The Washington Post Should Support Democracy in Venezuela Instead of Spreading Misinformation

Today, 26 May 2004, the Washington Post ran an Op-Ed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez calling on the opposition and the Bush administration to commit to respect the results of the signature repair process that will take place this coming weekend The Op-Ed is available online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55957-2004May25.html, and is included at the end of this e-mail.

Opposite the Op-Ed, the Washington Post's editorial page printed a factually inaccurate attack on the Venezuelan government (This editorial is available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55981-2004May25.html). Moreover, the Op-Ed will undoubtedly provoke a flurry of e-mail from right-wing radicals in the U.S. seeking to spread misinformation about Venezuela.

Therefore, the Venezuela Information Office is asking people to write publishable letters to the editor of the Washington Post, in order to provide factual information about recent events in Venezuela and point out the factual inaccuracies contained in the Post's editorial.

GUIDELINES FOR LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

• Send to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
• Remember to include your home address and evening and daytime telephone numbers.
• Letters to the editor should no longer than 200 words long -- the shorter the better (roughly one-third of a page, single-spaced, maximum).
• Mention in your letter the date and title of the Op-Ed you are responding to.

If you would like help drafting or editing your letter to the editor, please do not hesitate to contact the Venezuela Information Office at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 202-737-6637, x.27 (In the United States)

While writing your letter you may want to keep in mind the following:

--While the Hugo Chavez and other Venezuelan government officials have repeatedly pledged to respect the rule of law and obey the upcoming ruling by Venezuela's National Electoral Council (CNE), the opposition and the Bush administration have yet to offer such a guarantee.

--Opposition leaders, including former President Carlos Andres Perez and former union leader Carlos Ortega, have recently made statements suggesting they plan to once again resort to violence in their drive to unseat Hugo Chavez. This raises the alarming possibility of renewed political violence in Venezuela.

--Venezuela remains a democracy.

• Hugo Chavez was elected in both 1998 and 2000 in elections declared free and fair by international observers.

• The opposition controls 48 percent of the seats in Congress and regularly delays or blocks legislation supported by the government.

• The Supreme Court is independent, and has repeatedly ruled against Hugo Chavez, finding his land reform decrees unconstitutional and releasing from prison military officers charged with participating in the 2002 coup.

• The Venezuelan media is completely free, and attacks Chavez in the harshest of terms on a daily basis.

• The opposition regularly holds large, peaceful demonstrations without fear of police harassment.

--The Chavez administration has implemented a wide variety of new social programs benefiting poor Venezuelans. These include clinics in impoverished neighborhoods, new schools, adult literacy classes, infrastructure projects in poor areas, and land reform.

--Independent polls give Chavez an approval rate of 40%-50% nationwide, a figure comparable to US president George W. Bush.

--The opposition blames Chavez for Venezuela's economic woes; in fact, the country fell into economic decline in the 1980s due to mismanagement and corruption. The economy has been no worse under Chávez than under his predecessors. Moreover, the single most economically destructive event in recent Venezuelan history was last year's opposition shutdown of the state oil company, which cost the economy around 14 billions dollars. The economy is growing rapidly right now and the IMF projects an 8.8 percent growth for 2004 (World Economic Outlook Spring 2004).

--The Bush administration supported the 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez. U.S. officials continue to make very hostile statements about the Chavez administration, and have said that they will not accept anything other than a recall referendum, regardless of whether the legal requirements for such a vote have been fulfilled. The administration should declare its support for Venezuela's independent electoral authorities and pledge to abide by their decision.

--The editorial response to Chavez's Op-Ed contains multiple factual errors, some of which you may want to point out in your letter. These include:

• Since 1999, the Venezuelan economy has contracted 14 percent, not 25 percent as the editorial claims. Most of this contraction is due to the three months shutdown of the state oil company in 2002-2003, which was organized by the opposition. The rest comes from instability in which the opposition played a major role, e.g. the 2002 coup d'etat, other strikes, and capital flight (some of which was deliberate and political or influenced by negative media reports).

• The Post's editorial claims that Hugo Chávez appointed the National Electoral Council (CNE) that is overseeing the recall process. This is false. The CNE was appointed by Venezuela's Supreme Court, which is independent. Both the government and the opposition expressed satisfaction when the electoral authorities were chosen.

• The Post's editorial says that the signature verification process scheduled for this weekend will be two days long. This is false. It will be three days long.

• According to the Post's editorial, Hugo Chávez "tried to exclude" international observers from the Carter Center and the Organization of American States last week. This is false. Hugo Chávez had nothing to do with the dispute between electoral authorities and the CNE last week, and never publicly commented on it.

• The Post's editorial expresses concern about " intimidation by government goon squads" during the signature confirmation period this weekend. In fact, there has been no systematic intimidation of voters or petition signers since Hugo Chávez took office in 1999.

Read more...

Sibylla Brodzinsky's article on Venezuela ("Leftwing dictator or saviour of the poor: Chavez faces new challenge to his rule") fits into the pattern of half-truths and open lies that characterises the media coverage of the Bolivarian revolution. This is something we expect from The Economist (which openly calls for "regime change") but not from the Guardian.

When we saw the article we could not believe our eyes and immediately sent a letter to the Guardian (published on Thursday, May 25). But, because this comes from a paper seen as "progressive" by many, it might be worth analysing the article in detail.

To start with she affirms that a recall referendum against Chavez is "the last chance to remove the president constitutionally", something that seems to imply that otherwise the opposition will have no alternative other than to remove him by unconstitutional means. Has she considered the possibility of the opposition removing the president by waiting until the next presidential elections? Also, unnamed "experts" affirm "it may also be the last chance to avoid a civil war". So far, the only group provoking a civil war has been the opposition which carried out the April 11, 2002 coup, and which openly discusses the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government and calls on its supporters to rise up against it.

Trying to paint the opposition as innocent victims of an undemocratic president ("a former paratroop commander"), she says "the opposition used street demonstrations to try and force his resignation and last year staged a two month general strike". What about the military coup organised by the opposition in April 2002? Oh, but that is described by Brodzinsky as Chavez being "ousted briefly by a military rebellion, but returned to power two days later"! Who organised the coup? The opposition. Who returned Chavez to power, a mass movement of the people and a rebellion of military officers and troops loyal to the democratically elected president.

"Dozens of people have died in clashes between pro- and anti-Chávez groups during the past several years," Brodzinsky tells us. What she forgets to say is that most of those killed were Chavez supporters. Some 50 people were killed in the two brief days that the opposition coup lasted in April 2002 and nearly 100 peasant and trade union activists have been killed since Chavez won the presidential election in 1998. Most of those have been killed on orders from landowners and bosses to "solve" conflicts over the land reform and industrial disputes.

"The latest deaths came in February, when at least 14 people died in opposition demonstrations and as many as 200 were wounded". First of all the most recent case of a politically motivated murder is that of the of Giandomenico Puliti, Bolivarian leader and mayoral candidate of the Fifth Republic Movement in Tovar, Merida, assassinated on May 7. Secondly, in February the opposition called for an uprising against the democratically elected government when the National Electoral Council ruled hundreds of thousands of signatures collected for the recall referendum as invalid. The same Amnesty International report that Brodzinsky quotes only selectively describes the situation: "groups of opposition supporters using barricades, stones, Molotov cocktails and firework rockets. There were also several reports of protesters using firearms. In this context, there were clearly legitimate public security concerns, which the authorities had a duty to respond to." (AI INDEX: AMR 53/005/2004). The opposition clearly wanted to provoke a response from the government and the National Guard that would justify their theory that in Venezuela there is a dictatorship. If the opposition organises violent demonstrations using Molotov cocktails and firearms, violence will inevitably take place. However, in the last 5 years there have been dozens, probably hundreds of opposition demonstrations (some quite large, recently smaller in size) with no violence at all. In fact, after the violent incidents provoked by the opposition at the end of February, there was a peaceful (though small in numbers) opposition demonstration on March 6 (and there have been a few after that).

"Many fear that his friendship with Fidel Castro could herald a Cuban-style socialist system for Venezuela, and worry about his apparent sympathy with neighbouring Colombia's leftwing rebels", Brodzinsky informs us, without telling us exactly who these worried "many" are. There is also a straight lie dressed as a truth in the sentence when she talks about "apparent" sympathy for the FARC guerrillas on the part of Chavez. We publicly challenge Brodzinsky to provide any proof (a quote would suffice) to demonstrate this. The only thing she would have found out if she had carried out her journalistic duties is that Chavez offered to mediate between the Colombian government and the FARC guerrillas, at a time when the two sides were engaged in peace talks. This is not just a small detail or an unimportant oversight. A major part of the US administration and Venezuelan opposition campaign to oust Chavez is to brand his government as being "supportive of terrorism". Since the FARC guerrillas are considered by Washington to be "narco-terrorists" the intention in associating Chavez with the FARC becomes clear. In a world dominated by Bush's "war on terror", this is a very serious accusation to make. Not only does Brodzinsky not provide evidence for this opposition allegation, but she tries to cover herself by saying that this "sympathy" is "apparent". This is convenient because it removes the need to provide any proof, but it is appalling journalism.

She then, quoting again unnamed "analysts" ("and even some opposition members"!) says that "the cards are so stacked against them that the likelihood of a referendum is low". To back up this claim she quotes from Michael Rowan whom she describes as an American political strategist who has lived in Venezuela for more than 30 years. This bland and professional description is meant to give Mr Rowan an air of respectability (you see, he is not a "former paratroop commander"). However Brodzinsky conveniently forgets to say that Mr Rowan has a weekly column in one of the most rabidly anti-Chavez dailies, El Universal, where he makes his opposition views abundantly clear. In a recent edition of his column, comparing Chavez to Hitler and Mussolini he says: "Venezuela is starting to resemble Italy or Germany in the 1930s. As an elected leader with charismatic force and a radical worldview rose like a Phoenix to dominate the country, thoughts about how to put Venezuela back on a track of inclusion virtually disappeared. Consumed or appalled by the power and glory of the new leader's insane hatreds, every conversation turned on questions about him: Could he last, how can he be stopped, can he be recalled, how can I get away from this madness? This is exactly as the tyrant wants it." (The full article can be found in the opposition and coup supporting site Vcrisis and we recommend all our readers to read it in full to get a clearer picture of the kind of political thinking of people like Mr Rowan, an "American political strategist").

The truth of the matter is that the chances of a recall referendum being called are low because the opposition never collected the necessary number of signatures. Out of the 3.4 million signatures the opposition claimed it had collected only 1.8 million were declared valid by the National Electoral Commission (CNE), some 700,000 were declared invalid (where names did not correspond with national ID numbers, deceased or under aged people had "signed", etc) and 800,000 were declared doubtful and subject to a verification process (this was in the case where full sheets of data had been filled with the same handwriting). All the opposition needs to do in the verification period next week is to prove that at least 75% of those signatures are valid and then a recall referendum would be triggered (whether they can win such a referendum or not is another matter).

All Brodzinsky tells us about the National Electoral Commission is what the opposition thinks of it (that it is controlled by government supporters and that Chavez is manipulating the process). She does not even quote the government's position on this (which would be good journalistic practice). Even worse, she completely ignores the fact that the Carter Centre, the Organisation of American States and the European Union observers all certified that the signature collection and verification process were fair and free. These are hardly "Cuban-style" institutions, nor do they appear to have "apparent sympathies" for the FARC guerrillas!

The Carter Centre for instance, when the CNE publicised its decision on the number of valid and invalid signatures and those which had to be re-verified, declared that: "In this process, in particular, we find sufficient controls, including security paper for the petitions, full identification of the citizen with signature and thumbprint, summary forms (actas) listing the petition (planillas) serial numbers during the collection process, party witnesses, personnel trained and designated by the CNE, verification of each petition form and a cross-check with the summary forms, a cross-check of the names with the voters list, and a mechanism for appeal and correction." (You can see the declaration of the Carter Centre and the Organization of American States here). And although the Centre declared that they would have been more lenient regarding the sheets filled with the same handwriting, it also made clear its support for the process of re-verification of those. Brodzinsky conveniently ignores these statements since they would contradict the image she is trying to paint of a process manipulated by the government where the opposition does not stand a chance of getting enough valid signatures.

One of the funniest parts in Brodzinsky's article is when she says that: "For all his vitriolic rhetoric against the US and George Bush, Washington has so far failed to engage Mr Chávez directly in the fight. However, the US Congress has funded some opposition groups through a non-governmental organisation." This implies that Chavez is provoking Bush for a fight, but Bush (that great moderate) has restrained himself from engaging him directly. The truth, as is so often the case with journalistic articles on Venezuela, is precisely the opposite. Despite Washington's constant provocations against the democratically elected Venezuelan government and its constant interference with the sovereign affairs of Venezuela, the Venezuelan government has been very restrained in its response, and only more recently has started to reply directly to these constant provocations. As for the US not engaging Chavez directly, if what Brodzinsky means is that Bush has not yet ordered the invasion of the country, then that is true. But really, short of that, the US administration has used all other means at their disposal, open and covert, to undermine and overthrow the democratically elected government of Venezuela, one that in reality has more claim to democratic legitimacy than Bush's.

We ask ourselves how an article by Sibylla Brodzinsky, who to our knowledge has never written for the Guardian before, but who is a regular collaborator of the right wing Miami Herald, made it into the pages of the Guardian.

Jorge Martin
International Secretary
Hands off Venezuela Campaign
(www.handsoffvenezuela.org)

Read more...

After every eleventh there is also the thirteenth

A poet says: When the idols gave me sorrow then god came in my memory.

Those who are now under the throes of the aggression of the lone ‘super power’ are now having the nostalgia of those socialist countries that rose with a force against the oppression and centuries of tyranny, plunder, European colonial domination and genocide of world capitalism. At the end of the Second World War by exploding atom bombs American imperialism tried to impose itself as a world policeman. But it also faced a mounting resistance. Just a few years ago those who were spouting poison against socialism are now coming to the conclusion that it is the only antidote to the imperialist poison. It is true that without a strong and scientific alternative system to replace it, American imperialism is moving towards a new and horrific colonialism and barbarity. In this situation Iraq has become a symbol of resistance against imperialist aggression.

It is also being said that if the Iraqi resistance would not have come up and the shameful acts in Abu Ghraib prison had not been exposed then this imperialist aggression would have moved into Syria, Iran,, North Korea and Venezuela.

Venezuela has become a new symbol of resistance against American aggression. This is a country on the coast of the Atlantic between Colombia, Guyana and Brazil and has an area of 352000 square miles. The former commando and thrice elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has introduced 49 laws in favour of the masses. For this crime and the sin of calling American action against terrorism as terrorism itself he has been declared as culpable to death by the imperialists. And more than once have attempts been made on his life.

In the words of Hugo Rafael Chavez himself after his government was overthrown by a military coup on April 11, 2002 for 24 hours he was certain that he would be assassinated. He says that, "after capturing my government the pro-American businessman, Pedro Carmona had told the people of Venezuela that I had resigned and left the government. I was expecting that they would shoot me and later say that I had committed suicide. But the masses of my country were with me hence I am alive and I am working with a new life, new determination and new intentions for the service of my people."

Those who had overthrown the elected government of Chavez on April 11, 2002 had their regime recognised by the United States within 12 hours. Hugo Chavez was forced to resign but when he refused he was taken to a military garrison where the young officers and soldier instead of shackling him garlanded him and showered flowers on him. From here Chavez was taken to an island two hundred miles in the Atlantic. But here instead of arresting him the military officers arrested those who had brought him there. From here Chavez was taken back to Caracas the capital of Venezuela.

On thirteenth of April 2002 when Chavez came off the aeroplane there were more than a million people on the streets to greet him. The American conspiracy against him was foiled in 48 hours.

After Fidel Castro had stepped on the tail of the Americans, the failure in toppling the government of this second ‘rebel’ didn’t stop the Americans from continuing their intrigues against the Chavez government. But perhaps they were too busy in the affairs of Iraq and Abu Ghraib prison and so the sole ‘superpower’ could not pay enough attention to Venezuela, which is one of the important oil producing countries and one of the four largest suppliers of oil to the United States.

On the second anniversary of the failed coup Hugo Chavez invited Alan Woods from Britain and Comrade Manzoor (Member National Assembly from Kasur) from Pakistan to Caracas. In this ceremony Hugo Chavez named George W. Bush and warned him that the intrigues against the democratically elected government of Venezuela are not stopped then not a drop of the Venezuelan oil shall go to America. Everyday 1.5 million barrels of oil are exported from Venezuela to the United States .He expressed his apprehensions that the American rulers want to carry out a bloody military coup in Venezuela as they had done against Sukarno in Indonesia, Mossediq in Iran and Allende in Chile in the past. These were reactionary counter-revolutions. In the whole of Latin America there is now a saying that ‘after every eleventh there is also a thirteenth’. This is in reference to the coup on the 11th and its defeat on the 13th.

Chavez and Bhutto

The resistance of Venezuelan president Hugo Rafael Chavez against the world’s sole super power has risen as a forceful voice and has become the centre of attention for the world public opinion. It is not ruled out that he could become an alternative power in the opinion of the world. This wall of resistance can become a socialist force of the yesteryears against the excesses and the aggression being perpetrated in the world today.

In the words of Hugo Chavez, “It was an extraordinary event that the masses of Venezuela came to know the conspiracy against their elected government in good time and they came out in hundreds of thousands. It was due to this fierce protest that the military officers were forced to foil this heinous conspiracy of imposing a dictatorship against democracy. This was that concrete truth that saved me from a certain death and my country from a terrible disaster. It will be my earnest desire that this truth will guarantee the betterment and development of my country and its people”.

According to Chavez the political crisis didn’t develop after his accession to power in 1998. This conflict has been there ever since the economy of human need has been at war with the economy of the market. Venezuela is one of the largest oil producing countries and amongst the four main oil-supplying countries to the United States. In spite of this a vast majority of the masses of Venezuela have been forced into the darkness of poverty and misery. In the words of Chavez, “my opponents are least bothered about the poverty and misery of the country because they breed on the poverty of the poor. They are agitated because I want to spend a part of the income of oil to give some respite to the lives of the poor, destitute and the workers.”

In the last six years the government has doubled the spending on health and tripled the expenditure on education. This has increased literacy, health of children and the average age of the population. But the rich classes think that their rights have been hit, that their rates of profit have decreased which they consider as a damage to their interests. They are worried that Hugo Chavez will continue to take these steps to sustain his popularity. These policies they think will further decrease their rates of profits.

Chavez tells us, “After failing to remove me from power my opponents i.e. the rich classes of the country closed down the state oil company last year. During the countrywide strike my supporters were fired upon and then a signature campaign was started for a referendum against me. But the Venezuelan national electoral council that is an independent and autonomous institution like the American federal election commission […]. Now this has been exposed and proved that 375,000 signatures in favour of the referendum were forged. More than 800,000 were only names written without signatures and there were so many signatures of people long dead.”

“In the short span of six years I have been elected twice and still if I am considered a non democratic president and my decisions are considered dictatorial, I am prepared to fight another presidential election so that with the support of the masses I can inflict a stunning defeat on the enemies of the people.”

Hugo Chavez hopes that the representatives of the rich classes or the “Oilgarchies”of Venezuela and the American rulers will respect the democratic decisions. But this fact is also well known that today the most prominent flag bearers of democracy are the biggest enemies of democracy.

In the second anniversary of the failure of the April 11, 2002 coup along with thousands of Venezuelan masses a hundred and fifty foreign delegates also participated. Speaking on the occasion the People’s Party member of the National Assembly Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed drew the analogy of the present situation in Venezuela with the political revolution of 1968-69 in Pakistan. He said that the People’s Party became the largest party in the country’s history almost overnight on the basis of its anti-imperialist, anti-feudal and anti-capitalist founding manifesto. But the Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto government while remaining within the confines of this system tried to carry out reforms against this system through the bureaucracy and hence failed. Due to the failure of fulfilling the tasks posed by a revolutionary political situation it was ultimately overthrown. Martial Law was imposed and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was hanged at the gallows. On this occasion Manzoor Ahmed also read out a quotation from a page of the last book of Bhutto’s memoirs in which Bhutto had confessed his own responsibility in reaching this fate, that he had not paid enough attention to the contradictions in the interests of different classes. Manzoor Ahmed drew another analogy between Chavez and Bhutto: that both of them faced extreme hostility from the media that is in the control of the rich classes.

It is considered that the centre of anti-Chavez activities is the American Embassy in Venezuela. In the whole of Latin America a famous joke circulates that there is no military coup in the United States because there is no American Embassy in America.

Read more...

Colombian army and paramilitaries intensify offensive against trade unionists and left-wing activists

By Ramon Sanchez

During the last month the Colombian army and the paramilitaries have increased their campaign of threats and assassinations against trade union leaders. On October 30 death threats were issued against various members of SINTRAUNICOL-University Workers’ Union. Jose Joaquin Cubides, General Secretary of the agricultural workers’ union in Arauca, was killed on November 7 in Fortul, Arauca.

Also from Arauca reports have come out denouncing the use of the local civilian population as human shields in skirmishes with guerrilla groups. In Arauca the victims of the army and paramilitary operations are counted in their thousands. It is also in Arauca where we find the largest contingent of US troops. It is believed that 328 people were killed and 5,714 people were displaced by military operations in Arauca in 2003 alone.

All this violence is not an accident. Arauca is a department that shares a border with Venezuela. The Colombian oligarchy, with the advice of the US administration, has not hesitated to use Colombian bases to attack and terrorise the population on the other side of the border to undermine the revolutionary process that is taking place in Venezuela. Arauca is one of the main bases from which they wage all these reactionary provocations.

On November 8, students, teachers and parents held a protest against the privatisation of state education in Cauca. Police attacked the protest with tear gas and rubber bullets. Various people were hospitalised. Others, like the parents of one student, were dragged away by the police and it is not clear what has happened to them.

All this is nothing new. The Colombian Police, Army and the AUC (the main paramilitary group) have been engaged in these kinds of activities for decades. However, with Uribe in office the situation has become even worse. After the failure of the “carrot and stick” approach exercised by Pastrana (former Colombian president) US imperialism has supporetd Uribe, a far right leaning politician.

Uribe Velez, who studied at Harvard and Oxford, started his political career as the Mayor of Medellin (the second biggest city in the country). He was removed after three months by the central government to avoid a scandal regarding his ties with the drugs mafia.

It is not an accident that Colombia is considered the most dangerous country for trade unionists. The Colombian ruling class and their masters in the US administration do not want any kind of resistance to their plans for widespread privatisation and their militarisation of the area, known as Plan Colombia.

As different analysts have pointed out, the Plan Colombia (recently renamed Plan Patriota) is the military side of a plan which involves the removal of any obstacle to the operations of mainly US companies. One of the latest companies to make big profits from this increasing militarisation of the country is Harken Energy. On November 12 the Colombia Journal Online pointed out the following:

“On November 4, the Texas-based company announced the signing of a new oil exploration and production contract in Colombia. The company is closely linked to President George W. Bush who served on its board of directors from 1986 until 1990.”

The other side of the plan is the financial one. Alongside these repressive measures we also have the IMF counter-reforms in return for loans. But the causes of the problem are not only economic. In the last five years Latin America has become a very unstable area. Almost every single country has been shaken by revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations. Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Venezuela are amongst them. This is a very dangerous situation for US imperialism. US imperialism has been looking for a country that can play the same role that Israel plays in the Middle East. They need a loyal policeman in the area and they will not hesitate to spend all kinds of resources to achieve this goal.

That is why the Colombian oligarchy is pursuing a policy of complete annihilation of the labour movement in Colombia, together with any other protest movement. If anyone had any doubts about the real nature of US imperialism, all you need to do is look at what it is doing in Colombia.

They go around the world lecturing others on democracy, declaring different governments as “rogue regimes”, and in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan they have not hesitated to militarily overthrow these regimes. But what they bring is not democracy. Far from it. They bring more death and destruction, and terrible suffering for the local people.

In Colombia they are doing the same in a more or less covert manner, but it is fundamentally part of the same operation. Latin America is too important for them. It is the duty of all fighting workers and youth around the world to protest and raise the issue of the plight of the trade unionists in Colombia.

November 25, 2004

Read more...

Fidel and Chávez together and in red... this November 7

By Celia Hart

On November 7, I like to visit Lenin Hill in Regla. Regla is a little sea town in Havana that is reached crossing the bay. The Virgen de Regla is the patron of the city. Consequently, when we arrive she receives us flirtatiously, with her blue dress, announcing the certain victory of the Industriales, her baseball team in the coming championships.

Lenin is higher up. In 1924, a communist mayor decided to build the monument as a beautiful Cuban tribute to the leader of the workers. I think that it is the first one dedicated to Lenin outside the USSR. I insist that Cuban nationality is adorned by brush strokes of love that fosters a new internationalism. Blessed be my compatriots of Regla! These days, mostly after November 2, Lenin and the Black Virgin must have chatted quite a bit. She, fearful for the fate of the Cubans and the poor of the world. He, concerned to see if we communists are capable of overcoming the last blows of the enemy.

The flowers for November 7 are bought in front of the church. The beautiful Virgin always offers the freshest ones to her comrade up on the Hill. Let no one be confused that the interests of this compañera lie in the pitiful phrases from Rome nor those of a Pole holding up a cross. That certainly has nothing to do with the spirit of that Palestine who died by the hands of the Zionists for defending the poor of the Land. No, the Caribbean Virgin, undoubtedly, blesses these hundreds of children who should be able to live every year in their country and those elderly people who should not die of hunger.

The port can be seen from the Hill. For more than ten years, those who called themselves heirs of the man of the Hill, decided, with a brush stroke, not to help Cuba or the Virgen de Regla, or the children, or the elderly. In the name of freedom, they decided to put us in the hands of imperialism. They failed in their purpose. My country not only saved itself of all and with its virgins, but Cuba saved the honor of the October revolution. During those hard years, the words “Socialism or Death” found those Europeans who sought refuge in this little island.

That is why, today, the best festivity of the communist was evident. No! It was not the words of His Excellency, the Russian Ambassador to Cuba. This man cannot know how to talk of the October Revolution. Rather he could talk of the history of the Czars and the Orthodox Church, never of the Bolshevik revolution, nor of the flag of the proletariat. They lowered the red flag in that embassy. I think there is no celebration without that color. If there is a flag that lowered the flag of the communists from many places on a November 7, it is the flag of the Russian Republic. To tell the truth, in all parts except Coyoacán where Leon Trotsky guards it.

The anniversary of the October Revolution was celebrated in Havana in the Council of State and Ministers: On the 6th, in the evening, Comandante Chávez decided to visit his injured colleague. During those eight hours of visit, in a warm embrace, the world revolution fused for a second. At that moment, under the silent notes of the International, Lenin again raised his voice to the workers and the red army again shook the world. Its legendary head was also included in that embrace, although he was 126 years old. The red flag of Coayacán unfurled its wings seeing the two best revolutionaries of the world. In that embrace, there was the first little piece of hope. That hope that seemed to disappear this past November 2.

This is what happened: Hugo Chávez appeared at the door of the office, fresh as the sea, with a light colored shirt and sneakers. This color highlighted the intense bronze of the skin in complicity with his wide smile and eyes that revealed an original beauty. He greeted with the right hand in a frank military salute. He walked slowly over, smilingly and moving his head from side to side, in a familiar gesture. The open smile that turned into open laughter. Fidel was there. Fidel was seated. He had seriously injured his knee and right arm on October 20. Fidel greeted his comrade with the left hand, with his favorite hand! Chavez approached, bent down and with both hands on the shoulder of the legendary guerrilla repeated a familiar phrase “You’re all right Fidel, all right” And yes he was! Even with his leg stretched out and his right arm in a sling, he was overwhelmingly happy. But, how strange was Fidel? For a moment, I didn’t understand. Fidel wasn’t dressed in his military greens. Fidel was in red. A deep red that projects optimism to the very stars seeing their young comrade. In red. Why was he in red?

It is the color of the Bolivarian revolution that had won a popular victory on October 31. Coincidentally it is the color of the world revolution, the color of the October Revolution. Fidel was expressing to Chavez, with that color that he, together with all of us, had participated in the elections of October 31 where we were victorious.

These elections were, undoubtedly, a deepening of the ones of August 15. Chávez made no shady deals, he deceived no one, did not have to resort to personal gossip about his adversaries, he did not have to invest hundreds of millions of dollars. His campaign, colored in red and sincerity appealed to the truth. That truth that endows the best revolutionary of Venezuela to be the legitimate president. He resorted to his allies of the past. Che who he considers an “infinite and immortal revolutionary”. The revolution in Venezuela is willing to “be real”, as Che said in his farewell letter to Fidel. Therefore, in the Bolivarian revolution “we conquer or we die”. In his victory campaign Chávez did not talk of what Venezuela had achieved, he spoke of what had to be done. “The deep problem of Venezuela is the exclusion and poverty and even more, the dire poverty”. He unleashed a battle with no quarter given to bureaucracy and against the large land holdings. He asked each Chavista governor elected “to become ... the head of the struggle against the large land holdings”.

“Now Venezuela is entering a new stage, the Bolivarian revolution must be deepened, it must be more a revolution every day, more authentic, truer, the structural transformation of the economy, society is the grand challenge we face now”, Chavez says. “Poverty, misery, exclusion will not be solved with lukewarm cloths. Simon Bolivar said clearly “The political gangrenes are not cured with palliatives; I could add: the social gangrenes are not cured with palliatives. The only way, the true way, we must accept it thus, understand it thus: each day more of us could lead our country in the full social and economic revolution that is through a full revolution, an integral revolution, a revolution that must assume the economic; in other words a revolution should be, in addition to political, social, economic in depth. I will say it now, we must leave behind the capitalist model that ruled in Venezuela for so long; within a framework of the capitalist model, the economic capitalist model is not the solution to the serious problems of society, of poverty, of misery, of exclusion”.

Che would have said it with fewer words: “Socialist revolutions or caricatures of revolution”.

Perhaps this revolutionary does not know that José Martí said in his radical speech Insufficient politics: “Remedies are important when the relationship of the diseases are not analyzed with strength and urgency ... Politics is a guilty occupation when they hide from it ... the deep poverty and dire misfortune, the dire poverty and misfortune of the people”. The policies of Chavez are more than enough. “Homeland or death” is the slogan of the Venezuelan commandant. But José Martí said, “Homeland is Humanity”. In Cuba, another necessary word was added to make it true: Socialism. This slogan that, taken to its utmost consequences, is the slogan of the world.

I’ve been wondering how two peoples with barely two days difference can choose such opposites. The US people subscribed to war; the Venezuelan to revolution.

Nothing much can be gathered from television and, however, two men were observed who, in spite of a cool November, it was very clear on camera. Chavez bowed to greet him and ratify his commitment. Fidel proudly pointed to the two small flags of the two countries embroidered in his pocket.

They spent eight hours together. I don’t know what they talked about but as you and I can imagine they talked of: The great victory of October 31; the victory of the Frente Amplio whose true victory must now be observed with concrete actions; the recent Rio Summit; where, in fact, President Chávez announced a “strange” observation for those planning to fight poverty and hunger in the south of my continent. His words were, more or less: “I don’t know how it can be done through a capitalist economy”. And, above all else, they must have talked of the triumph of reaction in the United States. A good agenda for a November 7.

At the end, in front of the TV cameras, Chavez dons a beautiful shirt... a red one his comrade had given him, after receiving a painting of Bolivar by Valdés, an artist of the westernmost province of the Island.

It is now November 7 and Chávez will have to leave but not forgetting with that small acute look that Fidel and he were “sharing the soul” as a journalist commented.

I looked at Fidel again. I thought of those years of infinite struggle swimming against the current. It still goes on and his wounds are from combat. It wasn’t an accident in the home working in the garden, like many men of his age, but winning more battles of ideas.

José Martí said: “When there are many men without honor, there are always men who have the honor of many men. Those are the ones who rebel with a terrible force against those who steal freedom from the people that is to steal honor from men. In these men there are thousands of men, an entire people, human dignity.”

And in this point in time, on November 7 of this year, human dignity multiplied in this meeting of love.

Then I did not suffer much for not having visited Lenin in Regla. These two men in red gave me the perfect celebration and my November 7 renewed my desire to fight. The first battle we will wage will be to morally teach the US people that they are being bewitched by an evil of so many years.

We will fight with all our strength, happy, knowing that the red flag now flutters over a new peoples of South American in a permanent revolution. And that color will extend throughout the continent and leap across the Atlantic and reach the beautiful Europe where we have so many comrades who are red inside and go down to Africa and reach the poles. And the Land will again turn in the right direction in relation to the sun.

I recalled with warmth and relevance Trotsky’s slogan: dum spiro spero (while there is a murmur of life there is hope).

And still, I am asked in many places: what will happen when Fidel goes. Fidel will not go for me. I believe that Chávez is only about 50.

Read more...

On June 16 and 17, 1998, the Cuban authorities, in an exchange with the FBI handed over a huge amount of material related to anti-Cuban terrorist activities conducted from US territory, including 230 pages of documents, five videos of material broadcast on US TV about terrorist activities against Cuba and eight audio cassettes containing 2 hours and 40 minutes of conversations between jailed central American terrorists and their contacts outside.

Less than two months later, on September 12, the FBI, in early morning raids arrested five Cubans in Miami. Were they related to terrorist activities against Cuba? Quite the opposite, they were Cuban agents working to infiltrate the anti-Cuban terrorist groups based in Miami and they had also participated in the gathering of the information passed on to the FBI.

This was the beginning of a protracted legal case against these five people now known as the “Miami Five”. The case is one of injustice, political manipulation of the justice system and one that exposes the hypocrisy of Bush’s so-called “war on terrorism”. And this is probably the reason why you have not heard anything about it in the mainstream media.

The Miami Five, Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Ramón Labañino Salazar, René González Sehwerert, Fernando González Llort and Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez, have all been given the longest possible sentences for the “crimes” they are accused of. Gerardo Hernández has been sentenced to two life sentences and 15 years of jail. Another two, Antonio Guerrero and Ramón Labañino have also been give life sentences. And René González and Fernándo González have been condemned to 19 and 15 years imprisonment.

From the moment they were arrested, the Miami Five were subjected to extremely harsh treatment. After 15 days in the Miami Federal Detention Centre, they were transferred to the Special House Unit, better known as “the hole”, in isolation cells 15 feet by 7. These cells are used for very dangerous criminals, generally those accused of murder, and according to the rules, prisoners can only be kept there for a maximum of 60 days. Two of the Miami Five, Gerardo Hernández and Ramón Labañino were to remain there for 17 months.

What are the Miami Five accused of? There are a number of minor charges, including acting as agents of a foreign government without being registered with the US authorities (which the Five admit to), but the two main charges which three of them have been condemned to life sentences for are related to spying and murder.

From the very beginning, the local media started to talk of a dangerous group of Cuban spies that had endangered US national security. But in the seven long months of the trial (which makes this one of the longest judicial cases in the history of the US), the prosecution could not present one single piece of evidence to back up this case. Defence lawyers called to the stand US Navy officers, both active and retired, high ranking US intelligence officers and others and they all testified that after looking at all the evidence found on the Five, they had not seen any classified material.

Even the prosecutor of the case had to make clear in his opening remarks to the jury that, “we arrested these five men and we seized 20,000 pages of documents from their computers, but ladies and gentlemen from these 20,000 pages we cannot present one single page of classified information”. Since they could present no proof of the charge of spying, the prosecution decided to charge them with “conspiracy to spy”. Conspiracy is a very vague term and very difficult to prove. It means that the Five got together and decided they were going to spy. How can anyone prove that? And even if there was evidence (which was not the case), it is not normal that three of them should get the highest possible sentence you can get for spying (life imprisonment) but only for “conspiring” to spy!

The second charge for which Gerardo Hernández got his second life sentence is conspiracy to commit murder. He was accused of having been involved in the downing of two Cessna planes just off the coast of Havana by Cuban MIGs in February 1996. The story started in 1995 when an agreement was reached between Cuban and US authorities in order to regulate migration policies between the two countries. It was at that time when the anti-Cuban Miami organisation “Hermanos al Rescate” (Brothers to the Rescue) started carrying out terrorist activities against Cuba. In the 20 months leading to the downing of the two planes, they carried out 25 unauthorised flights over Cuban airspace. What did the Cuban government do? In each case they filed a formal diplomatic complaint for this violation of its country’s airspace. They received no reply.

In January 1996, the Cuban authorities invited admiral Carroll from the US Navy to Cuba and told him in no uncertain terms that their patience had run out and they would tolerate no more violations of their national sovereignty, particularly since they had information (provided by the Miami Five) that Hermanos al Rescate was about to arm these planes. Carroll went back to the US and reported to the Pentagon and the State Department that the Cubans were serious about their threats. Richard Nuccio, at that time an advisor to president Clinton, testified in the trial and said that he was very worried about the public boasting (in TV broadcasts) of Hermanos al Rescate leader José Basulto, about their illegal flights over Cuba.

On February 24th, three Cessna planes, one piloted by José Basulto himself, left a base in Florida and went to Cuba. They had been warned by the personnel at the airbase that it would be very dangerous to fly over Cuban airspace. The Cuban authorities were also forewarned. Was it Gerardo Hernández who warned them? No, it was the US Federal Aviation Agency who warned the Cubans that the planes were on their way. The planes were warned by radio that they were about to enter a restricted military area. They ignored the warnings. The Cuban air force sent two MIG fighters and after further ignored warnings downed two of the planes. José Basulto managed to escape. The Cuban government claims that the planes were illegally inside their airspace when downed, while the US government charges that they were 4 miles outside the limit.

So one might ask, what is the relationship between Gerardo Hernández and this case? He has been found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. The “proof” presented is a telegram to Gerardo, who had infiltrated Hermanos al Rescate, telling him not to fly on that date. This evidence is very flimsy, particularly for such a serious charge as this. It does not prove that Gerardo knew the planes were going to be attacked, and it does not prove he had anything to do with the attack itself. All he did was to report about the activities of a terrorist organisation operating from the US. Furthermore the information about flights leaving and arriving in South Florida is publicly available.

Finally, the bottom line is whether a sovereign nation like Cuba has the right to defend its airspace or not. For a government like that of the US which insists in immunity for its armed personnel operation abroad, it is a blatant case of double standards to bring an accusation of murder against a government defending its own territory against terrorists coming from the US. The case against Gerardo for conspiracy to murder is so weak that in an unprecedented move, right at the end of the trial, they tried to get the charge changed from murder to homicide. But both the Tribunal and the Appeal Court rejected the petition, since the whole trial had been based on the original charge.

Clearly the evidence against the Five was at most flimsy, but the jury after very short deliberation, found them guilty. That can only be explained by the fact that the trial took place in Miami. From the beginning the defence attorneys asked for the trial to be transferred out of Miami. It is well known that the mafia type networks of the rabidly reactionary Cuban exiles dominate the city. It was very difficult to have a fair trial and a jury that would not be intimidated in such a city.

Furthermore the trial took place on the same dates as the polemic over Elian Gonzalez, the Cuban boy kept in Miami by some relatives against the wishes of his father. The Cuban exiles organised violent demonstrations and riots on those days, and the whole city was immersed in an atmosphere of anti-Cuban hysteria. How can the trial of five “dangerous Communist agents”, one of them accused of having participated in the murder of Cuban exiles, take place in such a climate and be a fair trial?

Even the US government recognised in a different case a year later, that a case connected to Cuba could not be tried fairly in Miami. The US government was being accused of unfair discrimination by a Mexican employee of the Immigration Service who claimed he had been dismissed because of his support for the anti-Cuban mafia in the Elian Gonzalez case. In this case, which has only an indirect relation to Cuba, the government argued that it could not be tried fairly in Miami and asked for the trial to be transferred. The request was granted. But in the case of the Miami Five, which is directly linked to Cuba and to the reactionary Cuban exiles who dominate the city, the request was rejected.

The government of the US also used a number of other legal tricks to get the Five condemned. For instance it used the Confidential Information Protection Act, in order not to release the 20,000 pages of documents seized from the Five. For months, neither the accused nor their lawyers had access to these documents, none of which contained US national defence sensitive information, or any classified information as stated by the prosecution itself. The defence was also not allowed to use the “state of need” argument against the accusation of acting as unregistered agents. This means that you can break the law in order to serve a greater good. In this case, the defence argued that they did so in order to save lives and property by infiltrating these terrorist groups.

Finally there is also the issue of the harsh treatment the Five received and are receiving in jail, particularly in relation to the visits from their family. Olga Salanueva, René’s wife, and Adriana Pérez, Gerardo’s wife, have never been allowed to see their husbands since they have been in jail! How is that possible? Simply by not giving them a visa to enter the US. The US immigration service said that they cannot even argue humanitarian reasons for the granting of the visas, since they are a “threat to US national security”. This vindictive ruling goes against the US’s own penitentiary rules and Constitution. Their young children have been growing up for years without being allowed to see their fathers. Visitation rights apply to even the more callous convicted murderers, so why should they not be allowed to the Miami Five who are clearly innocent victims of political imprisonment?

But the implications of this case go much further if one takes the time to trace the background of some of the people involved. Take for instance Hector Pesquera, Special Agent in Charge of the Miami regional office of the FBI and responsible for the arrest of the Five. What is his background? He became prominent when he was involved in the investigation that led to the arrest of four Miami Cubans in 1997. The US Coast Guard arrested them in October of that year when it seized a yacht in Puerto Rican waters. They found seven boxes of ammunition, military uniforms, two assault rifles and other military equipment. One of the arrested, Angel Alfonso Alemán, quickly declared that he was in charge and that their mission was to assassinate Castro during his visit to Margarita Island in Venezuela.

Hector Pesquera, the FBI agent in charge of the case, promised to carry out the investigation but added that “there might be foreign policy implications” in which case he does not “rule anything out”.

The investigation soon led to the National Cuban American Foundation (FNCA), the most important organisation of Cuban reactionary exiles, with close links with the US Republican and Democratic parties. The owner of one of the rifles was Francisco Hernández, the FNCA president and Miami’s most important counter-revolutionary leader. A member of the FNCA Executive Committee was the owner of the yacht. The member of the group in charge of communications was also a known FNCA activist. While on parole, one of the accused was arrested again by the DEA accused of bringing more than 350 kg of cocaine into the country.

All of the accused denied their guilt, with the exception of Alfonso who tried to get out by pointing out that he is well connected and showed pictures of himself with president Clinton, senator Torricelli (Democrat and the second largest recipient of Cuban American money in election campaigns in the US), the now deceased leader of the Cuban exiles Jorge Mas Canosa, etc. His lawyer, who is also FBI investigating agent Hector Pesquera’s cousin, went as far as to argue that if the CIA has tried so many times to assassinate Castro, how come it is a crime for him to attempt to do the same!

The Cuban mafia threw all her weight into the case and finally the accused were released. The judges, the accused and even special agent Pesquera himself, all celebrated the outcome with a mass (these types they are always very “pious”) and a party.

As if it were a reward for having failed to produce enough evidence against the accused, special agent Pesquera was sent to Miami and appointed as Special Agent in Charge for South Florida!

Barely 12 days later, the Miami Five were arrested. It was the first time that a “network of Cuban spies” had been broken up on US territory since the Cuban Revolution. Pesquera was quick to claim credit for the operation, despite the fact that he had only been in charge there for less than two weeks! The case of the Miami Five was clearly designed to appease the FNCA, with which Pesquera has such good relations, despite the fact that some of its most prominent members had been (sort of) “investigated” by himself in relation to terrorist activities.

Remember what George W Bush said about “aiding and harbouring terrorists” being on the same level as committing terrorist acts. But then this rule only seems to apply to the “bad” terrorists, not to the ones that are on Washington’s side and that sometimes even do some of the White House’s dirty work. Not to mention the enormous political clout the FNCA has in Florida, the state ruled by Bush’s brother Jeb, and in which Bush’s presidency was “won”.

Another story worth telling is that of Orlando Bosch, the person whose actions Fernando González, one of the Miami Five, was in charge of monitoring. Bosch left Cuba in 1960 and went to the US. His first terrorist activity was in 1968 when he was involved in the sending of a parcel bomb to Havana. In that year he was responsible for more than 40 terrorist attacks. At the end of the year he was arrested in Miami, tried and found guilty of an attack on a Polish ship and sentenced to 10 years in jail. In 1974, while on parole, he fled the US and carried on with his terrorist activities. He has confessed to carrying out bomb attacks in Miami, New York, Venezuela, Panama, Mexico and Argentina.

In October 1976 he was arrested in Venezuela in connection with the terrorist attack on a Cuban civilian airplane that resulted in 73 dead, men, women and children. This was the first ever bomb attack on a civilian airplane in the world. After spending 11 years in jail in Venezuela, having been proved that he had been an associate of two other men accused of homicide in the same case, he was finally released. In 1987 he returned to Miami and was arrested by the immigration service. The proceedings for his deportation began.

But then enormous political pressure was exerted by the Cuban mafia and its associates to get him released. Prominent in the campaign was senator Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican and the largest recipient of Cuban American money in election campaigns in the US). Amongst those involved was Jeb Bush, George W’s brother, who was then Ileana’s election campaign manager. Finally George Bush senior granted the release of this known and convicted terrorist and even gave him permanent residence in the US.

Another of those involved with Bosch in the bomb attack on the Cuban airliner in 1976 was Luis Posada Carriles. He had fled Cuba in 1959 after having been a police agent under dictator Fulgencio Batista. Most of his later life was dedicated to one goal: the assassination of Castro, working for the CIA and, according to his own confession in an interview to the New York Times in 1998, for Jorge Mas Canosa, the former head of the FNCA.

When Bosch and Posada were arrested by the Venezuela authorities, the Cuban mafia in Miami raised the $50,000 dollars to bribe the jail authorities and got him free. He then joined Lt Col Oliver North who got him a nice job with the CIA organising Contras, the gang of counter-revolutionary cut throats sabotaging the Nicaraguan Sandinista revolution in the 1980s. After that “campaign” was over, he concentrated his attention on a bombing campaign against tourist installations in Cuba in the mid 1990s that resulted in the death of an innocent Italian tourist.

On November 17, 2000, Posada and another 3 prominent members of the Cuban mafia, with close links to the NFCA leaders, were arrested in Panama and accused of plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro during his visit to Panama to attend a regional summit. In April 2004 they were tried for and found guilty of being a threat to public security and falsifying documents. There was no mention in the verdict of the accusation of plotting to kill Castro. But on August 26, 2004, the four received a pardon from Panama’s outgoing president Mireya Moscoso, just six days before she was to hand over to President-elect Martin Torrijos.

The decision came shortly after a visit by Colin Powell to Panama. Posada went to Honduras, and the other three, all of them convicted terrorists, went back to Miami to a warm welcome by the anti-Cuban mafia, and not surprisingly were allowed in by the US immigration authorities. The three have carried out terrorist acts on US territory. One of them, Guillermo Novo, was convicted of participating in the car bombing that killed former Chilean Foreign Minister Orlando Letelier, in Washington in 1978. Incidentally, the other two people convicted of the car bombing of Letelier were released by president Bush against the advice of both the FBI and the INS.

It is quite clear why the Cuban government had to undertake measures to prevent terrorist attacks from these groups, since the US authorities not only do not do anything to prevent them, but even turn a blind eye or collaborate with them. Such terrorist attacks on Cuba (mostly against civilian targets, like the bombing campaign against hotels and tourist resorts) have caused 3,478 deaths and 2,099 permanently disabled since 1959.

The case of the Miami Five is clearly about the right of a sovereign country to defend itself against the terrorist actions conducted from a neighbouring country that harbours them and does not lift a finger to stop their actions. The case exposes the hypocrisy of the US ruling class when it claims it is conducting a war on terrorism. It also uncovers the important role that the reactionary anti-Cuban mafia in Miami play in US politics, both Republican and Democrat. It is therefore an overtly political case that the US ruling class and its media are not interested in publicising because the details are highly damaging.

Socialists all over the world must demand first of all that the basic human rights of the Miami Five are respected (starting with full rights to visits), that the trial, which is now subject to a legal appeal, is reviewed and takes places in fair conditions with full legal rights, and finally that the Miami Five, whose only crime is to fight the reactionary terrorist anti-Cuban mafia in Miami, be released. But this cannot be seen merely from a legal point of view. A political case must be fought by political means. US labour and progressive movement organisations must be made aware of the case and should take a clear position.

The scandalous case of the Miami Five has exposed completely the cynical hypocrisy of the Bush government in the so-called war against terrorism. Like the even more barbarous scandal of the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp, it has revealed the hollowness of its appeals to democracy and civilized behaviour and the rule of law. It stands condemned before the tribunal of world public opinion.

A labour movement enquiry should be conducted on the links between the Miami anti-Cuban terrorists and the US state apparatus, its security services, the legal system, etc. This is a crucial issue that the US labour and progressive movement should consider as one of high priority. The same dirty methods that the US ruling class uses against progressive governments and movements around the world are – and will be – also used against US workers and their organisations at home.

The real “crime” of Cuba from the point of view of the US ruling class is that it provides an example of how, by expropriating the capitalist class, one can provide for free for such things as high quality education and health care. And this is a very dangerous example for the workers and peasants in the rest of Latin America, but even for the workers in the US, millions of whom have no health care at all and are excluded from higher education. Socialists and labour activists all over the world must condemn the actions of US imperialism, which constitute a serious threat to the democratic rights of workers everywhere.

Free the Miami Five!

Fight to defend democratic rights!

Down with imperialism!

October 15, 2004

Read more...

ESF meeting on the trade union situation in Venezuela and Colombia

On October 16 the ESF delegates had the chance to get a first hand report on the current situation in Colombia and Venezuela. The Colombia Solidarity Campaign and Hands Off Venezuela, supported by Marxist.com organised a workshop at the European Social Forum to explain the situation of the trade unions in these two Latin American countries. Around 65 campaigners, trade unionists and youth filled an already tiny room. The room was so full that some members of the audience had to sit on the floor!

Jeremy Dear speaking at the meeting

The meeting started with a contribution from Jeremy Dear. The NUJ General Secretary gave an account of the situation for trade unionists based on his own experience as a member of a TUC delegation to Colombia. The audience was terrified when they listened to all the security measures that trade union activists are forced to observe. He pointed out that the trade union and peasant leaders are currently slaughtered and tortured by the army and the paramilitaries because they are in the forefront of the struggle against privatisation. Jeremy Dear compared the Colombian conditions with the Venezuelan situation for trade unionists and he highlighted the freedom that trade unions enjoy in Venezuela. He closed his contribution appealing to the audience to campaign for the defence of the Venezuelan revolution and in defence of the Colombian trade union activity against US imperialism.

After the NUJ General Secretary spoke, Jorge Martin (Hands Off Venezuela International Secretary) explained the origins of the Venezuelan UNT in relation to the defeat of the bosses lock-out at the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003. He also said that in spite of the fact that the labour movement in Venezuela has not led the revolution, the workers played a very important role in the defeat of the lock-out and they even installed workers’ control in some PDVSA (state oil company) plants and occupied factories as a measure to protect production against the bosses’ sabotage. On the links between the Chavez government and the UNT he pointed out that there is a healthy and friendly relation between trade union and government. However, the UNT is completely autonomous from the government. In fact the UNT has openly expressed disagreement with some measures taken by the government.

Dave Raby, recently arrived from Caracas after finishing a seminar at the Venezuelan Bolivarian University, also contributed to the discussion. Dave Raby analysed the origins of the Venezuelan Revolution. He explained how the conscious action of the Venezuelan masses has changed the whole country. Mr Raby stated: “What is happening in Venezuela is the beginning of a revolutionary breakthrough”. He gave a full account of the “Misiones” (social programmes on healthcare, housing, etc.) and how the actual implementation is due to the autonomous organisations in the communities. He also talked about how the economic treaties sponsored by the Venezuelan government seek to oppose the US backed treaties like the FTAA.

Gonzalo Gomez from Aporrea.org (the main left-wing political website in Venezuela) began his contribution by talking about the “reciprocal solidarity” between Venezuela and the peoples of Europe and other advanced countries. He expressed the Venezuelan people’s rejection of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He linked the attacks launched by the US on Iraq with the active intervention of the US administration in Venezuela to plot against the revolution. In his contribution he also stressed the need to push for the alternative media. He stated, “We cannot rely on the bosses media”. He said that the media should be linked to the community and the labour movement. Gonzalo Gomez also hailed the process whereby the CTV (the tool of the oligarchy within the trade union movement) is being replaced by the UNT, the new and anti-capitalist trade union. One of the main concerns of the Aporrea.org editor was the bureaucratisation of the movement and the state apparatus in Venezuela. In order to stop this bureaucratisation the process which has been called “revolution within the revolution” was badly needed. He also said that the Venezuelan government was a popular government but not a government of the workers and the people yet because the bosses were still sacking workers. However, he denied that the Chavez government was a bosses’ government and he enthusiastically supported all the progressive measures implemented by the government and the favourable conditions for the class struggle in Venezuela.

Andy Higginbottom introduced the Killer-Cola campaign. This campaign is the actual implementation of an international appeal launched by SINALTRAINAL (food and beverages processing workers’ union in Venezuela) to raise awareness of the awful situation of the Colombian activists and to expose the Coca-Cola corporation for its involvement in the assassination of a long list of their workers and shop stewards actively involved in the union. He also linked the struggle against imperialism in Colombia with the Bolivarian Revolution. A victory for the Venezuelan Revolution will be a step forward in the struggle against imperialism and its puppets in Colombia. After his speech a very interesting question and answer session took place.

Read more...

ESF meeting on Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution

“We have to learn the lessons of past solidarity campaigns”

Yesterday, October 17, In Defence of Marxism and the Hands Off Venezuela campaign organised a meeting on Venezuela and the Bolivarian revolution at the European Social Forum in London. Despite the fact that this important workshop had been relegated to an early Sunday morning, nearly 70 people turned up to hear Alan Woods, editor of Marxist.com, and Jorge Martin, on behalf of the Hands off Venezuela Campaign, speak on the events in Venezuela. The room was packed with young people and trade unionists from all over the world.

Before dealing with the actual subject, Jorge Martin started his speech with a reference to the organisation of this year’s European Social Forum. Not enough attention had been paid to the subject of Venezuela, which is now one of the most important developments in the whole world. It is a real pity that no seminar could be organised as this meant that no simultaneous translation was available.

Having said that, Jorge turned to the reason behind the setting up of the Hands off Venezuela Campaign. The campaign had been started mainly to counter the vicious media blockade on the subject of Venezuela. On really significant events like the Bolivarian Revolution there is a wall of silence on the part of the Western media. Even worse, when they do refer to Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, he is nearly always portrayed as an authoritarian former army general, not as a democratically elected president who has won in seven different electoral processes. Jorge Martin recalled a striking anecdote on the media lies. He was on his way to Caracas in an Air France airplane. Reading the Spanish daily El Pais, he read about Caracas being paralysed by a massive strike involving all important sectors of the economy, including the cancellation of all international flights. However, Jorge was flying precisely to Caracas and everything was perfectly normal there!

Then he posed the question of the Bolivarian Revolution. Since there has been no fundamental economic transformation, why do we say that the events in Venezuela are of a revolutionary character? The main reason is the massive political awareness in the country. Contrary to most Western “democracies”, there is no apathy at all among the Venezuelan people. Everybody has an opinion on the political situation, either from the right or from the left. But above all, in the last years there has been massive participation of ordinary people and the poorer sections in society in politics. The recent recall referendum is proof of this. In other countries the participation level is always quite low, with only 40 or 50 percent of the people bothering to vote. Why would they vote if all politicians tell them the same things? In Venezuela, on the other hand, more than 90 percent of the people turn up to vote. This is because people can see that it does make a difference who is in power. After the election of Hugo Chavez huge literacy campaigns have been conducted. For the first time poor people have access to basic medical health care, and there has been significant land reform, etc. In short, after the 1998 election there has been a mass politicization. For the first time ordinary working people have a sense of dignity and now feel as real human beings. This is one of the most striking features when you travel to Venezuela and talk to people, Jorge said. They can see something has changed for the better and they want to maintain and extend these achievements. Precisely because of all the progressive reforms, Chavez has been able to maintain his support among a majority of the Venezuelan people. Not only one time, but in seven electoral contests! Compare that to the West, where one government after another is voted out of office.

That is, of course, not to the liking of the so-called “Democratic Opposition”. They could not even stand his initially moderate reforms, and obviously could stand even less the subsequent more radical reforms. Hence their various attempts at overthrowing Chavez’s government by terrorist means, lock-outs and a coup. One criticism you can make of Chavez, Jorge told the audience, is not that he is authoritarian, but rather too lenient with the coup organisers. Those who pulled down a statue of Colombus on Columbus Day (October 12) were put in jail, but most of the organisers of the coup are still free and have been able to flee the country. Some are on trial now, two years after the coup, but Pedro Carmona has only been put under house arrest. As a result, he fled to Miami and is now organising the opposition. Carlos Andres Pérez, now living in the Dominican Republic, said that the only way to remove Chavez is by violent means. These kinds of scoundrels are still free and have been able to organise the terrorist campaign of last year.

Jorge Martin then spoke on the trade union situation in Venezuela. The old CTV union has more than ever been discredited since its open support for the coup. Most of the workers have joined the new UNT, and what is more, they have done this on a radical program. The UNT is now the real trade union in Venezuela and its program includes workers’ control over the economy. This led Jorge to elaborate on this point. During last year’s lock-out there have been experiences of workers’ control. This was not in a small textile company, but in the oil industry, one of the biggest industries in the world! The oil company in Venezuela is indeed highly technological (with most processes being run by computer and satellite systems). The workers refused to take part in the lock-out of the bosses and were able to run the whole industry without the bosses. This proves that if workers can run such a complex industry then they can run anything. On that point, Jorge also mentioned the case of the Venepal workers and the need for solidarity.

There is also the issue of the struggle between Venezuela and the United States. The US was interfering directly in Venezuela during the 2002 coup. They cannot tolerate a government that is an example to workers all over the world, especially the masses in their backyard, Mexico and Latin America. But Venezuela has some good trump cards, one of which is oil. Chavez has already threatened to cut off the oil supplies to the US if they interfere in their internal affairs. That would be an enormous blow, since Venezuela is the third biggest oil supplier to the US.

“So what is the next step then?” Jorge asked. The oligarchy is demoralised and demobilised after they lost the referendum. The balance of forces is extremely favourable to the revolution. In the Bolivarian movements there have been numerous debates about the need for a revolution in the revolution, about the fight against bureaucracy. However, the state is still the same old state, with the same bureaucracy at the head of it. Jorge said you cannot take over a capitalist state and make it serve the interests of the people. Besides, some sections of the economy are still in private hands, most importantly the bank sector. Today two Spanish banks control the banking sector in Venezuela. The distribution of food and beverages is done privately, which enabled the opposition to paralyse the country during the lock-out by disrupting the supplies.

Jorge continued by saying that some important battles have been won, but that this is a war over control of the economy. There are opposing class interests involved, and these have not been solved yet. Jorge used the analogy used by 19th century peasant war leader Ezequiel Zamora. In the course of the Federal War against the landed oligarchy, Zamora correctly said that “we must confiscate the property of the rich, since with it they make war against the people, we must leave them just with their shirts”.

By way of conclusion, Jorge said we are living in very exciting times. To his knowledge there is no precedent of a successful military coup being defeated by the mass movement of working people once it has already been installed. This gives hope for the future – something can be done. Also, it is foolish to moderate your viewpoints for fear of provoking the enemy. The opposition and US imperialism have already been provoked, as the coup proves. The excuse often used by workers’ leaders that you can’t have a radical program that “scares away” the voters has been proved utterly wrong. In Venezuela there have been seven elections, and each of then have been won by the left-wing government.

Alan Woods speaks

After Jorge Martin’s speech, the floor was given to Alan Woods. He started with the same observation that we live in very exciting times. Fifteen years ago the capitalists were euphoric because, so they claimed, “Socialism has been proven not to work”. They were talking about the end of socialism and communism, and some even dared to talk about the end of history. No change was possible in the best of possible worlds. But they merely proved to be utopians. Now there is instability in the whole of Latin America, Africa is in a horrible state, etc.

But Venezuela shows that change is possible. Contrary to all the lies of the media, Hugo Chavez is not a dictator but an extremely popular president. The recall referendum once again proved that the majority of the Venezuelan people are standing behind their president. A recall referendum is in fact a very democratic mechanism, and Alan could think of several other leaders who would greatly benefit from the application of this mechanism! That is, George Bush, but also Tony Blair. The latter defied public opinion by lying over the motives for going to war in Iraq. The British people clearly said they didn’t want this war, and yet there is no way of removing Tony Blair from power.

Alan Woods then went on to explain why the Bolivarian Revolution is indeed a revolution, contrary to what some left groups claim. Paraphrasing Leon Trotsky, he said: “The essence of a revolution is the direct intervention of the masses in the political life of the nation.” Millions of ordinary Venezuelan people began to move and started to take matters into their own hands. The indignation of the masses, who had suffered under 40 years of oppression and misery, was expressed in a peculiar way after the left-wing 1992 coup in the figure of Hugo Chavez. In 1998 he won the elections with an absolute majority. Eight years later, Chavez received 60 percent of the votes. How many governments in the world can claim this?

After vividly describing the anger and mood of the masses, he firmly warned that the revolution has not been completed. The basic position of Marxists towards the Venezuelan revolution is to support it completely against foreign intervention. That is what Hands Off Venezuela is trying to do. But there is more to it. It is not possible to make half a revolution. What the referendum campaign has shown is that Venezuelan society is extremely polarised between right and left. The counterrevolutionaries are regrouping their forces and are preparing for a new offensive once the conditions are more favourable (most likely the 2006 elections). As long as the oligarchy continues to maintain its hold on important sections of the economy, it will continue to act as an agent of US imperialism, sabotaging and undermining the Bolivarian revolution. That is why the property of the counterrevolutionaries should be expropriated and the power of the landowners should be broken. Alan made an analogy with the American revolution, which took drastic measures against the landowners. Just as the American revolutionaries, the Venezuelan revolution should deal blows to the big landowners.

The speech ended with an appeal. Not everything is fine and the revolution has not finished. Battles have been won, but not the war. The important point to stress is that everybody is able to do something. Alan appealed to the public saying that they can make a difference. Trade unionists can discuss the situation in their branches and pass resolutions recognising the new UNT trade union, other people can counter the numerous media lies. Above all, it is important to coordinate the different initiatives and set up Hands off Venezuela committees.

Ramon Samblas then opened the meeting for questions and contributions from the audience. Somebody from the audience made the point that the solidarity campaign for Chile started after the 1973 coup and that it is better to start organising while the revolution is going on. “We have to learn the lessons of past solidarity campaigns. All of them have failed because they started too late.” He also said it was a real shame that Venezuela had not been discussed at a big session at the European Social Forum. Other contributions came among others from a young Norwegian trade unionist and Henry Suarez, professor of History at Caracas Central University.

The general conclusion of the meeting was that we must defend the Bolivarian Revolution unconditionally. However, it is also necessary to deepen the political analysis of the Venezuelan revolution and the way forward. Only by learning the lessons of past defeats can we guarantee victory this time.

Read more...