish claim. With no verifiable evidence, even some in the intelligence community are dubious - that invading forces found provocative material on three recovered laptops that supposedly show:

-- Venezuela provided $300 million in aid to the FARC-EP;

-- Chavez and Correa have links to the rebel group;

-- Chavez is trying to undermine, isolate and discredit Uribe and wants to cleanse FARC-EP of its (undeserved) pariah status; and most outrageous of all that

-- FARC-EP acquired 50 kilograms (110 pounds) of uranium for a radioactive dirty bomb it wishes to sell for profit.

Former State Department arms smuggling expert, James Lewis, discounts the story. He said: "In a lot of cases involving uranium deals, somebody's usually getting snookered (and the 50 kilos) quantity sounds really suspicious" because US intelligence would likely spot anyone securing an amount that large.

Chavez as well denounced the claim and called the documents lies and fabrications. He also closed Venezuela's 1300 mile long Colombian border, and at an extraordinary Organization of American States (OAS) session, his representative, Jorge Valero, said: "The Colombian government has lied blatantly. All (its) accusations....against Venezuela and Ecuador are false, totally false." Retired Venezuelan general, Alberto Muller Rojas, went further. He denounced Colombia's "evidence" as an "exercise in falsification (and stated that) the only foreign government that finances the conflict in Colombia is the United States," it's done it with billions for years, and in the same way it destabilizes regions throughout the world.

Corporate Media Responses

A March 5 Washington Post editorial supported Colombia's aggression, but that's typical for its one-sided type journalism. The commentary said: "Colombia's armed forces struck a bold blow against the....FARC, a group specializing in drug trafficking, abductions and massacres of civilians that (the US has) designated a terrorist organization....it showed how Colombia's democratic government may be finally gaining the upper hand over (these) murderous gangs.

Now (Hugo Chavez) has been revealed as an explicit supporter and possible financier of the FARC. (He) made a show of ordering Venezuelan troops to the border (and) goaded his client (Correa) into mimicking his reaction. (They) both may have something to hide (about) financial links with the terrorists (and) backing an armed (terrorist) movement against the democratically elected government of their neighbor. No wonder (Uribe acted); he knows (Chavez and Correa) provid(e) a haven for the terrorists."

The New York Times' Simon Romero's comments were more measured in an article titled: "Colombia is Flashpoint in Chavez Fued with US," but his message was much as it always is - one-sidedly supporting Washington and its allies and hostile to Hugo Chavez. In this instance, it's his ties to the FARC-EP and supplying it with millions of dollars in aid. In an editorial, The Times went further. It accused Chavez of "meddling and manipulation (and trying to) revive his own flagging political fortunes" by getting involved. It added "Mr. Chavez should just keep quiet. The more he meddles, the easier it is to believe that the charges against him are true."

Then there's the Wall Street Journal that's even further hard right since Rupert Murdoch bought it. It's March 4 editorial was titled "Chavez's War Drums" with a sub-headline stating "A laptop spills some of his secrets." The commentary noted "Colombia's....major antiterror victory" and "Chavez....threatening war....But the real news (was in) a laptop belonging to (Paul Reyes) that reveals some of Mr. Chavez's secrets."

Columbia's "military (entered Ecuador) for legitimate reasons of self-defense....the Venezuelan bully....ordered 10 battalions and tanks to the Colombian border, and warned of war if the Colombian army staged a similar raid inside Venezuela....The war bluster is phony because Mr. Chavez is already waging his own guerrilla campaign against Colombia (by) support(ing) the FARC." The recovered "computer contains evidence supporting the claim that the FARC is working with Mr. Chavez (and) showed that Venezuela may have paid $300 million (for the) FARC's recent release of six civilian hostages."

Documents also "show(ed) that the FARC was seeking to buy 50 kilos of uranium (and sold) 700 kilograms of cocaine valued at $1.5 million." The "military found a thank you note from Mr. Chavez to FARC for some $150,000 that the rebels had sent him when he was in prison for his attempted (1992) coup d'etat."

This type agitprop never lets up, so expect continued anti-Chavez rhetoric ahead as the dominant media plays up every chance they get to demonize him and support Bush's hostile regime change agenda.

Some Background on the Diplomatic Crisis

Venezuelan-American lawyer and activist Eva Golinger writes on how Washington relentlessly targets Chavez. In November 2006, she explained what's just as true today - that the Bush administration goes at him by "three different fronts of attack."

-- the financial front by funding opposition groups "to obtain control in all different parts of the country," including the electoral process;

-- the diplomatic front by accusing Chavez of destabilizing the region; also by "diplomatic terrorism," including sanctions "for made-up things" like non-existent drugs trafficking or not cooperating against it or the "war on terrorism;" and

-- the military front with a large US presence in the region, major support for Uribe, and "use of Colombian paramilitaries (and) intervention of US Special Forces; the paramilitaries are the 'actors'....they're....sent....to try to assassinate Chavez (but) command-and-control is directed and controlled by the US Special Forces;" the paramilitaries and Colombian army "do the dirty work" while the US is "building up a secret (military) base near" Venezuela's border; in addition, "there were attempts to push the FARC into Venezuela to provide an excuse for Colombian troops to enter the country (and) make (the) border a combat zone." At the time Golinger wrote, she said there were more than 3000 paramilitaries in the Caracas area alone. That number or more are still likely there and elsewhere in the country, and in Ecuador as well.

Colombian-Directed Hostility Toward Chavez

Since his 2002 election, Uribe has been hostile to Chavez, and Colombian paramilitaries continue committing border-area terrorist attacks and within Venezuela as well. Uribe is Washington's key Latin American ally, he's liberally funded for his role, and his background makes him ideal - his hard right ideology, a wealthy land-owning family background, and a tainted past history:

-- he's been linked to the country's paramilitary death squads and drug cartels;

-- for over 20 years in various government positions, he supported state terrorism, including kidnappings and assassinations - of trade unionists, opposition group peasants, social and human rights activists, journalists, and others on the left who oppose the country's corporatist interests; and

-- he frequently violates Venezuelan sovereignty with full backing and funding of the Bush administration calling the shots.

In his earlier writing, long-time Latin American expert, James Petras, referred to "the Uribe Doctrine (that) lays the basis for unilateral military intervention anywhere in the hemisphere (and echoes) Washington's global pronouncements." They remain unchanged and claim the right to:

-- "violate any country's sovereignty (through) force and violence;

-- recruit and subvert military and security officials to serve (Colombian and Washington's) interests;

-- allocate funds to bounty hunters or 'third parties' to engage in illegal violent acts within a targeted country;

-- (assert) the supremacy of Colombian laws, decrees and policies over and against the sovereign laws of the intervened countries;" and

-- target Venezuela and militarily act wherever else Washington directs it in the hemisphere.

Chavez correctly calls Colombia "Latin America's Israel." And Washington funds it well for that purpose and to aid the Bush administration's top regional priority - toppling Chavez with Uribe's incursion the latest episode that signals further escalation. Petras says Uribe acts openly, and he's supported "at the highest level of the US government." Bogota ambassador, William Brownfield, is also supportive. He formerly served in the same capacity in Caracas where he frequently clashed with Chavez while there.

Petras also explains what Uribe's doctrine is up to, and it's clear where it originates. First and foremost it's to support Bush administration regional policies, specifically target Chavez, and get billions in funding to do it. In addition, it's to:

-- "destroy Cuban-Venezuelan trade ties (to) undermine (Cuba's) government;" efforts to do it may now intensify against the new Raul Castro government;

-- assure Venezuela remains "an exclusive oil exporter to the US" and sabotage Chavez's efforts to lessen his reliance on America by serving new markets like China; and

-- prop up a key regional ally to assure rightist forces rule as a reliable Washington proxy and consider its record:

-- Colombia is an internally repressive narco-state;

-- it practices state terrorism;

-- its foreign minister, Maria Consuelo Araujo, resigned last year after her brother, a senator, was jailed for colluding with paramilitary death squads; Colombia's Supreme Court also urged federal prosecutors to investigate her father - a former governor, federal lawmaker and agriculture minister on kidnapping charges;

-- its democracy is a sham; in last year's regional elections, 30 mostly left of center candidates were murdered; news reporting is censored; journalists are arrested and killed; civil liberties are debased; and the rule of law is tenuous at best under a president who roguishly suspends it; he also packed the country's Supreme Court and bribed and bullied enough legislators to amend the constitution to allow him to run for a second term - the first time in over 50 years an incumbent president did it;

-- its government is riddled with scandal; over one-third of his party members are allied with paramilitary death squads; eight pro-Uribe congressmen were arrested last year for their paramilitary ties, and dozens of national and regional politicians are under investigation and fled the country; in addition, Colombia's attorney general arrested Uribe's campaign manager and secret police chief, Jorge Noguera, for having supplied paramilitaries with trade unionist names to murder; another former secret police official is serving an 18 year sentence for purging police records of paramilitaries and drugs traffickers;

-- around two-thirds of Colombians are impoverished;

-- many thousands of its people are restless and leaving;

-- many cross into Venezuela with several hundred thousand now there;

-- wealth concentration is extreme and worsening; and

-- in the wake of his blatant aggression, Council on Hemispheric Affairs' Director, Larry Birns, calls Uribe "Latin America's most disgraced president." He says he's "scorned throughout (the region) for being Bush's favored hemispheric figure (but his) legacy (of aggression) will be a heavy cross for (him) to bear." He calls his presidency "catastrophic," and his Ecuadorean incursion effectively dooms it and his influence "on the hemisphere....Metaphorically speaking, (Paul) Reyes....scalped Uribe and....hung (his) tattered presidential sash upon a pike and walked the macabre sight through (Latin American) streets." Uribe will pay an "excessively high" price for "gunning down Reyes."

Contrast that assessment to conditions in Venezuela under Chavez. They're mirror opposite so expect lots more trouble ahead. Tattered or not, Uribe remains a loyal Washington proxy and will continue in that role while in office. It's why Plan Colombia isn't about eradicating drugs. Its about weakening Chavez and toppling the FARC-EP and National Liberation Army (ELN) rebel groups that control sizable portions of the country. Washington calls them Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs), but many countries disagree. Hugo Chavez calls them a revolutionary army that shares Venezuela's vision for a Bolivarian Latin America. Workers' Party of Mexico deputy Ricardo Cantu Garza agrees. He says they're a legitimate belligerent force confronting a corrupt and unequal political system.

And here's how prominent US attorney, Paul Wolf, describes the FARC-EP: They're a "belligerent army of national liberation....they conduct their conduct of hostilities by organized troops kept under military discipline and complying (with) the laws and customs of war....international law (doesn't prohibit) revolution, and if (it) succeeds....international law (allows) the outcome, even though it was achieved by force."

Progressive scholars and human rights activists agree, which brings us to what still drives both sides of the struggle. Washington and Colombia won't give an inch, but rebels won't yield until they do. For his part, Chavez wants peace, but was grim in his outlook when an American journalist asked if a confrontation with the US is inevitable: it is, "because while we want freedom, they want to keep us in chains....We want a fatherland; they want a colony....we want peace," but Colombia and the US want war and perpetual conflict. "Venezuela will never again be a US colony," and he saluted Fidel Castro as he said it and called him a "great teacher."

Castro responded and called the Ecuador raid a "monstrous crime. Deadly bombs were dropped....They were Yankee bombs, guided by Yankee satellites. Absolutely no one has the right to kill in cold blood....Correa has in his hands the few survivors and the rest of the bodies." Colombian troops kept two prominent ones as trophies and to collect millions in Washington-offered bounty. Correa, for his part, "can (now) cry out like Emile Zola: J'accuse."

So can the FARC-EP. Petras calls them the "longest standing, largest peasant-based guerrilla movement in the world (that was) founded in 1964 by two dozen peasant activists (to defend) autonomous rural communities from" Colombian military and paramilitary violence. It's now a "highly organized 20,000 member guerrilla army with several hundred thousand local militia and supporters...."

Pre-9/11, most EU and Latin American countries recognized the organization "as a legitimate resistance movement," and for several years Colombia's Pastrana government negotiated peace with its leaders. Since 2000 under Clinton and continuing under Bush, however, conflict replaced compromise with a clear committed aim - support for narco-state terrorism to "destroy the guerrilla army and its suspected social base among peasants, urban trade unions and professionals (especially teachers, lawyers, human rights activists and intellectuals)."
Ever since, a bloody extermination campaign has been waged, and it spills into Venezuela to topple its government and return the country to friendly oligarch rule. The scheme involves pouring billions into Colombia on the pretext of eradicating drugs. In fact, it's to build Uribe's military and fund a "31,000 strong death squad (paramilitary) force" that ravages the country, kills thousands of peasants and people on the left, and engages in US-style abductions and torture. With American taxpayer dollars, their post-2000 record is appalling:

-- over 2.5 million peasants and urban slum dwellers displaced;

-- more than 5000 trade unionists murdered from 1986 to 2006, by far the most anywhere in the world;

-- "30,000 peasants, rural teachers, and peasant and indigenous leaders have been killed with impunity;" and

-- "land seizures by paramilitary leaders, cattle barons and military officers (that's) concentrating land ownership to an unprecedented level."

With this going on, the liberation struggle continues, and expect no amount of billions to crush it. Colombia's conflict is civil. It's not, as Washington calls it, a "war on terror," but it's clearly state-directed terror against the Colombian people that also targets Venezuela. It's the latest salvo in Bush v. Chavez that won't likely end when a new US president takes office. So the struggle for justice continues with no early end of it in sight and no chance whatever that those in it have any intention of quitting.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests.







Guillermo Almeyra

Se escribe Uribe, se lee petróleo

Una breve declaración de la Shell, la compañía petrolera angloholandesa, una de las Siete Hermanas, que fue publicada en Estados Unidos para los especialistas, nos da la clave de interpretación del ataque criminal contra el territorio ecuatoriano lanzado por el ejército de Colombia. Según ella, dada la previsible disminución constante de la producción petrolera mexicana, es esencial para la seguridad de Estados Unidos contar permanentemente con el abastecimiento en petróleo venezolano. Ahora bien, precisamente ése es el que está en peligro ante los intentos repetidos del gobierno de Washington de desestabilizar y derribar al de Hugo Chávez. Éste, en efecto, declaró ya con todas las letras –y no es hombre de fanfarronear– que si la agresión continuase y se agravese podría cortar el suministro petrolero a su principal cliente actual –Estados Unidos–, que es, además, el que ofrece más ventajas (un gran mercado, diferencias en los fletes, por ejemplo) que los demás.

Por eso, si el presidente derechista colombiano Álvaro Uribe provoca una situación bélica con Ecuador no es tanto para golpear militarmente a las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) sino para dar un fuerte golpe político a la oposición de izquierda colombiana, que crece sin cesar, que no se identifica con las FARC ni con los métodos de éstas, que ya ha ganado las elecciones en Bogotá, Medellín, Cali, y que repudia los lazos de Uribe y del ejército con los paramilitares y, por medio de éstos, con el narcotráfico. Una de las razones de la incursión militar en Ecuador para asesinar a Raúl Reyes, es la necesidad de cortar de raíz el movimiento por la liberación de los rehenes (incluidos entre éstos los que tiene en sus manos el gobierno, que ascienden a más de 500) y por un acuerdo político de paz entre el gobierno y las FARC. Este movimiento es mucho más peligroso que la fuerza militar del enemigo, tanto para los fascistas militares respaldados por Estados Unidos que quieren continuar la guerra y esperan ganarla utilizando una mayor represión, como también para los aventureros militaristas en las propias FARC.

Pero la razón esencial reside en el acatamiento a la voz del amo, la del gobierno de Estados Unidos. Porque el equipo estadunidense gobernante no puede entrar en una fase de recesión, que provocará inquietud social, con el abastecimiento petrolero dependiente del radicalismo de Chávez y con la perspectiva de que el precio del combustible sea cada vez más caro y no disminuya ni siquiera en el caso de que cayese el consumo. Además, la combinación de su crisis de hegemonía (el empantanamiento en Irak), de su crisis económica y de la crisis política (posibilidad de triunfo de los demócratas) crea una mezcla explosiva que la chispa venezolana podría ayudar a detonar. La Casa Blanca no se cansa de repetir en todos los tonos delenda est Caracas, delenda est La Habana. Como Catón, con su Carthaginem est delenda, no hay discurso de Bush en el que no hable de la necesidad de destruir la revolución cubana y, ahora, la bolivariana. Uribe es simplemente el instrumento de esa política provocadora y busca crear una situación de guerra en la región para justificar golpes de mano fronterizos, bombardeos (de aviones estadunidenses disfrazados de colombianos) e infiltraciones de saboteadores con el objetivo de ayudar a la burguesía venezolana, incluida la boliburguesía nueva y a la derecha de las fuerzas armadas de Venezuela para que den un golpe contra Chávez.

Independientemente de los errores de la política económica de Caracas, las dificultades que enfrenta Venezuela, desde el desabastecimiento hasta el mercado negro y el aumento de la delincuencia, tienen su principal base en la desestabilización provocada e inducida, tal como sucedió desde la Revolución Francesa hasta hoy en todo proceso revolucionario.



En la OEA –¡nada menos que en esa organización que siempre ha sido el ministerio de colonias latinoamericanas de Washington!– el repudio al dúo Bush titiritero-Uribe marioneta descascarada ha sido demasiado grande como para que Bogotá pueda seguir adelante con sus matanzas y provocaciones. En lo inmediato, al hacer imposible la liberación de Ingrid Betancourt, ya resuelta por las FARC, Bogotá incluso se opone al gobierno francés, que es de derecha, pero de la derecha nacionalista, y su oposición al intercambio de rehenes alimentará la protesta militante de la oposición. Washington, que ha aplaudido el bombardeo a Ecuador, se mantiene incluso con una política de perfil bajo y podría dejar a Uribe como chivo expiatorio, contentándose con el reforzamiento del ala fascista del ejército colombiano. Una guerra en la que éste debiese combatir a la vez contra las FARC, contra Venezuela y contra el ejército ecuatoriano, fogueado hace poco en los combates victoriosos contra Perú, es muy poco probable. En cambio es previsible que siga la desestabilización del gobierno de Chávez (y también de los de Evo Morales y Rafael Correa) con otros medios más sutiles, y que el interlocutor de Washington en Colombia, mucho más que un Uribe desenmascarado y debilitado, sea la alianza militar-paramilitar-narcotraficantes, que es el factor de poder real en Bogotá. La lucha de la oposición civil colombiana por la paz, por una solución política al problema de los secuestrados por las FARC y de los presos políticos que tiene el gobierno en su poder, al concentrarse contra Uribe, podría permitir un recambio en el gobierno, para que todo siga igual, o sea, para que el bloque de clase político y social que hoy es representado por Uribe pueda seguir en el poder incluso sin éste, si las papas quemasen demasiado.

Chavez's Visit, Reflections by Fidel Castro

Raúl had invited him. He replied he didn’t want to come see me so I wouldn’t catch the flu he had. That was nothing but a pretext to avoid the torture of my habitual questions. “What am I taking vitamin C for?” I told him in a message. Should we expect all the heads of State who attended the Rio Group’s warm and successful last meeting to get sick?

------------------------------------------------

He was content, euphoric about that battle for peace and his role in it --recognized by international cables-- made him happy. He was serene, persuasive, thoughtful and with an excellent sense of humor. Even Bolivar, who was never wholly satisfied with anything, would have been pleased at that moment.

At the end, he sang “Quisqueya.” (*) The meeting had proven fruitful and, flu and all, his musical voice and ear could finally take the floor.

He remarked that oil prices had gone up 5 dollars. He asked to be excused by Leonel who, in a reflex-reaction, overcome with joy, had begun to cough.

Many of the countries who had gathered there export coffee and cocoa to the U.S. market, in addition to all kinds of vegetables and fruits. I am not up to date as regards the latter’s prices, but the price of coffee and cocoa is about what it was 50 years ago, when the dollar had a few dozen times the purchasing power it has today.

Simple trade, increasingly unequal, is crushing the economies of many Latin American countries. Some African countries are oil producers. Others produce coffee and cocoa. Some attract transnational capital like bees around a honey pot. Others attract debt and its steep interests. And all suffer the scourge of rising food prices.

Today, Saturday, I had a long conversation with Chávez. We are like brothers. The decision to publish what we discussed is not mine to make, as it has never been and will never be. Venezuela is not Brazil. I will publish only what he authorizes in my memoirs.

All I can say is that the meeting was excellent. And I have yet to feel any flu symptoms.


Fidel Castro Ruz

March 8, 2008

3:17 p.m.
Cuban News Agency
http://www.cubanews.ain.cu/2008/0310reflexionfidel.htm


(*) Quisqueya is an early name used for Hispaniola, the island now occupied by the states of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It is also the name of a song that singer-composer Fernando Villalona dedicated to his country, Dominicana.
Chavez sang a few lines from this song at the summit, much to the expressed disgust of the super sophisticated Mario Vargas Llosa who had arrived at the gatheirng with blood on his own hands - the blood of Peruvian campesino and teacher victims of the latest wave of military repression under his orders.

To listen to this song on the internet, go to >>
http://profile.imeem.com/4tRBlJ/music/6TsjjP15/fernando_villalona_quisqueya/

No hay tierra tan hermosa como la mia,
bañada por los mares de blanca espuma
parece una gaviota de blancas plumas
Dormido en las orillas, del ancho mar.

Quisqueya la tierra de mis amores,
de suave brisa, de lindas flores
del fondo de los mares la perla querida
quisqueya divina

En mis cantares linda quisqueya,
yo te comparo con una estrella,
la estrella solidaria que alumbra mi vida
me brinda su luuuuuuuuuuuuuz.

En mis cantares linda quisqueya,
yo te comparo con una estrella,
la estrella solidaria que alumbra mi vida
quisqueya divina

del fondo de los mares la perla querida
quisqueya divina
la estrella solidaria que alumbra mi vida
me brinda su luuuuuuuuuuuuuz.

Climate and Capitalism -- a must bookmark

Everyone has a number of “favorites” – the blogs or websites we turn to almost daily for news and analysis on topics of vital concern.

My favored site on matters concerning the defense of Mother Earth (our Pacha Mama) is Climate and Capitalism. It is edited and published by the Ottawa-based socialist historian Ian Angus.

Angus is a pioneer among a growing number in this field who recognize the importance of indigenous traditions and values – their cosmovision – to finding solutions to the horrendous environmental predicament facing humanity.

The March 7 edition republished a very encouraging statement from the European-based “Fourth International,” entitled “Redefine Socialism as Ecosocialism.” “This draft resolution,” Angus explains, “was approved by a leadership committee of the Fourth International, following a five-day seminar on climate change held in the Netherlands in February.” [See http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=357 ]

I sent the following comment to the site, which appeared the next day:

Felipe Stuart on March 8th, 2008: “This is a most welcome and encouraging statement. It obviously stems from and builds upon a growing participation of members and supporters of this world current in the movement to defend Mother Earth.

“On quick reading I spotted two areas where I think the conceptual framework needs to be broadened or reinforced.

“The first is the failure of these mostly European-based Marxists to appreciate the weight and importance of the indigenous movements for self-determination, especially those in the Americas, to the environmental struggle. Indigenous communities are mentioned in a short list of important movement, as follows:

“’Particular attention should be paid to the participation of workers’ and peasants’ organizations, of the women’s movement, of indigenous communities, of popular organizations for defense of the environment, as well as young people and marginalized social layers, so that their demands influence the objectives and the forms of action.’

“This could be a good starting point, but falls short of a necessary distinction. Indigenous movements reflect a cosmovision that does not pit human activities to survive and reproduce (the economy) against nature, our Mother. That outlook and tradition is rooted in communal social relations — the only kind of social relations that can permit the survival of the human race. It is vital for the environmental movement as a whole to recognize this, to learn from indigenous traditions and conceptual frameworks. If that does not happen, it will be a sign that the movement is not on course and likely derailed. The indigenous struggle is a vital front of the overall movement and it is crucial for environmental activists to link up with, support, and learn from it.


“The second point is more of a question. One of the most potent signs of looming environmental melt down is the advancing drought in many parts of the world, coupled with unusually heavy rainfall and flooding in others, and the appearance of this problem as a seasonal alteration in others.

“Many have commented that in the not too distant future the global struggle for access to fresh and potable water will be more threatening and destabilizing than current battles and wars for control of oil supplies and reserves. Marxists need to integrate this vital issue into their overall perspectives. Sol y paz.”

I encourage you to bookmark the Climate and Capitalism page.

Felipe Stuart
Managua