grito de batalla

美國費城交通系統工人大罷工要求加薪

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:21:00 +0000

宋文靜
國際在線
2009年11月4日

據《華盛頓時報》3日報道，美國費城最大的交通系統工會於當日舉行了大罷工，平均每日因此取消的公交運輸將多達928000次。

罷工於3日凌晨三時啟動，整個城市的巴士、電車和地鐵都被迫停運，上班族們措手不及，該罷工還影響了周邊郊區的客運。

從今年三月起，該工會名下近五千多名司機、操作員和機械師等公交系統員工都在沒有協約保障的情況下值勤。他們平均年薪只有52000美金，目前正力圖將其上調4個百分點，並希望能夠免交占工資1%的醫療保險。而運營費城交通系統的賓夕法尼亞東南交通局(簡稱：SEPTA)發言人則稱，五年來薪酬已經提高了11.5%，退休金也有所提升。

上週末，2009年度世界棒球大賽(World Series)的第三、四站比賽恰在費城舉行，由費城人(Phillies)主場迎戰洋基隊。該工會於10月25日即已投票決定舉行罷工，並曾威脅於大賽期間進行。但賓夕法尼亞州州長發出警告，如果擅自逾越談判桌採取行動，就要做好承擔後果的準備。因此罷工推遲至比賽結束、轉戰紐約之後。

SEPTA和工會雙方於2日舉行的談判直至深夜才結束。該工會理事長稱，最終之所以仍然發動罷工，是因為談判中雙方都表明已無可讓步。

SEPTA的員工於2005年舉行過長達七天的罷工，1998年的罷工則更是持續了四十天之久。

韓數萬工人抗議新勞動法

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:14:00 +0000

張樂
新京報
2009年11月8日

11月7日，韓國首爾，韓國工人面戴口罩在首爾立法機關附近示威，抗議政府實施頗具爭議的新勞動法。

數萬韓國工人7日在首都首爾舉行示威遊行，抗議政府明年計劃開始實施的新勞動法。他們指責李明博政府利用此舉來削弱工會勢力。

韓國政府最近表示，明年初開始實施新勞動法。該勞動法規定，允許每個企業組織多個工會同時禁止企業給全職的工會代表支付工資。這兩項條文已經在韓國社會爭論了十年之久，工會組織對此表示反對，使得新勞動法的實施時間一拖再拖。

7日，上萬名反對政府實施新勞動法的民眾在首爾的立法機關附近舉行集會，抗議政府的決定。媒體稱，不少情緒激動的示威者將頭髮剃光，以表達他們反對新勞動法的決心。

「我們將動員一切可能的手段去阻止政府實施新法，如果有必要，我們將組織全國總罷工。」韓國貿易工會聯盟發言人在示威結束後對媒體如此表示。

韓國貿易工會聯盟大約有90萬成員，是韓國兩大主要工會之一，也是這次示威的組織者。媒體稱，如果他們呼籲會員總罷工的話，韓國社會可能會出現動盪。

這位發言人還說，李明博的保守派政府這樣做的目的，就是為了削弱工會的力量。韓國總統府以及勞工部目前尚沒有對7日的萬人示威活動發表看法。

韓國貿易工會聯盟估計，當天的示威共有15萬人參加，不過警方的統計數字則認為，參加示威的民眾只有6萬人。

儘管示威者情緒激動，並高呼反對政府的口號，但他們並沒有和警方發生衝突，示威遊行以和平方式告終。

Honduras - 100 Days of Repression and Resistance

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:42:00 +0000

Tom Loudon
TruthOut
October 6, 2009

Tom Loudon is co-director of the Quixote Center in Washington, DC.

Today marks 100 days since a military coup was carried out against President Zelaya in Honduras. It also marks 100 days of massive, sustained, nonviolent resistance on the part of the Honduran people who are saying no to this brazen attempt to return to the days of dictators.

photo: It has been 100 days since a military coup was carried out in Honduras. Supporters of the deposed president have faced increasingly draconian measures. (Photo: Yamil Gonzales / flickr)

In the face of uncontainable resistance, the coup regime has employed increasingly draconian measures. Most disturbing includes a resurgence of death squad activity, wholesale suspension of constitutional rights and the criminalization of social protest. Currently, over 80 people are detained and face charges of sedition. Conservative estimates document 14 murders in the last 14 weeks; two of those occurred during the last week.

Two weeks ago, on September 21, President Zelaya suddenly surfaced inside the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa. Tens of thousands of supporters immediately flocked to the Embassy from all over the country to celebrate his return. The coup President Micheletti responded by imposing a 5 PM curfew, which thousands of people ignored, holding an all-night vigil in front of the Embassy. At 5:30 the next morning, police and military attacked the crowd with batons, tear gas, and other weapons. Two people were killed and many were injured, including broken arms and legs. Those arrested were taken to a sports stadium, where they were held for extended periods without food or water.

Twenty-four hour curfews were enforced for several days, making it illegal for anyone but authorized individuals to leave their homes. People responded to the curfew by staging neighborhood-based protests. These, too, were repressed, as police and Army went into neighborhoods, firing tear gas and chasing people down inside the homes where they fled.

Infuriated by Zelaya's return, Micheletti mounted a heavy military cordon around the Brazilian Embassy, cut off lights and water and subjected those inside the Embassy and surrounding areas to "sound terrorism." The government of Brazil protested the use of the long-range acoustic device used to send deafening sound waves and provoke hysteria, and demanded the restoration of electricity and water.

Micheletti then gave the Brazilian government a ten-day ultimatum, after which he promised to invade and capture Zelaya. Brazilian President Lula da Silva responded by reminding Micheletti that such an act on the part of the coup government would be considered an act of war. The president of Brazil also called for an emergency session of the UN Security Council to discuss the crisis in Honduras. Micheletti later recanted on his threats to invade the Embassy and in an apparent attempt at damage control said that he would like to give President Lula "a big hug."

However, in what now appears to have been a targeted attack on individuals inside the Embassy, on Friday, September 25, several people reported similar symptoms: nasal bleeding, blood in stools, coughing up blood and severe throat irritations. It was first suspected that this may have been the result of a chemical weapon, however, symptoms did not affect everyone inside the Embassy. Further investigation suggested that these symptoms may have been caused by a sophisticated experimental weapon called a Maser. Apparently, this weapon sends a microwave beam, similar to a laser beam, that impacts the cell functioning of those exposed to its effects.

On Sunday, September 27, four of the five OAS officials who had come as an advance team to begin a dialogue process were expelled. Later that day, faced with increasing inability to contain mounting protests or to control the country, coup President Micheletti issued an executive decree suspending all fundamental constitutional guarantees for 45 days. Rights suspended include the right to assemble, freedom of expression and freedom of movement. The coup regime also granted itself the right to arrest anyone at any moment without reason or an arrest warrant.

At 5:30 AM the next morning, in what the resistance movement now calls "Operation Silence," troops surrounded and entered Radio Globo and Channel 36, the radio and TV stations with national coverage, and confiscated their equipment. The following day, the coup regime announced the suspension of Radio Globo's operating license, severely limiting national news about what is really happening in the country.

The same day that Honduran media outlets were being raided, an emergency meeting of the OAS on Honduras, scheduled to last one hour, ended ten hours later without reaching consensus, largely due to the intransigent position of the United States. The stalemate resulted from the US insistence that elections be held in November, while most countries in the hemisphere believe that conditions do not exist for free and fair elections in Honduras. Interim representative to the OAS, Lewis Amselem, stated that Zelaya's return was "irresponsible" and had "not served" the diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis resulting from the June 28 coup. Amselem repeated these statements to the press subsequent to the meeting, making it clear that his statements were not just made "in the heat of the moment," but apparently reflect the view of the Obama administration.

Amselem's statements lend support to many who suspect that the State Department continues to be unduly influenced by ultra-conservative forces (inside the Department), who, from the beginning, have supported the coup in Honduras. The failure to actually declare it a coup and lack of serious measures against the putsch government certainly indicate at best an ambiguous position, and, more probably, active support for the coup from within the US State Department.

In this context, pro-coup sectors are calling for a dialogue in the interest of reaching a resolution in order to move forward with the elections scheduled for November 29. On Friday, October 2, the advance team from the OAS was finally allowed into the country. Plans are in place for a high level OAS delegation, including Secretary General Insulza and as many as ten foreign ministers to arrive next Wednesday. It was reported in some media outlets that Ambassador Llorens conducted a meeting last week at the Pomerola Air Base outside of Tegucigalpa with "significant actors," including Secretary General Insulza of the OAS.

A number of informal proposals have already been put forward, including scenarios where neither Micheletti nor Zelaya are leading the country, a permanent seat in Congress for Micheletti, a blanket amnesty for all crimes committed by the coup government and a laundry list of things which are largely unacceptable to the tens of thousands of people who have put their lives on the line to insure that constitutional order be restored in their country. Despite an intense media campaign giving the impression that negotiations are underway, according to informed sources inside the Brazilian Embassy, Zelaya has not been a party to any formal negotiations.

Leaders of the majority of countries in the Hemisphere have stated that conditions do not exist for elections to happen in Honduras in less than two months. The independent party candidate, Carlos H. Reyes, who was attacked by police and had his arm broken, had surgery just this past week, and is far from being able to campaign even if the current state of siege ended tomorrow.

The only viable option to increase the possibility of resolving the crisis in Honduras is a negotiated solution that is acceptable to all parties, followed by a period where some level of normalcy is achieved. Only after this kind of cooling off period is it conceivable to think of holding elections. Elections under current conditions would insure that the regression to military rule, which happened in Honduras on June 28, becomes semi-permanent, and that the resistance and subsequent repression would continue.

IACHR URGES HONDURAS TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF THE PERSONS INSIDE THE EMBASSY OF BRAZIL

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:27:00 +0000

Washington, DC, September 25, 2009 – The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) strongly condemns the operation by agents of the Honduran de facto regime in the area of the Brazil Embassy in Tegucigalpa and urges to respect the human rights of the persons inside the diplomatic building, as well as its inviolability.

According to the information received, security forces of the de facto regime surrounded the Brazilian Embassy and threw unidentified toxic gases, causing intoxications, bleeding, vomiting and dizziness to the persons inside the diplomatic building. The information also indicates that since this operation started this morning, members of the Army have blocked the exit of any person from the Embassy and have prevented doctors from entering, including the International Red Cross.

The IACHR calls urgently on the de facto regime to immediately end this operation and to adopt all necessary measures to guarantee the rights to life, integrity and security of all persons inside the Embassy of Brazil and its surroundings. Moreover, the IACHR urges the de facto authorities to guarantee that doctors are able to enter and provide urgent assistance to the affected persons.

A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission has the mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this matter. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who act in a personal capacity, without representing a particular country, and who are elected by the OAS General Assembly.

Honduras Updates: Resistance grows as coup regime starts talks

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:29:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes, Caracas
Green Left Weekly
September 23,2009

The coup regime in Tegucigalpa is crumbling in the face of growing resistance from Honduran people and international condemnation.

Having seized power in a military coup June 28, the coup regime headed by “president” Robert Micheletti has faced sustained resistance in the streets for three months from the Honduran poor.

However, the situation exploded on September 21 when legitimate President Manuel Zelaya, who was kidnapped at gun point in the co0up and exiled to Costa Rica, stunned the world by announcing he had snuck back into Honduras and was inside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa.

The dictatorship ordered the police and military to violently repress the thousands who protested outside the Brazilian embassy, as well as the people on the streets across the country. An unknown number of people have been killed, including an eight-year-old girl, and hundreds arrested.

Insurrection
The response of the Honduran poor, determined to see “their” president who had increased the minimum wage by 60% returned to office, was to launch an insurrection in impoverished neighbourhoods.

With street battles raging, and barricades raised, a number of working class neighbourhoods declared themselves “liberated zones”.

Tthe international isolation of the coup regime also worsened when United Nations general-secretary Ban Ki-moon said on September 23 that elections organised by the Micheletti dictatorship would not be “credible” and the UN was withdrawing all assistance (worth US$1.3 million) for a coup regime-organised November 28 poll.

Desperate, the regime has now opened dialogue with Zelaya — something it refused to do for three months.

The resistance plans once again to take to the streets of Tegucigalpa tomorrow (September 25) to demand Zelaya’s reinstatement and the calling of a constituent assembly.

The issue of organising a constituent assembly to redraft the constitution was the detonator for the June 28 coup. That day, a non-binding referendum was meant to be held, asking the people whether they were in favor of a constituent assembly to rewriting the 1982 constitution — put in place by the military dictatorship at the time.

Gilberto Rios, a leader of the National Resistance Front Against the Coup, told Green Left Weekly over the phone from Tegucigalpa: “President Zelaya has meet [today] with a few people from the right wing to see if they could start a process of dialogue.

“It possible that the level of tension will briefly come down, although tomorrow will be a climactic day of mobilisations — boosted by the support we received in the UN.”

Explaining the course of events that day (September 24), Rios said: “The National Front had called on the people to not mobilise in the center of Tegucigalpa. Instead, it was proposed that people should organise protests in their barrios and colonias [poor neighbourhoods], in order to avoid any provocations by the march of the camisas blancas [white shirts, supporters of the coup].”

Many feared the pro-coup march could be used as a trigger for street clashes and further repression. Some had warned of plans to stoke up violent confrontations near the Brazilian embassy, where Zelaya remains.

Resistance activist Ricardo Salgado told GLW that the march was further evidence that “a section of the armed forces and the coup regime are still look to carry out extreme measures” to end the anti-coup resistance.

In the end, the pro-coup march was very small and largely consisted of public servants forced to attend, Rios said.

Dialogue
Both Rios and Salgado confirmed that numerous avenues of dialogue had been opened up between Zelaya and coup representatives over the last 24 hours.

Salgado said: “Last night a representative of the de facto government arrived at the Brazilian embassy to explicitly propose to the president that he resign and that Micheletti would also resign.

“This was considered unacceptable [by Zelaya], as it would basically legitimise the coup.

“Then, this afternoon, Father Juan Jose Pineda, a bishop in Tegucigalpa who is very close to Cardinal Rodriguez, one of the coup plotters” also visited Zelaya, “we suspect to offer some kind of negotiation … on behalf of the de facto government.”

Salgado added, “later on today [Zelaya] will meet with Father Luis Alfonso Santos who is decidedly against the coup and who just released a 12 point declaration [in which he states] his support for the people, constitutional restoration and the recognition of the legitimate right to insurrection of the people have in the face of a government imposed by force”.

He said this seemed to confirm that the Catholic Church would play an important role in any negotiations.

Furthermore, the candidates that stated their intention to run in the November presidential elections met this afternoon (September 24) with Michelleti, and will met with Zelaya later tonight.

Rios said the National Resistance Front “is and has always been open to dialogue, as long as it contemplates the restitution of Zelaya and the jailing of those responsible for the coup”.

“The [plan to organise a] constituent assembly is also non-negotiable. The constitutional order was broken as a result of the coup and the constitution orders that a constitution assembly be held [in such a scenario] so that cannot be up for discussion on the negotiation table.”

He told GLWM that Zelaya “has spoken with the resistance and that we have the same position in regards to what is up for discussion and what is non-negotiable”.

He added that he didn’t think the dialogue would succeed “very easily or quickly”.

“The coup regime has its own internal contradictions”, Salgado said. “Although it has attempted to maintain the facade of a strong regime backed by repression, it is clear that the country is in a very bad state and groups of business owners have said it is necessary to negotiate with the president.

“If we take as our starting point the fact that these business owners are the financiers of the coup, then what we are talking about is sections of the coup regime recognising the need to negotiate.”

Salgado said: “My personal opinion is that while it is true that the resistance forces have not matured enough yet to be able to stage an insurrection capable of overthrowing the coup regime, it has been able to reach a high level of organisation.”

This means that Zelaya “will need to count on the leadership of the National Front for any proposed solution to the current situation, because that is where he finds his social base. His popularity is based on [including] a large range of people, from popular leaders in the barrios, to teachers to supporters of his former party.”

Repression and mobilisation
Rios said: “There continues to be a strong presence of military and police helicopters [circling Tegucigalpa] because the National Resistance Front is meeting.

“So I think that if the dialogue does not begin today, we will probably face a night where we will see a repeat of the last few nights — where there has been a lot of repression in the colonias with many people detained.”

Salgado agreed, saying “the last few nights have been very tense … the military has been carrying out a campaign of attacking the popular barrios and poor colonias. They have approached homes without any warnings and carried out extrajudicial break-ins into — taking the young men out, beating up the parents.

“The exact toll of deaths and those disappeared is difficult to be determine.

“We are expecting that [the coup regime] will announce another curfew for tonight. So what we could expect more repression .

“And no doubt the people will once again mobilise tonight, on the streets in their barrios.”

Boosted by the UN resolution and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s “educational speech [at the UN General Assembly] which reminded us of why we are involved in this resistance movement”, Rios said the resistance will be gathering at 8am tomorrow [September 25] at the Pedagogical University — “for what will be a very climactic mobilisation”.

Honduras: Street battles rage as military attacks pro-democracy uprising

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 04:50:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes
Greenleft Weekly
September 24, 2009

Introduction: To counteract the capitalist media’s silence about the struggle for democracy and justice in Honduras, the invaluable socialist paper Green Left Weekly has stepped up its coverage of this week’s dramatic developments with frequent web updates. We encourage Socialist Voice readers to follow GLW’s important reports on the Honduran struggle1. The following article was posted on September 24.

September 24 — Street battles are continuing to rage late into the night of September 23 in the poor neighborhoods of the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa, after a day marked by a brutal military and police attack on a massive demonstration in support of ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

Zelaya, whose pro-poor policies outraged the Honduran elite and US corporations, was overthrown in a June 28 military coup and exiled to Costa Rica. On September 21, Zelaya stunned the world by announcing he had re-entered Honduras and was inside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa.

This announcement — after 88 straight days of resistance to the coup with strikes, protests and road blockades by the poor majority —set off a renewed wave of mobilisations across the country to demand Zelaya’s reinstatement as the legitimate president.

As battles between unarmed protesters and heavily armed security forces raged on Honduran streets, world leaders condemned the coup regime at the United Nations General Assembly meeting.

However, while governments from across the world called for the immediate restitution of Zelaya, US President Barack Obama managed to go through his entire speech without mentioning the word Honduras once.

This is despite the fact that all officers in the Honduran military, which carried out the coup and was shooting live rounds at unarmed protesters as Obama spoke, are trained by the US military. This military training has not ceased since the coup.

The presentation of the public position of his government — which is desperately seeking a way to end the anti-coup insurrection that has broken out in the impoverished Central American nation —was left to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly.

Dirian Pereira, from the international commission of National Front of Resistance Against the Coup (FNRG) , spoke to Green Left Weekly again over the phone from Tegucigalpa, sounding clearly shaken by the brutality of the repression metered out earlier in the day. Her voice trembling, she said:

“In all honesty, the repression was extreme. There was no contemplation nor respect nor anything for human rights. The repression was extremely strong.

“We still do not know what the coup regime aims to do with the opposition, because as each day passes, the situation becomes more and more intense. Each day is more and more intense.”

Called by the FNRG , the massive protest that began at 8am on September 23 was a strong demonstration of the people’s will to see Zelaya, their elected president, return to the presidential palace.

Due to a spate of lootings caused by the coup regime imposing a total curfew that led to shortages of food and medicine, the regime temporarily lifted between 10am and 5pm today.

Pereira said:

“The mobilisation was extremely large, making use of the fact that the curfew had been lifted. The people spilled out onto the streets en masse …. The police tried to provoke the protestors in order to create chaos, but the resistance ignored them.”

The aim of the protest was to peacefully march to an area close by the Brazil embassy, where Zelaya remains despite the regime cutting off electricity, blocking food and firing tear gas into the compound.

Gilberto Rios, a leader of the FNRG, told GLW over the phone:

“When we got to the zone, the police, without any prior provocation on behalf of the protestors, began launching tear gas canister.

“The march was quickly dispersed. Many had to be taken to hospital and a number of young people were arrested.”

Despite this, the battle on the streets of Tegucigalpa continues.

“Right now, throughout the night, there have been a number of shoot outs in the different colonias [poor neighbourhoods] of the capital,” Pereira said.

“There are parts that are practically in insurrection, there are colonias that have declared themselves liberated zones.

“They are well organised, they have set up three, fours layers of barricades to stop the police entering.”

Both explained that the repression by the regime, which has left an unknown number of people dead and hundreds arrested, had increased support for the resistance.

“Everything is possible”, Rios told GLW.

“There is a strong feeling of rejection towards the Honduran Armed Forces that have been attacking its own people, similarly with the police….

“Where I live, the police came to repress peaceful protests and that caused even more people, who although against the coup had not joined the resistance, to join the street battles.”

However, as the intensity of the situation mounts, “sectors of the population are beginning to feel that some kind of foreign intervention can prevent a bloodbath”.

Rios insisted, however, that “for us, the problem must be resolved internally”.

Pereira said the talk of possible foreign intervention was coming mostly from right-wing forces who are feeling desperate, as they are losing control of the situation.

Rios said the coup leader Robert Micheletti “has explained it in the following terms: they consider themselves to be a ‘little Berlin’, they feel like the Nazis when they were completely surrounded at the end of the war.”

The coup regime has shifted from arguing it was invincible to “now talking about how they are willing to die in the government palace before handing over power”.

Rios had earlier in the night told GLW that the FNRG had not been able to meet due to the confusion and pace of events. However, Pereira later confirmed they had meet.

However, for strategically purposes the resistance has not yet announced what its next steps will be.

When ready, information would be conveyed via Radio Globo, Pereira said. Radio Globo has acted as a voice for the resistance and its broadcasts are often disrupted and sabotaged has by the military.

Pereira called for people around the world to “remain alert to what is occurring, denounce it, hold solidarity actions and remain up to date on news coming out of Honduras, because here the news is changing from hour to hour, it is changing every little while”.

Rios said: “All of this [international solidarity] is important for saving lives.”

Pereira said: “I want to say to the whole world that we continue to stand firm resisting. We are not going to allow this to slip through our hands, because just now, we have the people with us.”

Zelaya 'will rebuild democracy'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 03:28:00 +0000

BBC NEWS
September 21, 2009

The ousted president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya, has returned to his country after nearly three months in exile following a political coup. Below is the transcript of an interview he gave to the BBC's Latin American service from inside the Brazilian embassy in the capital Tegucigalpa.

photo: Mr Zelaya has based himself in the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa

Question: How did you arrive in Honduras?

A: In a peaceful, voluntary manner. I've been supported by various groups but I can't mention them so those people are not hurt. [We travelled] for more than 15 hours... through rivers, mountains, until we reached the capital of Honduras in the early hours of the morning.

We overcame military and police obstacles on the highways, because this country has been kidnapped by the military forces.

Question: What is the international support for your return?

A: I am in the Brazilian Embassy. [Brazilian] President [Luiz Inacio] Lula [da Silva] and Foreign Minister [Celso] Amorim have opened the doors for me. This is useful for us in calling for a dialogue.

I just spoke to Secretary Insulza [Jose Miguel Insulza of the Organization of American States] who will come in the next few hours. The United Nations will also come, in a commission to begin a dialogue to rebuild Honduran democracy.

Question: Which are going to be your next political steps?

A: We are speaking to different sectors of society, with the international community, and we will begin an overture of communication.

Then [we will take] different approaches to solve this problem. Unfortunately, the coup leaders did not previously consider a solution, and I think we should take over the diplomatic side.

Question: Are you planning to meet the de facto leader, Roberto Micheletti face to face?

A: I'm willing to find a solution to this process, and if that solution consists of that, I am willing to do it. There is no impediment from me to searching for an answer to this problem.

Question: Have you established contact with the armed forces of your country?

A: No, not yet, I've only been here for a couple of hours. We haven't had the time to do it.

Question: What would be the conditions for establishing a dialogue with the coup leaders?

A: Well, the main thing is the support of the people, which is essential for starting a dialogue.

Question: Do you think your presence in Tegucigalpa could stoke further demonstrations?

A: Yes, of course, we have started today with more demonstrations. I am a peaceful man, I don't like violence and I call upon the armed forces not to use violence against people. Not against the people.

Question: The Micheletti government has said you would be arrested if you came back?

A: I have no problem with facing any trial or any prosecution they could seek. I will submit myself to any trial because my hands are clean and my chin is up.

Question: Some might say your decision to come back is "irresponsible", because it could trigger violence.

A: I call for peace and non violence. It's the best way to solve problems - problems always have to be solved by calling for democracy and not the weapons.

If there's anything that the international community could do it would be to call for that solution and say 'No' to more violence.

Ousted Honduran President Zalaya returns to Capital

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:39:00 +0000

BBC NEWS
23:29 GMT, Monday, 21 September 2009

photo: Hundreds of Mr Zelaya's supporters rushed to the Brazilian embassy

Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya has returned to his country, nearly three months after being deposed.

Mr Zelaya has sought refuge inside the Brazilian embassy in Tegucigalpa and hundreds of his supporters have gathered outside.

Mr Zelaya said he had crossed mountains and rivers to return to the capital, where he said he was seeking dialogue.

Honduran authorities, who have threatened to arrest Mr Zelaya, have imposed a curfew on the country.

In images broadcast on national television, a smiling Mr Zelaya wearing his trademark white cowboy hat appeared on the balcony of the Brazilian embassy waving to crowds of his supporters.

Witnesses said a military helicopter flew overhead.

Shortly afterwards officials imposed the 15-hour curfew, starting at 1600 (2200 GMT) on Monday.

“ [We travelled] for more than 15 hours... through rivers and mountains
”
Manuel Zelaya Ousted Honduran President

FULL interview with Zelaya >>>

The left-leaning president has been living in exile in Nicaragua since being ousted at gunpoint on 28 June.

The crisis erupted after Mr Zelaya tried to hold a non-binding public consultation to ask people whether they supported moves to change the constitution.

The US has backed Mr Zelaya during his exile and criticised the de facto leaders for failing to restore "democratic, constitutional rule" and the Organization of American States (OAS) has demanded Mr Zelaya's reinstatement.

Dialogue
Speaking to the BBC from inside the Brazilian embassy, Mr Zelaya said he had received support from various quarters in order to return.

TIMELINE: ZELAYA OUSTED

# 28 June: Zelaya forced out of country at gunpoint
# 5 July: A dramatic bid by Zelaya to return home by plane fails after the runway at Tegucigalpa airport is blocked
# 25-26 July: Zelaya briefly crosses into the country at the land border with Nicaragua on two consecutive days, in a symbolic move to demand he be allowed to return
# 21 Sept: Zelaya appears in the Brazilian embassy in Tegulcigalpa

"[We travelled] for more than 15 hours... through rivers and mountains until we reached the capital of Honduras, which we reached in the early hours of the morning," he said.

"We overtook military and police obstacles, all those on the highways here, because this country has been kidnapped by the military forces."

He said he was consulting with sectors of Honduran society and the international community in order "to start the dialogue for the reconstruction of the Honduran democracy".

Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim confirmed that Mr Zelaya had been given refuge inside the embassy.

But he said neither his country nor the OAS had played any part in Mr Zelaya's return, Associated Press news agency reported.

Thousands of Zelaya supporters converged on the embassy, after gathering outside UN buildings where he was initially reported to be.

"The government has declared the curfew for the entire country from four in the afternoon until six in the morning to conserve calm in the country," a spokesman for the leadership, Rene Zepeda, told Reuters.

The interim government has repeatedly threatened to arrest Mr Zelaya should he return.

Call for calm
Mr Zelaya urged the armed forces not to use violence against demonstrators.

OAS chief Jose Miguel Insulza also called for calm, telling Honduran authorities they were responsible for the security of Mr Zelaya and the Brazilian embassy.

As reports that Mr Zelaya had surfaced in Tegucigalpa began to come through, de facto leader Mr Micheletti appeared to be caught off-guard, insisting Mr Zelaya had not left neighbouring Nicaragua.

"It's not true. He is in a hotel suite in Nicaragua," Mr Micheletti told a news conference.

Mr Micheletti has vowed to step aside after presidential elections are held as scheduled on 29 November. But he has refused to allow Mr Zelaya to return to office in the interim.

Shortly after June's coup, Mr Zelaya attempted to fly back to Honduras, but failed when the authorities blocked the runway at Tegucigalpa airport.

In July, talks in Costa Rica on resolving the crisis hosted by the country's President Oscar Arias broke down without the parties reaching an agreement.

Later that month, Mr Zelaya briefly crossed into Honduras from Nicaragua - a symbolic move the US described as "reckless".

Ousted Honduran President Zalaya returns to Capital

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 00:39:00 +0000

“ [We travelled] for more than 15 hours... through rivers and mountains
”
Manuel Zelaya Ousted Honduran President

TIMELINE: ZELAYA OUSTED

Charles Darwin film 'too controversial for religious America'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:50:00 +0000

Anita Singh, Showbusiness Editor
Telegraph UK
Septembber 11 2009

A British film about Charles Darwin has failed to find a US distributor because his theory of evolution is too controversial for American audiences, according to its producer.

Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin's "struggle between faith and reason" as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.

* Creation: Review, background and the facts

The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Movieguide.org, an influential site which reviews films from a Christian perspective, described Darwin as the father of eugenics and denounced him as "a racist, a bigot and an 1800s naturalist whose legacy is mass murder". His "half-baked theory" directly influenced Adolf Hitler and led to "atrocities, crimes against humanity, cloning and genetic engineering", the site stated.

The film has sparked fierce debate on US Christian websites, with a typical comment dismissing evolution as "a silly theory with a serious lack of evidence to support it despite over a century of trying".

Jeremy Thomas, the Oscar-winning producer of Creation, said he was astonished that such attitudes exist 150 years after On The Origin of Species was published.

"That's what we're up against. In 2009. It's amazing," he said.

"The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.

"It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules.

"Charles Darwin is, I suppose, the hero of the film. But we tried to make the film in a very even-handed way. Darwin wasn't saying 'kill all religion', he never said such a thing, but he is a totem for people."

Creation was developed by BBC Films and the UK Film Council, and stars Bettany's real-life wife Jennifer Connelly as Darwin's deeply religious wife, Emma. It is based on the book, Annie's Box, by Darwin's great-great-grandson, Randal Keynes, and portrays the naturalist as a family man tormented by the death in 1851 of Annie, his favourite child. She is played in the film by 10-year-old newcomer Martha West, the daughter of The Wire star Dominic West.

Early reviews have raved about the film. The Hollywood Reporter said: "It would be a great shame if those with religious convictions spurned the film out of hand as they will find it even-handed and wise."

Mr Thomas, whose previous films include The Last Emperor and Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence, said he hoped the reviews would help to secure a distributor. In the UK, special screenings have been set up for Christian groups.

Interview with two ex-US soldiers in combat in Venezuela

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:13:00 +0000

Eva Golinger
September 8, 2009

"Venezuela is the one spot in the world where there is optimism."

Interview with Josh Simpson and Benji Lewis, two ex US soldiers who fought in combat in Iraq and now publicly oppose Washington’s Global War on Terror

Eva Golinger (EG): Why did you join the Armed Forces in the United States?

Josh: I was really interested in history, in a patriotic sense, World War II, Vietnam.

EG: A romantic vision?

Josh: Yes, even Vietnam, I thought it was a one time thing. I didn’t know about CIA involvement in Latin America, or Mossadegh – that’s common, most people from the US don’t know those things, especially when you are 17. I ended up joining the military also for economic reasons. I joined in July 2001 and was in basic training when Sept. 11th happened, and everything changed.

EG: What did you think?

Josh: I was nervous but excited. I happened to join the military when something big in history was happening. I didn’t understand why 9/11 happened, why we were attacked. I guess that people just hated us for being for Americans. If I had to go to war to defend my country I was totally prepared to do that. I didn’t end up going to Afganistan because I was in the second striker brigade, and so by the time I ended up going to Iraq I was already against the war. Today I believe they are all imperialist wars, but then I didn’t support the war, but figured I would still go because I had to go and I didn’t know people were resisting.

EG: Do you mean soldiers resisting or people against the war?

Josh: I didn’t know there was an anti-war movement. I was in the desert in California on a military base, and in the military we never knew there was a huge opposition to the war in the US, the media didn’t cover it. I think there were tactical errors made in the US by the antiwar movement, if people would have stopped military shipments from leaving the country instead of just marching in the streets, if people would have blocked railroad tracks and ports, this war would have never started.

EG: Benji, why did you join the military?

Benji: I came from a military family. I was encouraged by my mother and father join. I joined the military to help people. I entered boot camp in the Marine Corp in March 2003. I was 17 ½ years old. Once I joined I realized it was a bad idea and thought, what did I do?

EG: When the war started?

Benji: As I was in bootcamp the invasion was happening and we would see video clips of it set to heavy metal music to get us riled up. It was disturbing. Before every class in bootcamp they would show videos of people getting shot, killed, set to heavy metal music, and then as we were invading Fallujah, the PSYOPS (pyschological operations) units weren’t pointing the speakers at the people in Fallujah, they were pointing the speakers at us, playing the same music as they did in bootcamp. I distinctly remember being agitated and edgy before we invaded the city. It became clear to me that military indoctrination is much deeper than it appears to be on the surface.

EG: When did you go to Iraq, Josh?

Josh: September 2004 to September 2005.

EG: What did you think when you were going there?

Josh: I was against the war but at the same time figured we already started the war and so should see it through and help the country rebuild. It was hard to think about. I was in charge of interrogations in Irak. And Source Operations, running sources to get information. I was in Mosul, Iraq. In Iraq, 95% of those detained and interrogated were innocent. The interrogations agitate the population against you. If they weren’t terrorists or insurgents when detained, they will be afterward! The reason why 95% are innocent and still detained is because the way to measure succes in Iraq, unlike in Vietnam where it was a body count, is based on the number of detainees. It doesn’t matter if they are women or children or innocent. I didn’t participate in physical torture and beat detainees. But I did participate in psychological torture.

EG: But you knew torture took place?

Josh: I saw the victims of the torture. The bruises and lashes all over their bodies came from somewhere. We would send the detainees to the Iraqi Army and Kurdish Militia that were working with us and they would do the torture for us. I had concerns about that especially because torture doesn’t work well for getting information.

EG: Benji, you were in Fallujah during the Blackwater scandal?

Benji: Right after. I was sent to Fallujah and there was excitement because it was right after the Blackwater scandal and we were on a mission of revenge. No one told us what had really happened except that US citizens had been killed by the Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah. So I was excited because I was going to be in a mortar unit and would be able to do what I was trained to do, we were going to utilize our mortars. We thought we were going to Fallujah to neutralize an insurrection, but they didn’t tell us that the entire city had already been bombed by the US for about a week and a third of the population was already displaced or dead. We were being told that this was a mission of revenge, we didn’t know they were Blackwater mercenaries that had been killed, we were told they were just US citizens. Several batallions of marines were unleashed on the city from every angle. It was a seige. There were thousands of us that assaulted Fallujah. We surrounded them and cut off their electricity and water, we bombed Mosques.

EG: The military wasn’t giving the soldiers any kind of information?

Benji: Hearts and Minds is double rhetoric. You have to first control the hearts and minds of the troops committing these atrocities before sending them to war. You have to lie to them otherwise you can’t fight these kinds of wars.

EG: How did you perceive the resistance of the Iraqi people?

Josh: They were terrorists, radical, islamic fundamentalists, not people fighting for their country, that’s what we were told.

Benji: The military indoctrination is so sophisticated – you are even cut off from members of your own batallion, you can’t ask questions, the only thing that matters is to protect yourself and your batallion. There are no politics. The first thing you learn is not to question, keep your thoughts to yourself.

EG: Didn’t you know it was a war for oil?

Benji: The only reason you are there is to protect the person to the left and right of you. Everyone knew about the oil but your only mission is staying alive and keeping your friends alive.

Josh: You think you’re helping the Iraqis. That’s what you’re told.

EG: Why did you leave the military?

Josh: I was active duty for 5 years then I signed up for another 3 years as a reservist. I didn’t want to go back to Irak. I was told that if you join the reserves you can get a nice bonus and you won’t be deployed for two years. I was naive thinking the war in Irak would be over in two years.

EG: Why would you join the reserves and train people to go to war in Iraq if you were against the war?

Josh: I justified that by thinking I was keeping them safe by training them well. They had to go anyway. But it got to a point when I couldn’t look myself in the mirror anymore, I was disgusted with myself. I was basically stuck in a moral dilemna. I want to be proud of my actions, proud of what I am doing, but honestly, I wasn’t. I started college at the same time. I was studying political economy at Evergreen University, learning about US imperialism.

EG: Did people in your class know you were in the military? What did they say to you?

Josh: Yes, but people knew I was opposed to the war.

Benji: The “support the troops” campaign has altered everyone’s perception.

Josh: I’m actually opposed to that campaign. People should have been more confrontational with the troops.

EG: Like in Vietnam.

Benji: The “support the troops” campaign was engineered to allow for indirect acceptance of the war.

Josh: People are scared to criticize the troops, it’s considered the most blasphemous thing in the world. At the same time, if you are never criticized than you will never know that what you are doing is wrong.

Benji: You can’t criticize the troops. It’s a poverty draft, these kids just do it because they have no other way out of poverty.

Josh: But you have to criticize them, because they will say they are just following orders, but that’s bullshit, the Nazis were just following orders too. The military is fascist, it’s basically blind, unquestioning obedience. Then they try to tell you that the blind obedience is some form of courage and bravery. It’s much easier to go with the current than against it. While I was at Evergreen I was learning something different than what I was told in the military. I got to the point where morally I couldn’t just be opposed to the war, I also couldn’t even participate in the military or train other soldiers to go kill people in a racist war. I was told in January 2008 that I was going to be deployed to Irak and I decided I wasn’t going to go back. I was already speaking out against the war and blocking military shipments, I was active in direct action against the war. I was building barricades in the streets of Olympia to block military shipments from going out of the US ports to Irak, and for the first time I felt like I was fighting for something I actually believed in. It makes me cry to think about this. I was in the military for five years and never had the chance to fight for something I believed in.

Benji: Which is why you join the military, to fight for something you believe in!

Josh: The fact that I was finally fighting for something I believed in, against the war, was such a great feeling. I joined Iraq Veterans Against the War and other resistance groups against the war. I helped start the GI coffee house, Coffee Strong. The GI coffee house is right off the military base Fort Lewis in Washington.

EG: Benji, why did you leave the military?

Benji: After my first tour in Iraq I was disillusioned and after my second deployment it was obvious. We referred to our ourselves as occupiers. When I got back from the second tour I was convinced that I wouldn’t go back. I volunteered to be an Urban Combat Instructor. I trained several urban combat batallions and one of my teams ended up in Haditha, massacring hundreds of innocent Iraquis in a 3-day exercise. That’s on my conscience. And it’s really sad, people in the marine corp are doing cocaine before morning exercises. After a year, I decided I didn’t want to go back to Irak. I had no idea there was a resistance movement. When you get out, you want to put it all behind you. You don’t want to think about it, you don’t want to remember it, you just want to live a small, quiet life.

Benji: I moved to Oregon and met people from Veterans for Peace. I learned that you don’t have to go back, you can resist. I joined Courage to Resist and I began to broaden my work and speak out against the wars in Afganistan and Iraq.

EG: Why did you come to Venezuela?

Benji: South America is in a position to resist the economic collapse in the US. We also have plans to set up a safety net for friends and people in the US in case the US does turn into a bigger police state domestically. If there is a larger war coming on the planet the people have to choose sides and this is the side I want to be on.

Josh: Venezuela is the one spot in the world where there is optimism. This country is moving in a good direction. In Venezuela there is a lot of really great work going on.

EG: What would you say to the Venezuelan people about the US military buildup in Colombia?

Josh: Be prepared. Neighborhood and popular militias are the most effective way to deter the US – it’s working in Irak, and Afganistan. People with rifles can hold out forever. You’re not going to be able to defeat the US military with tanks and airplanes because they have more than all countries in the world combined. Live up to the creed, socialismo o muerte! Capitalism is in a major state of decline and it’s going to lash out. We have to fight it however we can, it’s the only way to exist. If Venezuela was attacked, and there was an Abraham Lincoln Brigade to defend Venezuela, I would come here in a heartbeat.

Benji: To me it’s obvious the US is gunning for Latin America. Latin America is one big resource for the US, that’s all they see, they see the people as a nuisance. The only thing the US is good at is invading other countries, that’s the only export the US still has, invasion.

Josh: It’s the war that never ends.

PROFILES

• Josh Simpson, 27 years old, was a Sargeant in the US Army Counterintelligence Division. He was in charge of interrogations and source operations in Mosul, Iraq from 2004-2005. His actions resulted indirectly in the deaths of hundreds of Iraquis. Today, Josh is the president of the Fort Lewis Chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War and is co-founder of Coffee Strong, a GI Coffee Shop that seeks to mobilize soldiers against the war. Josh earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Economy from Evergreen University in 2008 and is pursuing a Master’s Degree in Teaching at the same institution. He speaks across the US against the war and US imperialism and is very active in blocking military shipments from leaving the US as a form of direct action war resistance.

• Benji Lewis, 24 years old, is an ex Marine Infantry soldier who did two tours in Iraq, both to Fallujah from 2004-2005. His M-16 mortars killed over 500 people in Fallujah during a three month period. Today, Benji is an outspoken anti-war, anti-Empire activist in Oregon. He is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War and Courage to Resist. He speaks throughout the US against the war and organizes soldiers to resist deployment to Iraq and Afganistan. Benji is studying English Literature and Philosophy at Lynn-Benton Community College in Corvallis, Oregon and plans to learn Spanish.

This interview was conducted during their first visit to Venezuela as part of an anti-war, pro-peace delegation from the Portland Latin America Solidarity Coalition.

A Time to Unite and March Together

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:26:00 +0000

Fidel Castro
September 6, 2009
(Translation by Socialist Voice)

“The establishment of seven U.S. military bases in Colombia poses a direct threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the other peoples of South and Central America with which our national heroes dreamed of creating the great Latin American homeland.”

U.S. Air Base at Manta, Ecuador to be eliminated when its 30 year lease expires in 2009
(Photo: Defendamerica.mil)

This Reflection is addressed not to the governments but to the fraternal peoples of Latin America.

Tomorrow, August 28, the summit of UNASUR [Union of South American Nations] will convene in Argentina, and its significance cannot be overlooked. The conference must analyze the granting of seven military bases in Colombian territory to the U.S. superpower. The two governments kept their preparatory discussions a rigorous secret, so that the accord could be presented to the world as a fait accompli.

In the early morning hours of March 1, 2008, the Colombian Armed Forces – trained and equipped by the United States – attacked with precision bombs a guerrilla group which had entered a remote area of the Ecuadorian territory. At dawn, airborne elite Colombian troops occupied the small camp, killed the wounded and carried off with them the dead body of guerrilla leader Raul Reyes.

Apparently, he had been meeting with young visitors from other countries who were interested in the experience of the guerrillas engaged in armed struggle since the death of Liberal leader Jorge Eliécer Gaitán more than 50 years ago. Among the victims were college students from Mexico and Ecuador; they were not carrying weapons. It was a brutal action in Yankee style. The government of Ecuador had not received any advance notice of the attack.

This event was a humiliating action against the small and heroic South American nation engaged in a democratic political process. Suspicion is strong that the U.S. air base of Manta [in Ecuador] had supplied information and cooperated with the aggressors. President Rafael Correa made the brave decision to demand the return of the territory occupied by the Manta military base, in strict compliance with the terms of the military agreement with the United States, and recalled his ambassador from Bogotá.

photo on the left: Demostration Against the air field in Colombia

Seven U.S. bases in Colombia
The concession of territory for the establishment of seven U.S. military bases in Colombia poses a direct threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the other peoples of South and Central America with which our national heroes dreamed of creating the great Latin American homeland.

The Yankee imperialism is a hundred times more powerful than the colonial empires of Spain and Portugal, and a complete stranger to the origin, customs, and culture of our peoples.

It is not a matter of narrow chauvinism. “Homeland is humanity,” as Martí stated, but never under the domination of an empire which has imposed a bloody tyranny on the world. This is demonstrated beyond question in our own hemisphere by the hundreds of thousands of Latin American compatriots who were killed, tortured, and secretly murdered in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and other countries of Our America through the past five decades by coups d’état and other actions promoted or supported by the United States.

Cynical pretexts
As I analyze the arguments of the United States to try to justify the granting of military bases in Colombian territory, I can only characterize its pretexts as cynical. The U.S. claims that these bases are needed to aid the struggle against drug trafficking, terrorism, arms trafficking, illegal migration, the possession of weapons of mass destruction, nationalist outbursts, and natural disasters.

This powerful country is the largest drug purchaser and consumer on the planet. An analysis of the paper money circulating in the U.S. capital, Washington, has shown that 95 per cent of the bills have been in the hands of drug consumers. The U.S. is the largest market for and the main supplier of weapons to organized crime in Latin America, the same weapons that have killed tens of thousands of people every year south of its own borders.

It is the largest terrorist state that has ever existed. It dropped bombs on the civilian cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and caused the death of millions of people with such imperialist wars as those carried out against Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries located thousands of miles away. What is more, it is also the largest producer and holder of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons of mass destruction.

The Colombian paramilitary, many of them former members of the Armed Forces, are part of their reserves and are the drug-traffickers’ best allies and protectors.

The so-called civilian personnel that would accompany the troops in the Colombian bases are, as a rule, expertly trained former American soldiers hired by such private companies as Blackwater, widely known for its crimes in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

A country with self-respect needs no U.S. mercenaries, troops, or military bases to fight drug trafficking, protect the people in case of natural disasters or to provide humanitarian cooperation to other peoples.

Cuba is a country that does not have a drug problem or high rates of violent deaths – in fact the rate of such deaths decreases every year.

Threat to all Latin America
The only purpose of these bases for the United States is to place Latin America within reach of its troops in a matter of hours. The top military commanders of Brazil were very upset by the unexpected news of the agreement to establish U.S. military bases in Colombia. The Palanquero base is very close to the Brazilian border.

These bases and those in the Islas Malvinas [Falkland Islands], Paraguay, Peru, Honduras, Aruba, Curacao and others leave not a single location in Brazil and the rest of South America beyond reach of the U.S. Southern Command. Using its most advanced carrier aircraft, it can be on the spot within hours with troops and sophisticated combat equipment.

The best experts on the subject have provided all necessary data to prove the military scope of the Yankee-Colombian accord. This program, including the reactivation of the Fourth Fleet, was designed by Bush and inherited by the current U.S. administration. Some South American leaders are asking due clarification of U.S. military policy in Latin America. Nuclear aircraft-carriers are not required to combat drugs.

The most immediate objective of that plan is to eliminate the Bolivarian revolutionary process and to assure U.S. control over Venezuela’s oil and other natural resources. Moreover, the empire does not accept the competition of new emerging economies in its backyard or the existence of truly independent countries in Latin America. And it counts on the reactionary oligarchy, the fascist Right, and its control over the most important media, both internally and externally. It will never grant support to anything resembling true equity and social justice.

The Latin American migration to the United States is the consequence of underdevelopment, the result of U.S. plundering of our countries and of unequal exchange with the industrialized countries.

Mexico was forcibly removed from Latin America through the Free Trade Agreement with the United States and Canada. Most of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA are Mexicans, as are most of the hundreds who perish every year along the fence separating these nations.

Amid the current international economic crisis, the rate of extreme poverty in Mexico – a country with a population of 107 million – has reached 18 per cent, while more than half of the population lives in poverty.

Martí’s insight
During the life of Marti, the apostle of our independence, his major source of concern was annexation to the United States. After 1889 he became aware that this was the greatest danger for Latin America. He always dreamed of the Grand Homeland, from the Rio Bravo to Patagonia; and he died for it and for Cuba.

On January 10, 1891 he published an essay in the New York Illustrated Review under the title “Our America,” in which he wrote the unforgettable words, “The trees must form ranks to hold back the giant with seven-league boots! It is the time to gather and to march together, as closely united as the veins of silver at the roots of the Andes.”

Four years later, after his landing at Playitas in the eastern province of Cuba, territory held by the insurrectionists, he met on May 2, 1895, with the Herald journalist George E. Bryson, who told him that, in an interview with the celebrated General Arsenio Martinez Campos, the Spanish officer had said that he would rather surrender Cuba to the United States than accept its independence.

Marti was so impressed by the news that on May 18 he sent his Mexican friend Manuel Mercado the renowned posthumous letter where he wrote of “the road that is to be blocked off, and is being blocked off by our blood – the road of annexing our American nations to the brutal and turbulent North, which despises them.”

The following day, heedless of the advice of General Máximo Gomez, who advised that he should stay with the rearguard, he asked his assistant for a revolver and charged on a well-positioned Spanish force. He died in combat.

“I have lived in the monster and I know its entrails,” he wrote in his last letter.

(published in CubaDebate,1 August 27, 2009. Socialist Voice translation based on a translation published in the Cuban newspaper Granma2.)

Oliver Stone heads 'South of the Border' to chat up Chavez and others

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:12:00 +0000

Reed Johnson
Los Angels Times
September 1, 2009

The director's new documentary seeks to change U.S. perceptions of South America's leftist leaders.

South of the Border
Directed by Oliver Stone
Produced by Oliver Stone
Written by Tariq Ali
Cinematography Carlos Marcovich, Albert Maysles
Editing by Alexis Chavez
Release date(s) September, 2009
Running time 102 minutes
Country United States
Language English

In his new documentary "South of the Border," Oliver Stone is shown warmly embracing Hugo Chávez, nibbling coca leaves with Evo Morales and gently teasing Cristina Elizabeth Fernández de Kirchner about how many pairs of shoes she owns.

These amiable, off-the-cuff snapshots of the presidents of Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina, respectively, contrast with the way these left-leaning leaders often are depicted in U.S. political and mass media circles. That's especially true of Chávez, the former military officer turned democratically elected socialist leader, who has become the ideological heir apparent to Fidel Castro and the bête noire of Bush administration foreign policy officials.

In setting out to make "South of the Border," which is scheduled to have its world premiere this week at the Venice Film Festival, Stone, a lightning-rod figure himself for the better part of three decades, says that he wanted to supply a counterpoint to the prevailing U.S. image of Chávez, who's frequently represented in stateside op-ed pieces and political cartoons as a bellicose dictator-cum-comic opera figure.

"I think he's an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He's open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character," says the director of "JFK" and "Wall Street," speaking by phone from New York, where he's working on a much-publicized "Wall Street" sequel. "But when I go back to the States I keep hearing these horror stories about 'dictator,' 'bad guy,' 'menace to American society.' I think the project started as something about the American media demonizing Latin leaders. It became more than that as we got more involved."

In addition to Chávez, Stone sought to flesh out several other South American leaders whose policies and personalities generally get scant media attention in the United States and Europe: Morales; Cristina Kirchner and her husband, Argentine former president Néstor Kirchner; Rafael Correa of Ecuador; Raúl Castro of Cuba; Fernando Lugo Méndez of Paraguay; and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil.

"The press in America, I think you're aware, has divided the Latin continent into the 'bad Left' and the 'good Left,' " Stone says. "They've now listed Correa as the bad Left, along with Morales and with Chávez. They call . . . Lula, the good Left. I don't know what they make of Kirchner yet, because they go back and forth, but I think they're turning against Kirchner more and more. You get this distinction, and I think it's a false distinction."

Both Stone and the film's writer, the Pakistani-British historian, novelist and commentator Tariq Ali, say that the roughly 90-minute documentary isn't intended to be a comprehensive analysis of current South American political trends. It doesn't try to parse the radically divergent views of a figure as polarizing as Chávez. Nor does it substantially address the ongoing criticisms of his incendiary rhetoric (he once called Bush the devil), his frequent dust-ups with Venezuela's opposition media (which supported a 2002 coup against him), or his disputed role in aiding leftist rebels fighting the government of neighboring Colombia.

"We had not set out in the spirit of, like, making this a contentious debate," says Stone, who first met the Venezuelan president in 2007. "When you try to get into every single rightist argument against Chávez, you're never going to win. You're going to bore the audience."

Instead, the filmmakers decided to make what Ali calls "a political road movie" by visiting Chávez's peers throughout the hemisphere and asking what they think of him. Stone and his crew travel from the Caribbean down the spine of the Andes trying to explain the Chávez phenomenon and account for the continent's recent leftward tilt.

A big part of the explanation the film advances is that the free-market economic policies pushed by the U.S. and the International Monetary Fund over the last several years largely have failed to alleviate Latin America's chronic income inequality. The film suggests that financial calamities such as the Argentine peso collapse of 2001, combined with Latin suspicions of U.S. drug-eradication efforts and resentment over the selling off of natural resources through multinational companies, also have contributed to the rise of socialist and social-democratic leaders across the region.

Ali believes that many United States foreign policy officials still are operating on a Cold War paradigm that prevents them from grasping the changing social realities that have brought a new generation of politicians to power.

"These changes that are taking place are not coming about through armed struggle or guerrilla warfare or Che Guevara," Ali says, speaking from London. "All these changes have come about through democratic elections. And that makes it a very, very significant development in that continent."

For some viewers and critics, the political nuances in "South of the Border" may register less than the sight of Stone playfully kicking a soccer ball with Morales or listening empathetically as Chávez articulates his dream of spreading what he calls his "Bolivarian Revolution" across the continent. Stone was roundly criticized for taking too chummy a tone with Fidel Castro in his 2003 documentary "Comandante." He then produced a harder-edged follow-up, "Looking for Fidel," in which he pressed the Cuban leader about his treatment of dissidents and other sensitive matters.

In an era when few Hollywood directors bother to deal with historical or political topics at all, Stone frequently has been targeted for playing loose with historical facts in movies including "JFK" and "Alexander," about Alexander the Great. On this score, he vigorously defends his record.

"You do your homework, you do your research, we always did, whatever you think of my work," he says. "Even going back to 'JFK,' I've always done as much research as we could. And there's mistakes made, but there's a lot of truth, you know, as much as we can put into these movies."

He's alert to accusations of "being soft-hearted or human-hearted" to politicians with whom he sympathizes. But he freely acknowledges where his sympathies lie in "South of the Border."

"I'm rooting for this Bolivarian movement," he says. "I'm rooting for their independence because I think that America has a new role to play in this world, and that's not of an oppressor, but that of a cooperative and, let's call it equal, partner."

The director says that the broader theme behind "South of the Border," and much of his other film work, is the question of "why does America reach out to make enemies." He plans to develop this theme in a 10-part cable TV documentary series "The Secret History of America" that is scheduled to premiere in 2010.

"I'm fascinated by that subject, whether it's the Taliban or whether it's Iran or whether it's South Vietnam, going back to those days," Stone says. "As a young man I [was] brainwashed into believing we had enemies left and right. And now that I've traveled the world, I mean you have to wonder why. Why do we constantly do this? Where is this paranoia born in us?"

Official Trailer : South of the Border

Struggle in Iran

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 15:41:00 +0000

Field, Place, Trajectory
Milad S.
Khiaban No. 36
August 11, 2009

This is a translation of another analytical article by Milad S., a regular contributor to the Khiaban (The Street) newspaper. This article was first published in Khiaban #36 (August 11, 2009).

1. September
We are witnessing a gradual transformation and redirecting of the slogans. It took less than two months for the people to move from the annulment of the elections to the collective realization that the real nature and the legal framework of this republic are the real obstacles in the way of the movement. The more elaborate forms of mass meetings, organization of thousands of small cells, the increase in capabilities for printing and distributing nightly fliers and news bulletins -- these are all indicative of a widened field for movement. With the joining in of different regions, the movement is also redefined at each stage: the widening of the local protests against Naziabad, 17th of Shahrivar (southern neighborhood of Tehran with a dominantly poor population), is an example of the spreading of the struggle from neighborhood to neighborhood.

Alongside the evolving field of struggle and the spreading of movement from one neighborhood, one place to another, the trajectory and the possible horizons of this movement too undergo changes. The widening of the popular protests is not merely quantitative, just as the rising number of organized groups or the increased facility in printing and distributing two-page night fliers are not merely an improved dissemination of the news. The slogans and the forms of dissent as well as the demands being raised can encompass yet larger segments of the material social reality. This is a movement in which we can already see the capability for the claims, and the inevitability of returning to the basic demands, of the 1978-79 revolution. The experience of the period of 1977-81 means understanding solidarity as organized popular demands. Along this trajectory, the process of popular self-organization at any given place, the communists walk alongside the people.

If the people gradually reach the conclusion that the corrupt police patrols are not protectors of the people but aggressors against their lives and livelihoods, the worst kind of hoodlums, and if they realize from their own practical experience that self-management over their local affairs is a better guarantee for more security, peace and human life; then this practical realization and the end of the humiliation, will mean the practical discovery of a common cause. The experience of the winter of 1357 (late 1978- early 1979), the spectacular fall of criminality, the practical distribution of needed goods in different neighborhoods, particularly in working class and southern districts of cities, all are experiences still remembered today due not only to the mass mobilization of the people but especially due to people's foresight in forming neighborhood committees. The communists stand alongside the people so that this time around nobody shall hijack these committees in the name of ideology or for any particular economic interests.

2. Communists
"Communists" means the collective practice of all those working for connecting the mass struggle for particular and localized demands, with social justice as their horizon, and with a belief in the possibility of self-management/control in places of work and living. Based on these principles communists expend effort in organizing the laboring forces and the people. Acting among the people, in small groups, means multiplying the communist ideals. I believe that this definition helps best in overcoming many obstacles. Communism is an old ideal. In this land of Iran, those in the Mazdaki insurrection (c. 496 AD) were among the forerunners of this ideal. This ideal is based on a single thought: By sharing the collectively produced wealth, by participation of all in the running of society, we will achieve social justice, legal and real equality, and the possibility of growth and freedom for each individual, regardless of color, creed or religion.

This old ideal, with the dawn of capitalism and the development of culture and sciences, nowadays is not only a possible vantage point, but a necessary way out of the existing misery. Our world does not have much forte left for speculative total destruction and private benefit of a few. It is enough to look at the torched earth of Africa, abandoned by Capital, or to look at the destroyed environments in Iran or all over the world. This ideal, today more than ever, is attainable; it is enough to just see that humanity today has achieved levels of science and innovation unparalleled in human history. Production and intellect are intimately connected. Even for farming a plot of land, you need at least some years of schooling. Such were inconceivable only two hundred years ago. The fact that capitalism had a progressive role in this development is not disputed, at least not by communists who have read Marx. The point, though, is that this progressive function is relative and historical, not eternal. And the last two hundred years have shown clearly that Capital's governing logic is today not only insufficient and unfeasible, but is in fact a detriment to both creativity and people's wellbeing. Shantytowns and slums, governance by corruption, torture camps such as Kahrizak and Aslavié industrial complex (a remote petro-industrial complex, infamous for its inhuman working conditions_ trans. note), the Basiji's, and the last thirty years of Iranian history, all attest to this.

Furthermore, I think that the specific form for struggle should be a function of the ideal. Political parties were one of the basic forms in the struggles during the 20th century. Political party formation in its widest social sense, not only in Iran but in the majority of places in the world, was synonymous to communists’ commitment. This, however, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean that this form is extra-historical. Based on historical conditions, and the dominant social relations, including security considerations, we must responsibly ask: Is this form efficient today, does it contribute to multiplication and dissemination of the communist ideal and to organization of the people?

3. Analysis for doing what?
I think that the criteria for any concept, be it grand or small, about the world, the era or Iran, is the conjectural conclusions of the communists' efforts and organizing experience; otherwise, abstract thinking will waste your labor, and academism will have us happily busy with rearranging and recomposing successive draft evaluatings. Understanding capital's mechanisms and dynamics, understanding the present antagonisms and the current movement's place within the world and the region, all these must be discussions and arguments that, just like tools of labor, aim at societal intervention. So, perhaps the most appropriate thing to do is to ask questions whose meaningful absence is an obstacle in the path of the new generation of communists.

Will the mercantilist capitalists, those in the House of Trade [Otaaqh-e Baazargaani] and Merchants' Associations [Hey'ate Mo'talefe], still exist if this state falls, or will they perish? Why will they perish? If the state were their representative and not the other way around, why would their existence be dependent on that state? Why is it that for the last thirty years, except for the war years, we have faced a constant and increasing growth of the service sector, educational sector, and financial capital? What is the exact nature of the foundations [bonyaad's_ government run, formally 'private' corporations run crony-capitalist style _ trans. note] and the Revolutionary Guards? Why is it that the Iranian banking system can be bankrupt, according to the official sources of the regime itself, yet some capitalists, whom some friends have generously given the honorary label of bourgeoisie, exist? Why didn’t they react? Is it because it is still a weakling of a class, in transition? If that is the case, then where does all this huge volume of liquidity in circulation come from, where does it become capital, and where does it go; where is the circulation of capital?

The experiential givens and tangible facts, which fit our lived experiences and are observable in the available data, must be relevant for our analyses. Why have some friends fallen so in love with "Iran's transition from something to something," or with "Iran's capitalist malformation"? Malformation can only mean that there is a prototype somewhere else. I think one problem is the frequently misunderstood phrase, 'a capitalist society'. Nowhere on earth is the society limited to capitalism, nor is capitalism a laboratory experimental phenomenon. Capital has its own logic, which is fundamentally alien to human considerations. It is the closed circuit of production, distribution and accumulation: neither humans nor their environment find any place in its calculations, unless they are factors for increase or stabilization of the rate of profit. The civil legal codes of a European society (if this is what the notion of malformed Iranian capitalism refers to) is not the exact copy of capital's logic, but the outcome of a long struggle between capital and the laboring forces, affecting the legal institutions of those societies.

Also, analysis must not be merely a 'know-it-all' type of expression. The objective is to better understand how Ahmadinejads can be reproduced in the heart of this society, and how these creatures and the state apparatus is connected to the world capitalist system. And from those two questions, firstly to arrive at conclusions that make it impossible for a system of oppression to exist, and secondly to designate the material conditions of possibility for communism.

In a forthcoming writing, I will return to these questions. In the current situation, I believe that the most important principle must be the readiness, with open eyes, to accompany the movement and to render blunt and ineffective the dreadful and oppressive violence. Wherever the machinery of oppression thinks they have driven us back, we have just avoided the range of their bullets, in order to set up new spaces in our next steps. The cooperation of the street and work place, the neighborhoods and places of work will change the directions taken by the movement. The changes of direction, in order to become stable forms of self-management, will need the knowledge and the effort of those who, in practice, believe in freedom and people's equality, regardless of color or creed.

Venezuela: Class Struggle Heats up over Battle for Workers’ Control

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 21:45:00 +0000

Federico Fuentes
Green Left Weekly
July 26th 2009

Federico Fuentes, Caracas - Green Left Weekly - On July 22, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez again declared his complete support for the proposal by industrial workers for a new model of production based on workers' control.

This push from Chavez, part of the socialist revolution, aims at transforming Venezuela's basic industry. However, it faces resistance from within the state bureaucracy and the revolutionary movement.

Presenting his government's "Plan Socialist Guayana 2009-2019", Chavez said the state-owned companies in basic industry have to be transformed into "socialist companies".

The plan was the result of several weeks of intense discussion among revolutionary workers from the Venezuelan Corporation of Guayana (CVG). The CVG includes 15 state-owned companies in the industrial Guayana region involved in steel, iron ore, mineral and aluminium production.

The workers' roundtables were established after a May 21 workshop, where industrial workers raised radical proposals for the socialist transformation of basic industry.

Chavez addressed the workshop in support of many of the proposals.

But events between the May 21 workshop and Chavez's July 22 recent announcement reveal much of the nature of the class struggle inside revolutionary Venezuela.

Chavez's announcement is part of an offensive launched after the revolutionary forces won the February 15 referendum on the back of a big organisational push that involved hundreds of thousands of people in the campaign.

The vote was to amend the constitution to allow elected officials to stand for re-election - allowing Chavez, the undisputed leader of the Venezuelan revolution, to stand for president in 2012.

With oil revenue drying up due to the global economic crisis, the government is using this new position of strength to tackle corruption and bureaucracy, while increasing state control over strategic economic sectors. This aims to ensure the poor are not made to pay for the crisis.

Workers' control
On May 21, Chavez publicly threw his lot in with the Guayana workers, announcing his government's granting of demands for better conditions in state-owned companies and the nationalisation of a number of private companies whose workers were involved in industrial disputes.

"When the working class roars, the capitalists tremble", Chavez told the

To chants of "this is how you govern!", Chavez announced his agreement with a series of measures proposed by workers.

However, like an old train that begins to rattle loudly as it speeds up, more right-wing sectors within the revolutionary movement also began to tremble.

With each new attack against the political and economic power that the capitalist class still holds in Venezuela - and uses to destabilise the country - the revolution is also forced to confront internal enemies.

The radical measures announced at the May 21 workshop were the result of the workers discussion over the previous two days.

Chavez called on workers to wage an all-out struggle against the "mafias" rife in the management of state companies.

The workers of SIDOR conducted a long and hard struggle against the Argentinean multinational Techin.

Chavez then designated planning minister Jorge Giordani and labour minister Maria Cristina Iglesias, who both played a key role in the workshop, to follow up these decisions by establishing a series of workers' roundtables in the CVG industries.

The CVG complex is on the verge of collapse in large part due to the privatisation push by pre-Chavez governments in the 1990s. State companies were run down in preparation to be sold off cheaply.

The workers of SIDOR conducted a long and hard struggle against the Argentinean multinational Techin.

In the Sidor steel plant, for example, the number of workers dropped from more than 30,000 to less than 15,000 before it was privatised in 1998.

Chavez's 1998 election stopped further privatisation. But the government has had to confront large scale corruption within the CVG, continued deterioration of machinery and, more recently, the sharp drop in prices of aluminium and steel.

The plan drafted up by workers and given to Chavez on June 9 raised the possibility of "converting the current structural crisis of capitalism" into "an opportunity" for workers to move forward in "the construction of socialism, by assuming in a direct manner, control over production of the basic companies in the region".

The report set out nine strategic lines - including workers' control of production; improvement of environmental and work conditions; and public auditing of companies and projects.

Measures proposed include the election of managers and management restructuring; collective decision-making by workers and local communities; the creation of workers' councils; and opening companies' books.

The measures aim to achieve "direct control of production without mediations by a bureaucratic structure".

The report said such an experience of workers' control would undoubtedly act as an example for workers in "companies in the public sector nationally, such as those linked to hydrocarbons or energy companies".

Bureaucracy bites back
Sensing the danger such an example represents to its interests, bureaucratic sections within the revolutionary movement, as well as the US-backed counter-revolutionary opposition, moved quickly to try and stop this process.

Unidentified worker holding casing from National Guard rubber bullet as Sutiss Secretary General José Rodriguez Acarigua addresses striking workers at Portón 1
Credit: Jonah Gindin - Venezuelanalysis.com

A wave of strikes and protests were organised in the aluminium sector during June and July, taking advantage of workers' disgruntlement with corrupt managers and payments owed.

The protests were organised by union leaders from both the Socialist Bolivarian Force of Workers (FSBT), a union current within the mass party led by Chavez, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), and those aligned with opposition parties such as Radical Cause.

Revolutionary workers from Guayana condemned the unholy alliance of bureaucratic union leaders and opposition political forces, which aimed to stifling the process initiated on May 21.

This alliance was supported by Bolivar governor, retired General Francisco Rangel Gomez, who called on the national government to negotiate directly with local unions.

Opinion pieces began to appear in the local press, calling on the government to once again make Rangel president of the CVG in order to bring "stability".

The alliance between Rangel and union bureaucrats in Guayana is long running.

Officially part of the Chavista camp, Rangel has long been accused of being corrupt and anti-worker. During his term as CVG president before becoming governor in 2004, Rangel built up a corrupt clientalist network with local union and business figures.

He stacked CVG management with business partners and friends.

While on the negotiation commission to resolve the 15-month long dispute at Sidor, Rangel ordered the National Guard to fire on protesting Sidor workers.

Also on the commission was then-labour minister and former FSBT union leader from Guayana, Jose Ramon Rivero, who was similarly accused by Sidor workers of siding with management.

He was also criticised for using his position as labour minister to build the FSBT's bureaucratic powerbase by promoting "parallel unions" along factional lines and splitting the revolutionary union confederation, National Union of Workers (UNT).

In April last year, Chavez disbanded the Sidor negotiation commission and sent his vice president, Ramon Carrizales to resolve the dispute by re-nationalising the steel plant.

Rivero was then sacked. Today, he works as the general secretary in Rangel's governorship.

The forces behind Rivero and Rangel hoped not only to stifle the radical proposals from the May 21 workshop, but also remove basic industry minister Rodolfo Sanz.

Sanz has moved to replace Rangel's people with his own in the CVG management.

In the recent dispute, Sanz accused aluminium workers of being responsible for the crisis in that sector. He worked to undermine the proposals of the roundtable discussions.

After several days of negotiations union leaders - essentially sidelining the workers roundtables - Sanz agreed on July 20 not only to pay the workers what they were owed, but also to restructure the board of directors in the aluminium sector.

Through this process, the radical proposals for restructuring the CVG appeared to have been push aside - which suited both Sanz and Rangel.

Revolutionary leadership
However, Chavez intervened with his July 22 announcement, which came after a meeting with key ministers and advisors involved in the May 21 socialist transformation workshop.

Thousands of workers and activists launch the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), April 19. Photo: Reuters/Jorge Silva

Chavez said his government was committed to implement the recommendations of the "Plan Socialist Guayana", placing himself clearly on the side of the workers.

He said the workers' proposals, embodied in the plan, would "guide all the new policies and concrete and specific measures that we are beginning to decide in order to consolidate a socialist platform in Guayana".

When a journalist directed her first question to Sanz regarding the plan, Chavez stepped in to respond, by-passing Sanz and handing the microphone over to Giordani, who many revolutionary workers identify as strongly committed to the process of socialist transformation.

Rangel, who had been at the May 21 workshop, was not at the July 22 meeting.

Chavez also appeared to differentiate himself from other sectors within the revolutionary movement, such as those behind the "A Grain of Maize" daily column, whose authors are linked to a political current involving oil minister Rafael Ramirez.

This current has recently been vocal in arguing that socialism simply entails state ownership and central planning from above - with minimum participation from workers.

For Chavez, state-owned companies "that continue to remain within the framework of state capitalism" have to be managed by their workers in order to become "socialist".

The Plan Socialist Guayana is Venezuela's first example of real "democratic planning from below", Chavez added.

The battle in Guayana is not over. Workers from the Alcasa aluminium plant told Green Left Weekly that management at aluminium plants met on July 25 to continue the process of restructuring agreed to by Sanz and union leaders - in direct opposition to Chavez's statements.

Other fronts of intense class conflict have opened up. Various struggles have emerged involving different forces and interests in the electricity sector, as well as the still-emerging communes, which unite the grassroots communal councils, to name a few.

A central arena of struggle is the PSUV, which is in a process of restructuring ahead of its second congress in October.

But the battle in Guayana may be one of the most decisive as it involves the largest working-class population. This is in the context of a revolution whose weakest link has been the lack of a strong, organised revolutionary workers' movement.

韓國雙龍汽車工人佔領工廠

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:05:00 +0000

(1) 命懸一線的雙龍工會強悍令重振無望
詹小洪
新民週刊
2009年07月29日

韓國的勞工運動之強悍，全球聞名。最近，韓國雙龍汽車公司又爆發了全面的勞資衝突，持續罷工了數十天。近千名工會成員(即將被解雇的雙龍員工)佔領了韓國平澤市雙龍汽車總部，在汽車生產基地安營紮寨。

7月22日，警察與罷工者之間的緊張對峙和暴力對抗。罷工者在工廠內點燃汽車輪胎，揮舞著鐵棍，向警察拋汽油彈，用同時可發射數十顆螺母釘、射程達幾十米遠的大功力彈弓射向警察，警察則舉著盾牌，動用了凝固彈(一種會讓中彈者全身臨時麻痺、身體僵硬的武器)反擊。一時間，出現了流血場面。這天，23名警察、60多名工人受傷。

雙龍上汽婚姻的四年之癢
韓國是世界第五大汽車生產國，雙龍汽車則是韓國第五大汽車生產家，鼎盛時期曾達到年產汽車20萬輛，占韓國汽車市場份額近10%。就是這樣一家以生產高級休閒車為主的知名企業，進入新世紀以來，卻一直處於危機狀態。

雙龍汽車從2003年起，就在國際市場上尋找能夠收購他們的買家。先是與中國的藍星公司洽談，未果。接著與上汽集團磋商，2004年10月28日，雙龍正式被上汽收購。

據韓國媒體報道，收購條件是：上汽以每股1萬韓元價格收購雙龍6120萬股，總共斥資6120億韓元(當時約合5億美元)，占總股份的51%。然而，當時雙龍汽車的市價每股只有7000韓元。應該說，上汽收購給了雙龍足夠的優惠。

由於上汽佔有雙龍51%股份，得以全面接手雙龍的經營權，並允諾接收雙龍的經營班子和全體員工。

5年內上汽追加投資10億美元，用於開發新車型，而且要將當時年產20萬輛汽車的規模在3年內提高到40萬輛。

同時，上汽允諾保障雙龍汽車公司的獨立經營權，繼續使用雙龍汽車的商標，並擴大雙龍汽車在中國的銷售量。

當時雙龍車在中國年銷售量只有500輛，雙方希望至少擴大到2000輛，並禁止逆向進口中國產車輛。

然而，這樁「婚姻」甚至連蜜月都不曾有過。

由於那幾年國際油價高漲，雙龍生產的主力車型都是高耗油的，導致在國際市場上競爭力下降，上汽收購後的雙龍，即便使出渾身解數，銷量也難有大的起色。2004-2008年間，雙龍公司汽車產量均未達到歷史水平。除2007年通過內部挖潛、節約成本等措施，取得115億韓元(約1000萬美元)盈利外，其餘幾年均虧損。

為了度過難關，雙龍的管理層(核心人員為上汽派遣)曾提出過「結構調整」，要裁減986名員工。然而雙龍工會強硬應對，上演過長達43天的「反對結構調整」的「玉碎罷工」(2006年7月-8月)，意即「不能同舟共濟，那就同歸於盡」。

這次罷工使雙龍少生產了15100輛車，經濟損失高達3020億韓元。

幾年來，雙龍工會對上汽頻頻「責難」。到了2008年下半年，雙龍工會對所謂「核心技術外洩」的猜疑和指控更到了無以復加地步：2008年7月 5日，韓國檢方以涉嫌「核心技術外洩」為名，搜查了雙龍汽車總部；同年12月16日，雙龍工會組織員工在中國駐韓大使館門前示威，要求中方經營班子退出。 17日，竟以「外洩技術」為由扣留中方管理人員。

幾年裡，面對雙龍工會的非難，上汽竭誠作出一定讓步(如放棄裁員計劃、增加員工福利)。

2009年1月9日，這樁「婚姻」終於走到盡頭。當雙龍再次面臨流動資金短缺，現金支付困難、而韓國政府及銀行又無動於衷不願伸出援手時，上汽無奈放棄了對雙龍的經營權，向韓國的法院申請由他們接管雙龍。

工會強悍令重振無望
韓國法院接管雙龍後，請一家名叫三逸的會計公司對該公司的財務狀況進行評估，以決定對雙龍是採取回生(重振)還是破產清盤的方案。三逸會計公司評估的結果是：雙龍目前負債1.5萬億韓元，可資產還有2.2萬億韓元。如實施回生(重振)計劃，比實行破產清盤更合理。

但是，雙龍的現狀是，近幾年汽車產量連年下降。2007年是122857輛；2008年是81445輛；2009年計劃生產5.5萬輛。今年就算完成計劃，也只達到雙龍產能(年產量20萬輛)的1/4。目前雙龍共有員工8000餘人，人工費占車價的20%，可韓國其他幾家汽車企業(現代起亞、雷諾三星、通用大宇)的人工費只佔車價的10%。雙龍的冗員顯然過多。如果8000人全體繼續僱傭，至少要保證年產量達到25萬輛。

三逸會計公司指出，雙龍回生(重振)要滿足三個前提條件：結構調整(裁員2646人，佔全體員工的37%)；銀行要提供2500億韓元援助資金；今後5年內至少要開發出6種新車型。

韓國法院接受了三逸公司提出的雙龍回生方案，任命了新的核心管理層。新管理層上任後，出售部分閒置資產，向銀行申請流動資金貸款，力主盡快推出新的車型。

然而銀行願意貸款的前提是，雙龍必須要裁員2646人。

今年4月7日，雙龍資方向工會通報了大規模「結構調整」的方案。不出意料，工會方面作出了極其強硬的應對。

5月21日開始，雙龍工會1000多名成員頭戴紅箍，高喊「取消裁員計劃，保障全體僱傭」口號，進駐廠區，全面開展罷工運動。

迄今，罷工已經兩個多月，幾乎一輛車也沒生產。

韓國政府、雙龍資方及媒體都苦口婆心勸告雙龍工會停止罷工。他們舉出一個案例：2000年大宇汽車倒閉被美國通用收購組建通用大宇時，辭退了1700多名員工。5年後，通用大宇重振了，那些被辭退的員工絕大多數重回工作崗位。

再如，最近美國通用經過結構調整，很快就重新生產了。韓國媒體呼籲雙龍工會目光放遠些，即使不為自己將來著想，也要為其他的利益相關方著想。

一要為餘下的5000多名員工著想；二要為雙龍提供零配件的中小企業、銷售雙龍汽車的部門著想。據說，除雙龍公司外，在韓國有近20萬人的生計要依靠雙龍汽車；三要為近3萬名購買了雙龍股票的小股民著想，他們眼看著手中的股票一天天貶值。

然而，雙龍工會依然我行我素。雙龍資方在萬般無奈的情況下，只得請求政府干預，派警察進廠清場，將佔據工廠的罷工者請出現場，以便迅速恢復生產。於是就發生了文章開頭描述的那一幕。

從7月22日迄今，警察與罷工者的暴力衝突幾乎天天發生，勞資政三方的磋商一天也沒停止，真是「談談打打鬧個不休」。

客觀地說，當法院正在為對雙龍是回生還是破產清盤方案舉棋不定時，雙龍工會無休止的罷工無異於提前宣判了雙龍的破產。走筆至此，筆者真為今年初上汽的果斷退出感到慶幸。■

*****
(2) 雙龍汽車勞資談判告吹民主總工會與警方發生衝突
韓聯社
2009年7月27日

韓聯社平澤7月26日電預定於25日舉行的雙龍汽車勞資談判告吹之後，民主總工會、市民、和社會團體試圖進入雙龍平澤廠，與警方發生衝突。

原定當天上午10點舉行的勞資談判，資方在1個多小時前表示不會出席談判，導致談判告吹。

資方主張：「這段時間公司已經做出許多讓步，但工會就900名解僱人員提出無薪輪休方案，再次確認了拒絕裁員的原有立場。」「工會只是在借助對話，持續其長期罷工。」

在平澤市長和國會議員的勸說下，資方當天上午表示將會盡快與工會碰頭，重啟對話，但沒有確定準確的時間。因此有分析認為，事實上談判已經決裂。

談判告吹後的下午3時許，民主總工會成員和市民及社會團體成員共7000多人（警方推測4500人），在平澤站舉行全國勞動者大會，敦促解決雙龍汽車事態，並試圖闖入雙龍平澤廠，與警方發生衝突。

警方有關負責人表示，據初步統計，當天示威者共動用500多根竹棍和600多根鐵棍，損壞了2台摩托車等的警察器物。

警方以違反關於集會及示威的法律及道路交通法等嫌疑，逮捕了30多名示威者。

*****
(3) 韓國雙龍汽車工會自製大炮與警察對抗
環球時報
2009年7月22日

據韓國《朝鮮日報》22日報道，目前非法佔據韓國雙龍汽車平澤工廠的工會成員以「自製螺絲釘大炮」、「噴火器叉車」等武裝，強烈對抗警力。韓警方說：「在工會方面使用的武器當中，最為危險的武器就是『自製螺絲釘大炮』。」據悉，其炮身長度1.2米、口徑10厘米，一旦發射，就能射出30多顆螺絲釘，射程達 400至500米。

據警方透露，工會成員在工廠內部親手製作螺絲釘大炮，到目前為止，共有3門自製螺絲釘大炮。雙龍汽車資方相關人士說：「每一次發射大炮時，出現轟鳴，感到很害怕。它的確擁有比大型鳥槍更強的威力。」警方相關人士也深表憂慮說：「7月20日，工會成員屢次發射自製螺絲釘大炮，大炮撞倒鐵防禦牆的聲音真讓人毛骨悚然。如果，近距離向警察發射時，傷勢會嚴重。」

公司方面稱，工會成員還製作了2台「噴火器叉車」。據悉，雙龍汽車工會方面擁有的非法暴力示威用品還有300個彈弓(大型彈弓槍20多個)、400個火焰瓶、1000根鋼管等。不是拿在手裡發射，而是固定在建築物上發射的大型彈弓射程達到200 至300米。據推測，作為彈弓彈丸使用的螺母、螺栓數量達9萬多個。

因雙龍汽車工會方面用彈弓亂射，20日有4名資方職員受傷。其中，被約重120克的螺絲釘打到額頭右側的金某到醫院縫了9針。金某說：「上午10時 45分許，在主樓前面的停車場參加集會後回去時遭到螺絲釘襲擊。」停車場距塗裝廠有150米左右。他說：「由於流血過多，在同事的攙扶下去了醫院。要是打到眼睛，可能會失明。」工會成員在樓頂放置了300多個汽車輪胎配件「鋁輪」，作為攻擊接近工廠的警察的武器。警方稱：「由於僅在塗裝2廠就有8400升稀料，因此只要有多少空瓶，就能做多少火焰瓶。」

Why Promote Constitutional Reform? A Zelaya Government Text

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 01:21:00 +0000

"Honduras Coup 2009" blog
http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/
Monday, July 27, 2009

The Honduran Armed Forces posted a 156 page long document including everything from a timeline to an FAQ that reached almost unequalled levels of the absurd: in response to the question, Was this novel in political history?, the Armed Forces replied with the to-them obvious parallel: the Supreme Court decision in the US Presidential election in 2000 designating George W. Bush as winner over Al Gore (p. 10).

You all remember when the Chief of Staff at the time kidnapped Gore and took him off to Costa Rica, right?

Nestled in this treasure trove, which overall reinforces my sense that the Armed Forces are very defensive, is a document (p. 7) described as

Propaganda material distributed by the Executive Power, called "Cuarta Urna, Peaceful Route to the Citizen's Revolution, a New Constitution!" A document that now establishes some aspects that were intended to be eliminated from the Constitution of the Republic.

The actual handout itself appears almost at the end of the 156 pages of reproduced legal cases and orders sent to the military, the basis on which they acted.

But this document is different: it is the one, actual, solid piece of evidence the military can offer showing what the Zelaya government was intending to promote, in the event that the public opinion poll on June 28 produced a majority in favor of a fourth ballot box in November.

Here's what it promotes; notice the entire absence of any discussion of term limits, continuing in office longer than his elected term, dissolving Congress, the Supreme Court, or the command of the Armed Forces, which elsewhere (p. 15) in the Armed Forces document they claim was the real goal of the exercise; instead, what the Zelaya government proposed was ensuring the rights of women, of the multiple ethnic groups now recognized in Honduras, and the expansion of human rights to include "third and fourth generation" rights-- in other words, bringing the Honduran constitution into conformity with international treaties, just as Minister of Culture Rodolfo Pastor Fasquelle previously noted:

Cuarta Urna
Peaceful Route to the Citizen's Revolution!
A New Constitution

The fourth ballot box is the democratic road to make it legally possible to convene a Constitutional Assembly that could write a new Constitution, to give Honduras a superior democracy, in which the people will not only freely elect their rulers and representatives at all levels of Government, but as well will participate actively in the fundamental decisions that affect their lives and exercise actual control over those who are in power in their name.

Among the momentous topics that should be included in the new Constitution we single out the following:

a) Social Control: establishment of recall referenda, so that the people will have the possibility of denying their confidence in the middle of their term, to those that have been elected and have betrayed them-- and of the Death Crusade! Censure and veto, for mayors, representatives, and the President.

b) Actual freedom of the press, which means equitable access to the media for all the social and political organizations and all the citizens, and that will impede the use of the ownership of the means of communication as an instrument of accumulation of economic and political power.

c) Economic liberty with social responsibility, that will guarantee private property with a social use and the social economy of the market, placing the human being at the center of the economy and rescuing public services for the people.

d) Authentic political liberty that will impede the monopoly of representation on the part of the current party members, who slow the actual participation of the citizens, whether party activists or not, in national politics. Election of representatives by electoral districts and separation of the dates of elections for Presidents, Representatives, and Mayors.

e) Renewal of confidence in those officials who have dignified their office, fulfilling it adequately for the citizens.

f) Popular consultation to guarantee that no ruler could snatch from the People their economic and social takings, because any decisions that menaced these takings only could be legalized by means of a Popular Consultation.

g) Constitutional obligation to aid the progress of Woman as central actor in the development of the country.

h) To grant priority to the individual rights, social, economic, and the rest that will be established, as well as the guarantees of a multicultural and pluri-ethnic society.

i) To incorporate the rights known constitutionally as "third and fourth generation rights" as constitutional rights.

j) To institute the Constitutional Tribunal.

Bolivia completes nationalization of oil and gas sector

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:18:00 +0000

Xinhua news Agency
July 21, 2009

LA PAZ -- Bolivia's state-owned oil giant YPFB announced on Tuesday it has completed nationalization of the country's oil and gas sector.

YPBF, abbreviation for Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos in Spanish, acquired a natural gas supplier in Cochabamba, a step concluding its nationalization efforts in the country's hydrocarbon industry.

"At this moment facilities like the oil and gas pipelines, including those under construction, are completely the property of the Bolivian state," YPFB interim president Carlos Villegas said.

"The state is now the owner of domestic hydrocarbon resources under and above the ground," Villegas said.

The state has also taken full control of the hydrocarbon storage capacity by nationalizing the Guillermo Elder Bell Refinery in Santa Cruz and the Gualberto Villarroel Refinery in Cochabamba.

"The nationalization process has allowed YPFB to regain control of the domestic oil and gas sector," Villegas said. He said the company's management of this sector will contribute to state revenues and the welfare of the Bolivian people.

YPFB was created in 1936 as a state owned and run gasoline company. It underwent partial privatization under the presidency of Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada in the 1990s.

The Bolivian government also announced a plan on Tuesday to invest 5 billion U.S. dollars over the next five years in oil and gas explorations, operations and distribution.

Bolivia has the second largest reserves of natural gas in Latin America after Venezuela.

Microsoft Versus Venezuela

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:07:00 +0000

Tamara Pearson
Venezuelanalysis.com
July 15th 2009

The MSN Spain home page yesterday

Yesterday, Microsoft MSN (Spain) featured a montage photo of Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and the ex president of Cuba, Fidel Castro, wearing king's crowns, accompanied by the colourful title, "When power corrupts: Striving to be kings." The Venezuelan government and a grassroots technology movement here are both promoting the use and creation of open source (free) software, so it's no surprise that software tyrant, Microsoft, is lambasting Chavez.

Following the MSN headline was a slide show of photos of nine world leaders with paragraphs accompanying each, describing just how undemocratic and power hungry they all are. All of the leaders bar two are from Latin America or East Asia, reflecting the racist sentiment that the "West" is democratic perfection. Also, perhaps just a coincidence, East Asia and Latin America are regions with some of the strongest open source software movements.

Ironically, of the two Western leaders featured, the king of Spain is the one leader of the whole bunch who wasn't in any way elected, whilst the other, Napoleon, is long dead.

The paragraph accompanying Chavez's photo read, "Hugo Chavez is in it for the long run. He has touched up laws at his whim and for his own interest. And why not, he did the same with the constitution that he devised in 1999 but in which he made one mistake: term limits. After his first election (1999) and the two after that (2001 and 2007), the law hasn't allowed him the option of running again as president. And instead of accepting that, he changed the law."

First of all, MSN, do your research. The last presidential election was in 2006, not 2007. Secondly, the commentary does not mention that the constitution (created by a constitutional assembly with members elected by the public) and the constitutional amendment were both approved by popular referendum.

MSN, the default home page for Microsoft Internet Explorer, and a hub page of Microsoft services such as Hotmail, Messenger, downloads, "news", a search engine, advertisements and so on, is just an extension, or a facilitator, of the Microsoft software and technology empire.

It is hard to miss the irony of such an unaccountable, billion dollar, US based multinational corporation which monopolises its industry, calling a president who has held 15 elections (amendments, referendums, recalls, regional elections and so on) in 10 years, a wannabe king.

Microsoft, founded in 1975 by current billionaire Bill Gates, and Paul Allen, is the producer of Microsoft Windows, Word, Explorer, Messenger, and so on. It has risen to dominance by patenting products frequently based on other people's work or on common, global ideas. It monopolises the computer world through its ownership of the operating system Windows, and through a strategy of program compatibility. Then it multiplies its profits by convincing (and obliging) program users to buy upgrades every few years.

In 1994 Microsoft's operating system was driving 93% of the world's desktops, and its software- 90% of the market. The company has, what basically amounts to, tyrannical control over software, and by extension, computers, the internet, and modern communication. It's domination of information- how it is accessed, produced, processed, and organised, is dangerous.

The open source software movement is challenging such domination. The movement, which developed Linux, the free operating system, for example, sees information as vital to human development and something that should not be for profit, but rather for personal development, awareness, and expression. Software is a social creation rather than a private creation, where users around the world can add code to code, and fix bugs on a daily basis rather than via regular, purchasable, upgrades.

Edgar Gutierrez, a software activist in Merida, Venezuela, said technology is simply, "the extension of the capacity of man" and argued that it shouldn't be limited to first world countries or those who can afford to pay $100 for a program in order to design, write, express, photograph, use the internet, communicate, translate, learn languages or maths or science. He said, "When [software] is not free, there is a massive inequality of power."

Leandro Leon, also from Merida, Venezuela, speaking to alternative media, described the four freedoms of open source software, freedoms denied by private software like that made by Microsoft:

1. The freedom to use the program for whatever you want (Licensed software generally stipulates what the program should be used for).
2. The freedom to study the program.
3. The freedom to modify it, that is- to improve it, add to the coding and get rid of bugs.
4. The freedom to distribute the program.

Leon argues that Linux, a system developed by many people, is a far superior a system to Windows. "The lack of restrictions makes it possible for many people to participate," he said, "like the difference between solving a problem alone or in a group." When lots of people are involved, they discover the bugs and fix them much quicker as well, Leon argued. "A private model doesn't work like that."

In September 2004 the Venezuelan government announced its decision to switch all public administration and national industry over to open source software. Chavez explained the move was for "national scientific independence, so that we do not depend on privately owned software. If knowledge does not have owners, then intellectual property is a trap set by neo-liberalism." The change over will also save the government a lot of money on software purchasing, money which can be put to better use on social programs, health, and education.

However, getting whole sections of administration to change over their operating systems and programs is not an easy process, and at last count, the aim was to have 50% of public administration using free software by 2007.

The government has also set up the National Centre for Development and Research of Open Source Technology (CENDITEL), which has centres dedicated to creating open source software, training in open source software creation, organising its distribution, and promoting awareness around its use, among other things. It has organised technology fairs where locals can bring their computers and have Linux installed for free.

However, clearly it's not useful to talk about open source software when computers are still too expensive for the majority of the world's population. To combat this, since 2000 the government has been constructing ‘infocentres', places with up to 80 computers, located in the barrios, in rural and isolated areas, and city centres. These centres also often offer free computer training and internet access, and there are currently almost 700 such centres across the country.

Now that's democratic.

Manuel Zelaya: `Democracy has a price and I am prepared to pay it'

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:00:00 +0000

Giorgio Trucchi’s interview with Hondura’s President Manuel Zelaya Rosales (pictured above) was conducted on July 19 in Managua, Nicaragua, as an exclusive for Sirel-UITA (Regional Latin American Secretariat of the International Union of Food, Agriculture and Hotel Workers World Wide). The English language website of the UITA is at http://www.iuf.org/www/en/. The interview only appears in Spanish at the Latin American website based in Montevideo, Uruguay, at http://www.rel-uita.org/.

This translation is by Felipe Stuart Cournoyer, July 22, 2009. Words within square brackets [like this] are the translator’s additions made for the sake of clarity.

* * *

By Giorgio Trucchi

When the Managua press conference of the constitutional president of Honduras, Manuel Zelaya Rosales, ended I was able to get into the president’s vehicle along with his minister of the presidency Enrique Flores Lanza to go to an interview with international media. In just a few days -- or perhaps hours -- President Zelaya was to set out on his return trip to Honduras. In the intimacy of the vehicle we began this exclusive interview for Sirel.

Giorgio Trucchi: In the last few days you’ve announced your intention to return to Honduras, no matter the cost. Is this a definitive decision?

Zelaya Rosales: This is not a question of something that goes against the stability of the country; rather it is a solution in the search for stability. We hope that this will be the best way to undertake an internal dialog that solves the conflict and end the repression under which the Honduran people are suffering.

Dialogue with whom?

With the people because the people command in a democracy . The power-sectors who have taken up arms are repressive groups and they have to give up the exercise of command that the people have not granted them.

What has most saddened you about this coup against your person and your government cabinet?

What pains me is that the country is being destroyed. Society is suffering, and they are trying to destroy the progress we have achieved and the efforts of so many generation through the use of arms.

The de facto government is totally isolated on the international plain and is facing a strong and tireless internal resistance from grassroots movements. Despite that, it is carrying on with a totally intransigent attitude. The question arises -- is this just a matter of insensitivity, or are they placing their confidence in support from foreign actors?

They are like wild animals from the jungle who cling to their food. They think Honduras is their personal ranch. They’re a group of ten families who want to consolidate their economic wealth and privileges. Their fear is groundless because no one is trying to get at them. Nevertheless, they believe that democratic development will [badly] affect them and so do not accept democracy.

In the press conference you said that sectors of the United States extreme right supported and continue to back the coup. Are you convinced the involvement of those sectors?

These people have made public demonstrations of their support to the coup, including US senators and members of Congress. Mr Otto Reich is the former Under Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere and he came out in support of the coup. Many people in the United States have done the same. Hence, there is proof and evidence that ex-president George W. Bush’s hawks are behind this coup.

What importance has the grassroots, social, and union movement had in blocking the progress of the coup?

The are protagonists in defence of democracy because the think that democracy is an instrument that enables them to make social conquests. They are combating the coup and won’t give up until the effects of this attack against the Honduran people and against democracy is ended.

The coupsters are defying the world and we have to set a precedent before it is too late.

UITA [International Union of Food, Agriculture and Hotel Workers] has been following events from the optic of grassroots movements, before, during, and after the coup? For those sectors there are two elements that cannot be negotiated: rejection of amnesty for the coupsters, and going ahead with having a fourth ballot box [in the coming elections that would consult voters about whether or not a constitutional reform process should be undertaken], and the installation of a constituent assembly. What do you think about those points?

It would be ridiculous to award a prize to the coupsters for carrying out a coup. I think the position of the social movements is to seek a solution to the conflict, but without any prizes or pardons for committing penal and common crimes. At the same time, I think that the seven points put forward by [Costa Rica’s] President Oscar Arias speak about political amnesty but not for ordinary and penal offences.

Regarding social reforms, I think that finding a new strategy to carry on with these reforms must be part of a broad process of discussion throughout Honduran society. Social reforms should not be ended, nor should the peoples’ rights to participation [in political decisions] be blocked because they are constitutional rights. In that sense, Oscar Arias’s points were not discussed in their breadth because the coupsters do not accept restitution of a democratic system. They want a de facto regime that is lawless; they want to maintain it with violence. We cannot accept that.

It’s been said that there are two basic elements in trying to find a solution to the conflict: the position of the United States and the role of the armed forces. What’s your opinion on that?

Today we sent a letter to President Barrack Obama, respectfully asking him to stiffen measures not only against the repressive state, but also against those individuals who conspired and carried out the coup. We hope a quick response so that the measures undertaken will really restore a system based on law and order. If that does not happen we are all in a precarious situation, not just myself -- a victim of a coup for defending society’s rights -- but the whole population. I believe that President Obama not only has diplomatic mechanisms to exercise pressure, but also has other strong resources that I hope he applies; and also other countries in Latin America [should do the same].

Regarding the armed forces, if they are going to be used to carry our coups, then logically we have to evaluate their role. However, I believe that, in this case, it was the high command that ordered the coup. The officers and the new generation that is going to receive blood-stained armed forces do not agree with this coup.

Is it getting close to the moment of your return to Honduras? Aren’t you afraid of being arrested or assassinated?

I have no fear. But I am taking precautions and being careful. When life demands, you have to live with a sense of effort and of its rewards. Sometimes sacrifice is necessary to bring about social conquests, and I am ready to make the effort for people’s liberty, democracy, and peace.

Did you ask the media to accompany in your attempt to return to the country. Are you really proposing to go back?

I’ve asked them to accompany me. I am going to risk everything and the world is taking the same risk with my return. I’ve said that if there is an assassination General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez will be responsible for my death.

Honduras: Defying regime, Zelaya attempts return

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:56:00 +0000

Felipe Stuart Cournoyer
Links
July 24, 2009

Protesters confront police and army, July 4. Photo by James Rodríguez.

Update, July 24, 2009 -- Today, Honduras has been totally paralysed by a general strike, and Honduran resistance activists and protesters are chanting.

Zelaya - get used to it. The people are rising up
(it rhymes in Spanish).

Also common is the resistenCia, resistenCia, resistenCia, el pueblo unido jamas sera vencido (people united will never be overcome) and so on...

This afternoon Zelaya crossed over the frontier at Las Manos north of Esteli. He stood technically just inside Honduran territory, having crossed the chain separating the two countries in the "neutral" strip between them. Zelaya remained there for about two hours, hoping to meet up with members of his family and others who were trying to join him.

On his walk over he received phone calls from presidents Lula of Brazil and Lugo of Paraguay, and many others. He seemed to be glued to the phone or else responding to reporters questions, taking time to occasionally sip water and juice. At times he was seen gazing at high points, no doubt on the lookout for snipers. Reporters at one point sounded a sniper alert, but the suspect disappeared in seconds, it seems.

The Honduran president did not attempt to clear the immigration offices, although he spoke with the offficial in charge. Reporters pointed out a place where they had seen a sniper, but no attempts on Zelaya's person took place. He was not arrested, and he said he placed phone calls to top advisors of the high command of the armed forces, the real de facto government or junta of the country that controls ``Goriletti]'' and other "cabinet" stooges like marionettes.

Thousands of Zelaya's supporters have been trapped at roadblocks along the roads going south from Tegucigalpa, including his wife, his daughter and his mother. They were trying to join him at the border. Two people at an army roadblock just north of the Las Manos border crossing were injured by trooper gunfire. Most of the army roadblocks are in the Paraiso Department (province), one of them at Danli, where Zelaya's family were held up.

Several hundred Hondurans got to join him by entering Nicaragua at other points and then meeting him at the chain separating the Nicaraguan side of the neutral strip between the two territories. At that point Zelaya crossed back into Nicaragua, along with members of his team. They will stay overnight in Las Manos and re-enter their country tomorrow by the same approach.

It gets dark in Las Manos just after 6 pm. TeleSur showed a few minutes ago video of demonstrators sleeping on the road, and a wall of soliders with their protective shields and helmuts still stationed and ready to stop any who try to move closer to the border.

The coup junta established a longer period of curfew, now running from noon to 4 am. Hence, those who are still in the streets or roads protesting are technically in violation of the decree.

This will in all likelihood be repeated tomorrow morning, in roughly a similar drama and maneuvering, on both sides. But tomorrow we expect greater numbers of resistance activists to hit the streets and roads, and also a greater display of military strength. The army will feel emboldened by Hillary Clinton's attack on Zelaya (see below), but also more nervous because of the evident strength of the pro-Zelaya forces.

Leaders of the National Resistance Front Against the Coup interviewed by TeleSur said that protests grew throughout the day in most parts of the country and were much larger than the few pro-coup demonstrations. TeleSur showed video of the pro-coup action in the industrial centre of San Pedro de Sula, where it appeared to have drawn upwards of 1500 people -- a size which the head of the resistance front said was miniscule.

Most media within Honduras have blocked any news of Zelaya's presence. However, Radio el Globa did carry news, and El Salvadoran and Nicaraguan radio reaches fairly deep into the country. As well TeleSur can be seen via the internet, and cell phones are common, even among poor people. Hence, what the Cubans call Radio Bemba is no doubt airing loud and clear across the country, as news goes by word of mouth even into remote areas.

US Secretary of States Hilliary Clinton made a last ditch attempt to dissuade Zelaya from crossing the border, saying that his plan was "reckless". Zelaya's foreign minister Patricia Rodas responded to Clinton on TeleSur. She mocked the US State Department position of treating the coup leaders as equals of the deposed president. The ``golpistas'' (coup makers, coupsters), she reminded Clinton, are the reckless party, the side who refused to even discuss the mediation document put forward by Costa Rica's President Oscar Arias, and the cabal that resorted to arms and massive repression against the population. All Zelaya is doing is attempting to exercise his constitutional rights, and to create the conditions for a real dialogue between the army high command and the elected government of the country, which has universal international recognition and majority support in the country. It's a pity that Clinton's remarks could not have been repeated in English and made available on the major US networks because she demolished the Clinton-Obama charade, although she did not mention Obama in the same breath as the former senator from New York.

The ability of Zelaya's team, and of the Resistance Front leaders, to sustain their determination to keep their protests peaceful and free of bloodshed is a sign of the growing maturity of the mass movement. Over the past month the army has on too many occasions fired bullets into protest actions, as they did again today on the road to Danli. It takes considerable and considered discipline and sophistication not to fall for the traps being set by such provocations, and not to become enraged and respond in kind.

Meanwhile, some signs of a weakening of the once solid Latin American front against the coup registered by the unanimous vote in the OAS appeared during the Mercosur summit today.

Venezuela attempted to have Zelaya invited in order to strengthen Latin America's resolve to take more concrete measures to sanction the military regime and show the US an example of what really could be done where there is a will to do it. But Brazil's President Lula blocked this, at which point Chavez chose not attend. Despite this, strong statements were made again against the coup, especially by Argentina's Kirschner and Bolivia's Morales, and Fernando Lugo, Paraguay's newly elected president.

Last night William Grigsby, director of Managua's Radio La Primerisima and of its flagship program of political analysis Sin Fronteras [without borders], told his listeners that he was aware of significant signs that both Mexico and Brazil, as well as Chile, have softened their stand on the coup, in the sense that they will try to block any concrete measures against Honduras' regime aimed at returning Zelaya to power, such as suspension of trade and economic relations.

Evo Morales made a strong intervention calling on Latin American countries to unite to expel all US bases from South America and the Caribbean. He argued that if the coup in Honduras is allowed to stand every other Latin American government will be in danger of army-led coups, and pointed to the danger of having their high commands trained by the Pentagon. Of course, he specifically denounced the announcement of four new US bases for Colombia, a direct threat to his own revolution, and to Venezuela, Ecuador and Nicaragua [with whom Colombia has a historic dispute following its seizure of the San Andres islands. The US grranted them to Colombia as compensation for ripping out the province of Panama from Colombia in order to secure the Panama Canal].

Honduras in Revolts

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 03:16:00 +0000

Honduras in Revolts

(1) Hondurans Walking Straight to the Border
Juventud Rebelde, Cuba
July 24, 2009

MANAGUA, July 23. — After a press conference at the Honduran embassy in Nicaragua, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya said that he hoped “to see my family, to embrace the Hondurans and tell them that they must resist the oppression” and that “democracy is a great value for poor peoples” and “a right we won´t renounce.”

“Let’s walk holding a white flag, a flag of peace, to proclaim the reconciliation of the Honduran people,” stated Zelaya after saying that they had done all they could to solve this situation diplomatically but “it became untenable.”

Zelaya urged the army to lay down their weapons and submit to the will of the Honduran people to spare the country from bloodshed. He also asked the international community to exert more pressure on the coup leaders because “to defend the Hondurans is to the defend oneself” and prevent right-wing organizations from ousting any constitutional president by force.

“We cannot leave alone the demonstrators who have been claiming constitutional order for 25 days,” said Zelaya who later travelled to Estelí , a Nicaraguan city around 100 kms from the border. Zelaya was accompanied by Venezuelan Foreign Affairs Minister, Nicolás Maduro and a party made up of journalists, cameramen and photographers, who will broadcast the “historic” demonstration.

Thousands of Hondurans have joined together in their efforts to claim Zelaya’s reinstatement, despite the military repression that has detained a great number of people and blocked several roads to the marchers. “They confiscate our buses,” said many of the participants; “They knock us about as if we were not Hondurans,” said one of the demonstrators to TeleSur.

“They don’t let us walk about. They don’t respect the constitutional right of free circulation. They write down our names and the plates of our cars to frighten us,” said Pablo Oyuela, head of the Honduran School of Middle Education Teachers to AFP.

On Thursday, an international mission in Tegucigalpa denounced the “existence of serious violations of human rights taking place in Honduras after the coup d´etat,” said Enrique Santiago, from the Federation of Associations for the Defense and Promotion of the Human Rights in Spain, reported AFP.

“Among these violations are a great number of extrajudicial executions, hundreds of arbitrary detentions, many threats, and a reduction of freedom of speech and information,” said Santiago.

DPA reported that thousands of Zelaya´s followers blocked various roads as one of the actions included in the general strike taking place during the two days waiting for Zelaya´s return.

Popular Block and National Front to Resist the Coup coordinator Juan Barahona said that the national strike consists of blocking roads, mainly those leading to the main Honduran harbors, and taking over the main buildings of the most important state companies.

(2) Zelaya Entered Honduras
Eva Golinger
Postcards from the Revolution
July 24, 2009

Apparently, President Zelaya, after having entered Honduras this afternoon, was forced back to the Nicaraguan side of the border, after a Honduran Colonel from the armed forces approached him and informed him communication was in process with the high level army command and the coup regime to figure out what to do. The army has a large group of Zelaya supporters and coup regime protesters on lockdown a few miles from the border, preventing their reuniting with their constitutional president. Zelaya's wife and children are amongst those presently retained by the armed forces in El Paraiso, approximate 5 miles from the border with Nicaragua.

It is unclear what is happening at this point or where things are heading.....

Personally, I think he needs to just continue inside Honduras, despite all risks, and fight to reunite with his family and his people, who have been risking their lives now for almost one month, struggling to defeat the coup regime.

(3) Honduran National Police will not arrest Manuel Zelaya

Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias

Jylu 23, 2009

Caracas, Jul 23. ABN.- The National Police of Honduras will not follow the order issued by the Honduran de facto Government of arresting the constitutional President of that country, Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, when he returns to the country, reported the multi-state television channel Telesur.

Telesur informed that this security organ started this Thursday a national strike, because the non-fulfillment of a labor agreement that established an increase on their wages since January.

A policewoman from this institution who did not want to reveal her identity said that some police officers' wages do not reach even 200,000 lempiras a month (US$ 12,350).

“We have worked as nobody else at this political problem, guaranteeing the security with no rest, not even on weekends and we do not know when Zelaya's problem will be solved,” she added.

The police staff informed that they will stay in their quarters at the diverse police stations nationwide. They will not work and they will not follow the capture order against Manuel Zelaya, who should return to the country in the next hours.

(4) Zelaya's assassination already planned with permission granted by Washington
Varias fuentes
July 23, 2009
http://www.rlp.com.ni/noticias/general/57242

Tegucigalpa, July 23 : Credible sources, who remain anonymous for reasons of security, have stated that in the next few days a plan to repress the popular movement will be put into action by the coup government.

Part of the strategy of the ultra-right consists in the training of 120 assassins, who begin their training every day at 3:00 am in the house of retired colonel Amilcar Zelaya, which is located in the Amarateca neighborhood, 25 minutes from Tegucigalpa.

The house of this ex-military officer was known in the 1980's as a torture center.

The assassins have negotiated a salary of $744 a month. This money comes from honduran big business, and is part of an overall sum of $319,148.00 being spent to dismantle the popular movement.

One of the principal objectives of the fascist leadership under Micheletti is the assassination of the leadership of the high school teachers union, the National Autonomous University of Honduras (UNAH), and other organizations which support the return of president Manuel Zelaya.

As part of this conspiracy they have planned an assassination attempt against Roberto Micheletti to justify their coup and to legitimize more arbitrary (forceful) measures against the demonstrators.

They have also infiltrated the pro-Zelaya demonstrations posing as journalists, wearing khaki sweaters (or bullet-proof vests?).

This source indicated that this conspiracy against the people was put in motion after the Micheletti delegation in Costa Rica broke off talks.

Assassinate Zelaya?
Enrique Santiago, an observer with the IEPALA NGO (Institute of Latin American and African Studies), confirms that the pro-coup military leader, General Romeo Vasquez, has organized a bloody repression against the population set to welcome back the constitutional president of the country, and has also ordered Zelaya's assassination.

Santiago says that according to Vasquez, Zelaya's assassination will be the only option if the legitimate president enters Honduras.

(At this point the article quotes Santiago giving a synopsis of the repression against the popular movement to date. He also points out that Uribe is the only leader who has not respected the international blockade against the honduran dictatorship).

(5) Ambassador "recovers" Honduras embassy in Mexico for Zelaya
MercoPress
July 24, 2009

With help from Mexico and Latam ambassadors Rosalinda Bueso Asfura was returned to control of the embassy.

Ambassador Bueso walked into the embassy building following a confirmation from the Mexican Foreign Affairs ministry that she was recognized as the ambassador of Honduras, as well as receiving the support from 21 Latinamerican and Caribbean peers.

She was able to accomplish the takeover after Mexican security guards impeded access to the building of Rigoberto Lopez, Chargé d’Affaires named by de facto president Micheletti, and four other Honduran officials.

Ambassador Bueso was not allowed into the Honduras embassy compound in Mexico City for two days, but once in control of the situation she underlined she never ceased to be the Honduras ambassador since “the only person that can cease her in the job is President Manuel Zelaya”.

Apparently the ambassador has requested the Mexican government to eliminate the diplomatic accreditation of four members of the embassy staff and have them leave the country since they are no longer considered Honduran diplomats.

The ambassadors from Costa Rica, Bolivia, Brazil and Haiti as well as the Chargé d’Affaires from Venezuela and 16 other diplomatic representatives from Latinamerican and the Caribbean subscribed a statement backing Ambassador Bueso.

The document expresses support for the resolutions on the Honduras issue, from multilateral organizations and forms the region such as UN, OAS, ALBA, Rio Group and SICA

(6) Honduras-pro-coup demo flops
From the Morning Star's Correspondent in Honduras

Eight thousand mainly upper and middle class Homdurans, dressed in the blue and white colours of the national flag, yesterday marched through the capital, Tegucigalpa, in support of the country´s newly installed military dictatorship.

“We are here to support peace and democracy”, retired Colonel Wilfredo Sanchez told supporters at a half filled baseball stadium in the city´s downtown area.

Three weeks ago, the country´s elected president, Manuel Zelaya, was kidnapped at dawn by hooded gunmen wearing army uniforms and bundled onto a plane to Costa Rica.

The demonstrators carried placards denouncing Hugo Chavez, a key ally of the ousted Honduran president. Other Latin American and world leaders were also attacked, including Costa Rican president Oscar Arias, who is mediating in talks between representatives of President Zelaya and the de-facto government.

Honduras´s increasingly isolated coup regime, which had broadcast wall to wall advertisments for the march on state run TV, had hoped to show that the population was behind them.

Instead, the poor turnout suggests that the de-facto government is having difficulty in mobilising even its own supporters. The international community has condemned the coup and the regime is not recognised by any foreign government.

The pro-coup demonstrators were keen to talk to foreign journalists, some of whom they accuse of having failed to fairly report their point of view.

Lorena Facusse, president of a logistal company, told the Morning Star that she “didn´t like CNN”, describing the US-based news channel as the “Communist News Network”.

“Chavez has been pitting rich people against poor people”, she said. “Manuel Zelaya wants to destroy the middle class”

“The military are the heroes” she insisted.

Alejandro Andino, who described himself as the owner of a medium sized farm, said that President Zelaya´s supporters only back him “because he doubled the mininum wage and made false promises to resolve their problems.”

“The United States has a military base here in Honduras, and we need them to give us support and aid”, Mr Andino added. “But Obama is with Chavez and Castro. He doesn´t seem to realise he is the president of the USA”.

Marcela Armario, an owner of a home improvements business, said that expelling President Zelaya from the country “had given him a dignified way out”.

“If Zelaya had not been taken out of the country on that Sunday, we would have been Communist on Monday”, she declared.

伊朗：抗爭帶動地下網絡報紙興起

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:52:00 +0000

Hamid Tehrani
譯者：Leonard
全球之聲 (Global Voices)
2009年7月21日

伊朗最近出現好幾家網絡報紙，證明儘管政府不斷加強審查、過濾與壓迫，民眾與在野陣營仍不斷試圖傳播訊息，透過網絡報紙內容，也突顯抗爭運動內部一如社會與博客圈同樣多元。

過去兩個月間，伊朗安全單位不斷緊縮對媒體的操控，尤其是因為6月12日總統選舉後，官方結果宣佈現任總統阿曼尼內賈德（Mahmoud Ahmadinejad）當選，引發國內大規模抗議行動。

許多記者與博客在期間遭到囚禁，親改革派網站遭到過濾，Etemad Meli等少數改革派書報亦面臨諸多監控，由於媒體處境如此艱困，伊朗出現幾家「地下」網絡報紙。

截止六月底，至少有《Khyaboon》（街頭）及《Kalam Sabz》（綠世界）兩家網絡報紙推出，綠色為在野陣營總統候選人穆沙維（Mir Hussein Mousavi）的競選顏色，目前《Khyaboon》已出刊13期，《Kalam Sabz》亦發行10回，前者只透過電子郵件寄送，沒有網站或博客；後者也運用電子郵件，但亦有網站，兩者皆以PDF檔案格式發送。

《Khyaboon》

以下是《街頭報》的幾個標題：「Evin監獄的沉默背後」、「政府雙手沾滿血腥，穆沙維只寫了封信」（第一張照片）、「這是絲絨革命嗎？」、「都會藝術批判政府」（第二張照片）、「別再逼供」、「人民反抗政變，穆沙維未出現」（第三張照片）、「街頭爆發戰爭」（第四張照片）、「開始捍衛受囚禁抗議者」（第五張照片）。

《Kalam Sabz》

《綠世界》的標題包括：「穆沙維為受害者家屬哀悼」、「Neda為全球最熱門字彙」（第一張照片）、「改革派候選人卡魯比：政府迫害單位在俄羅斯受訓」（第二張照片）、「今年比1999年學運情況更糟」（第三張照片）、「卡塔米：這是對付人民的絲絨革命」（第四張照片）。

政治趨勢
兩份刊物的共同特色在於反對現任總統，亦不滿伊朗最高領袖哈米尼（Ali Khamenei）批准選舉結果。

《綠世界》主要刊登改革派領袖及政黨的言論與聲明，《街頭報》抨擊穆沙維面對政府太過軟弱，要求採取更多行動；《綠世界》做為改革派的機關報，並未質疑政府合法性，《街頭報》立場則不同。

《街頭報》屬於激進左派刊物，批判穆沙維缺乏行動，在名為「穆沙維及其菁英」的文章中，作者Amir K.指出，穆沙維的表現證明他不願犧牲階級利益，雖然穆沙維第9則聲明認為，阿曼尼內賈德並非合法總統，但他未提出如何打敗政變，也未要求向殺人者討回公道。

《街頭報》刊載知名馬克思主義詩人Said Soltani的作品，伊朗革命精神領袖何梅尼（Ruhollah Khomeini）於八零年代擔任國家元首時，處決了這位詩人，英國工人聯盟與左翼學生的觀點亦出現在該報上。

《綠世界》第一期引述何梅尼30年前的發言，批評伊斯蘭教長只順從自己的慾望，未回應人民的要求，《綠世界》認為若今日有人仍跟隨這條路線，就應受同樣譴責。

圖片勝於文字
《街頭報》刊登許多抗爭現場照片，例如安全人員鎮壓抗議民眾，或是民眾丟擲石塊，幾乎沒有改革派領袖的照片；《綠世界》鮮少刊登抗爭畫面，不過通常頭版都有改革派領袖的照片。

《街頭報》也不同於《綠世界》，時常刊載針對哈米尼的漫畫，在第13期的頭版上（前述第一份投影片的第二張），有張塗鴉是猿猴逐漸演化為人類，最後演化為拿著槍的人類。

閱讀這些新的地下網絡報紙，讓人能意識到伊朗危機嚴重與媒體處境，兩份報刊展現抗爭運動內部分歧，其中部分人士的要求與口號都較為激進。

現居伊朗的博客Zeitoon也提到相似情況，她在一場禮拜四的示威中注意到，口號充斥著「哈米尼下台」、「獨裁者下台」、「偉大真主」等語句，卻只有幾次聽聞穆沙維的名字。

兩份報刊都屬激進刊物，對抗國營報紙、電視、電台與網站的強烈影響力，面對政府強大宣傳機器報導國家一切美好，地下刊物與獨立媒體似乎節節敗退，獨立記者想佔有一席之地，只能進牢裡。

Honduras: The Hour of the Grassroots

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:08:00 +0000

Felipe Stuart Cournoyer
Socialist Voice
July 22, 2009

Three weeks after the June 28 military coup that expelled Honduran President Mel Zelaya and claimed to overthrow his government, the country remains shaken by a profound and dynamic popular upsurge demanding Zelaya’s return and the restoration of democracy.

The collapse on July 18 of the much-touted “negotiation dialogue” between Zelaya’s government delegation and representatives of the military coup was all but inevitable.

The talks foundered on the one issue that neither side could agree to discuss or give ground on — who is the constitutional president of Honduras?

Mass resistance and even opinion polls show that a strong majority of Hondurans back Zelaya as their elected president and demand his immediate return. The coup has been denounced by all the relevant international organizations: the ALBA Alliance, the Central American Integration System (SICA), the Rio Group, the Organization of American States (OAS), the European Union, and the United Nations.

Failure of negotiations
However, the coup junta’s delegation at the San José, Costa Rica negotiations broke off the talks, proclaiming that they could not even discuss the possibility of Zelaya continuing as president. The Zelaya delegation then withdrew from the talks and announced that the president would quickly “return to Honduras to help organize an insurrection against repression.”

For Washington and the coup high command, Zelaya’s return to Honduras may represent the only way to avoid an armed popular uprising. But the Honduran masses would see his return, even under onerous conditions, as an admission by the coup leaders of the illegality and disastrous impact of the military takeover. Zelaya’s return could thus fuel mass resistance and further undermine the pro-coup faction. The coup leaders and their U.S. supporters are in a bind. This explains why they tried to stall for time with the manoeuvre of the San Jose “mediation dialog.”

Lamenting the failure of his mediation, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias warned of the imminence of “civil war and bloodshed that the Honduran people do not deserve.”

Meanwhile, OAS Secretary General José Miguel Insulza exclaimed that “it is almost impossible to avoid conflict between Hondurans and call for calm when a dictatorship seeks to stay in power in full view of everyone.”

[photo] SOTO CANO AIR BASE, Honduras – Members of the Honduran rapid response team (left), known as the Peacekeeping Operations Battalion, during their coalition training with 36th Infantry Division Soldiers of the United States.

Washington’s complicity in the coup
The dictatorship has imposed brutal repression against unarmed civilian protesters, including assassinations and disappearances. Washington, for its part, has pursued a two-faced and deceitful course.

The coup was planned in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, with the participation of the U.S. embassy and U.S. military officials at the Palmerola air force base. The U.S. then voted in favour of the unanimous OAS resolution in support of Zelaya. But the sincerity of this vote was undermined by statements by both U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama. Although they sometimes used the word “coup” to describe the army takeover, they waffled when it came to action. More important than their talk was their walk: they did nothing to help force the army out of power, such as by ending military aid or imposing economic sanctions.

The Obama administration has since shown its hand. On July 20, Phillip Crowley, spokesman for the Department of State, responded to a reporter’s direct question, about whether or not the coup was illegal. He admitted that the U.S. does not consider the military power grab to be a coup in the “legal” sense. The coup, evidently, was “not legal” — but by the same token it was not “illegal.” The distinction means that it is not illegal to continue U.S. military and economic aid to the coup administration and the armed forces. (See Eva Golinger’s report at Postcards from the Revolution1).

Obama’s duplicity should come as no surprise, despite the unusually intense hopes millions of people have for his promise of real change in an imagined “post-Bush” world. U.S. Honduran policy is in complete continuity with its long history of domination and intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean. As Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega pointed out to a rally of hundreds of thousands in Managua on July 19, the coup in Honduras came just ahead of the announcement of the opening of five new U.S. military bases in Colombia — a response to the forced closing of the U.S. Manta airbase in Ecuador and the feared loss of U.S. bases in Honduras.

[photo] Taken on 29 June 2009 ALBA extraordinary meeting in Managua, Nicaragua, shows (from left to right) Honduran President Zelaya, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, Venezuela President Hugo Chavez, and Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, during which they called the Honduran people to rebel against the coup which expelled president Manuel Zelaya from power.

ALBA’s role
The U.S. administration’s tacit support for the coup leaders reflects their hatred of Zelaya’s measures to support the poor and in bringing Honduras into the ALBA anti-imperialist alliance. ALBA — the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America — unites Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, and three English-speaking Caribbean countries as a spearhead and bulwark of anti-imperialist struggle to build social and economic solidarity among the partner nations. (See “Honduras and the Big Stick,” www.counterpunch.org/kozloff07202009.html)

ALBA led the process of Latin American unity against the coup, holding a series of emergency meetings in Managua to lay the basis for the unanimous OAS and UN resolutions. When Latin American and Caribbean unity and determination to smash the coup became loud and clear, Washington opted to try to try to camouflage its role. But there is no hiding the fact that the coup is directed against ALBA itself — against all its members and potential members. As Latin American leaders have pointed out, if the coup is consolidated other countries will become coup victims again, even without Washington’s prompting. U.S. tacit support of the Honduran coup is a clear signal to military plotters.

ALBA leaders understand in blood and flesh that the coup is intended as blow against them. Bolivia’s Evo Morales stressed this yesterday, explaining to a radio audience that “this coup is a threat against the continued growth of ALBA.”

Resistance on the streets
Despite repression, mass resistance continues to grow in Honduras. International solidarity up and down Indo-Black-Latin America and across the Caribbean has not waned.

Insurrection is in the air. Stay in the streets, Zelaya appeals. “It’s the only place that they have not been able to take away from us.… I have not surrendered and I am not going to. I am going to return to the country as soon as possible.… The right to insurrection is a constitutional right.”

The coup regime has tried desperately to silence all critical media and has imposed a night-time curfew. Security forces have violently attacked peaceful protesters and arrested a large number of activists. Two protesters were killed on July 5 and two activists and members of the left-wing Democratic Unification Party (UD) have been assassinated by unknown gunmen.

Returning to Honduras that day, visibly exhausted UD Congressman Marvin Ponce stated, “The people owe Honduras a revolution, and if the legitimate president, Manuel Zelaya, is not reinstated, there will be a confrontation between social classes. What I can say is that the days of peaceful resistance, like as we have had until now, are numbered.”

On July 14, tens of thousands of workers, students, farmers, and indigenous people massed in front of the U.S. Embassy in the capital, Tegucigalpa. They came from all over the country in response to a call from the National Front to Resist the Coup d’État (FNRG). About 1,000 delegates joined the rally from a rank-and-file convention of the Liberal Party, to which both Zelaya and the illegitimate president installed by the coup, Roberto Micheletti, belong. Zelaya’s wife, Xiomara Castro played a prominent role in the mobilization.

Since the coup, over three weeks of mass resistance has all but paralyzed the country and shattered its already feeble economy. At least two huge demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of workers and oppressed sectors have rocked the country. On July 16, Central American labour unions staged solidarity protests, closing Honduras’s borders with Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador. Export earnings and investments are in free fall.

Despite total press and media censorship within the country, and a near-blackout internationally, coup leaders have not been able to muffle ongoing reports and rumours of fissures in their “united front” and even among lower echelons of the armed forces and police.

The demonstrations and strikes are not spontaneous. They are led by the mass organizations of campesinos (peasants), indigenous people, students, Afro-Hondurans, trade unions, teachers, journalists, professional associations, religious groups, and human rights groups.

The FNRG is made up of dozens of organizations. They are well connected internationally through active networks. They have been influenced by previous struggles in the region, especially the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua during the 1980s. Ongoing advances for the oppressed in Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have inspired and assisted the Honduran mass movements, giving inspiration and lessons for the struggle.

The reforms implemented by Zelaya since he was elected in 2005 responded to growing pressure from the grassroots, as his government faced dozens of major protests and industrial disputes. This gave impulse to a new dynamic interplay between Zelaya and exploited and oppressed grassroots sectors.

A ‘council’ dynamic
The FNRG has managed to unite people across gender, ethnic, age and class lines. Its ability to resist savage repression, and maintain street and workplace protests, has proven its political maturity. That’s why the “Zelaya delegation” to the San Jose dialog included a rainbow of union, campesino, indigenous, and Afro-Honduran representatives.

On July 20, a large council gathering of grassroots leaders resolved to step up the resistance. Unions announced a call for a general strike. They reaffirmed their support for Zelaya and their call for a Constituent Assembly to remake the country’s constitution. This assembly, in my estimation, revealed that the mass protests have taken on what historians of revolution and insurrection call a “council dynamic” — that is, organizing the participation and representation of workers, campesinos, national minorities, students, and oppressed sectors through local and networked councils.

The FNRG has enabled a new, dynamic interplay between government-level leadership and the will and initiative of the grassroots. It is still only a beginning, but a vigorous one. Whether it can be consolidated depends on the course of the struggle and on international solidarity.

How long can the mass resistance endure the ongoing repression? People have to make a living, and cannot remain in the streets forever. Campesinos will soon have to begin planting their fields. Time is now more than ever critical to victory.

If resistance deepens, the hour of José Francisco Morazán, the 19th century Honduran national hero who implemented important pro-people reforms, may well have sounded.

Honduran unions call general strike

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:56:00 +0000

Reporter in Tegucigalpa
Morning Star
21 July 2009

Hondurans showing their support for President Manuel Zelaya In a direct challenge to Honduras's military dictatorship, the country's three main trade union federations have called a two-day general strike, beginning on Thursday.

Yesterday, 150 delegates representing both public and private-sector workers met in the capital city Tegucigalpa.

Speaker after speaker, most of whom were dressed in jeans and T-shirts, angrily denounced the military regime and demanded the return of elected President Manuel Zelaya.

Mr Zelaya, who continues to be recognised by the international community as its sole legitimate president, was expelled from Honduras three weeks ago by masked soldiers and bundled onto a plane to Costa Rica.

He has declared that he intends to re-enter the country within a week - with or without the agreement of the coup plotters.

Interrupted by applause and cries of "it's now or never," secretary-general of the CUTH federation Israel Salinas announced a mass demonstration in Tegucigalpa on Thursday to coincide with the strike.

The CUTH represents 250,000 workers in both urban and rural areas.

Previous protests against coup leader Roberto Micheletti have been confronted by large numbers of armed soldiers and police.

Mr Salinas told the Morning Star that opposition to the coup is gathering strength. "We have been in the streets for 22 days and our movement is becoming stronger and stronger.

"Our aim is to stop production, trade and transport," he said.

Despite the resistance of the oligarchy, Mr Zelaya's government had doubled the minimum wage and the trade unions predict that unless the coup regime is removed from power, it will attempt to reverse this and other progressive measures.

"Manuel Zelaya is the first president we have had who is with the poor people," said Mr Salinas.

The trade union leader called on the British government to freeze all economic ties to Honduras and to use its influence in the United Nations to further isolate the military dictatorship.

Yesterday, the European Union announced that about ?60 million worth of aid to Honduras would cease with immediate effect. The United States is still providing aid to the regime.