sabato, ottobre 31, 2009

Yoani Tirapiedra: otra brecha en la pared


Un'altra bordata demolidora de Yoani, non tanto per l'osadia di colarse en territorio enemigo, quanto il riuscire a inserirsi con una domanda traversa e provocare NIENTE ALTRO CHE ATACCHI UFFICIALI, talmente vuoti e anacronistici da SQUILLARE alle orecchie dei cibernauti di tutto il mondo che letterarmente SE HORRORIZAN quando si pone in dubbio il diritto a FACEBOOK.

Io se fossi in uno qualunque dei due castro comincerei a preoccuparmi, e mi chiedo se non sappiano cosa fare o passino le giornate OFF-LINE (pescando uno e offrendo te a dignitari esteri)

Ossia, il fatto che la controparte di Yoani sia una SPROVVVEDUTISSIMA PROFESORA, che in quel momento finisce su tutte le prime pagine dei giornali e su internet in tutto il mondo, e' ASSOLUTAMENTE INCONCEPIBILE per fidel, e anche per raul, immagino.

Ma enormemente piu' rischioso grande sarebbe affrontare FRONTALMENTE Yoani, rispondendole direttamente, primo perche' LORO NON SANNO DI CHE DIABLO SE ESTA HABLANDO e secondo perche' sarebbe semplicemente RICONOSCERE CHE ESISTE.

Si potrebbe mandargli sotto qualcuno del suo campo, tipo un ramirito, con parole dettate dal coma-andante en jefe, ma le reazioni dialettiche immediate di yoani potrebbero mettere in crisi chiunque, e la inadeguatezza diventerebbe una catastrofe.

Non resterebbe che la vecchia strada castrista della diffamazione, smerdamento, hostigamento, ma attenzione, come scrivevo ieri, oggi Yoani e compagnia sono in grado di TWETTARE praticamente in tempo reale, il che e' come e' come se corresse alla finestra e sotto tutto il mondo ad ascoltare.

Normalmente, la prassi castrista prevederebbe adesso un aumento nel tono dell'hostigamento, con veri e propri "actos de repudio", comite' de barrio, etc, come mandando avanti il popolo a protestare, senza chiamare in ballo la policia politica.

E' probabile, ma alla fine, ci scommetterei, butteranno il cappello per terra e la faranno arrestare.

Ma silenziare Yoani e i suoi non e' facile, e se loro parlano, il mondo ascolta.


A puertas cerradas

Click here to view the embedded video.

No sé por dónde comenzar a contar lo ocurrido en el debate de ayer, sobre Internet, organizado por la revista Temas. Sin dudas, la peluca rubia que me encasqueté me permitió colarme por la controlada entrada del centro cultural Fresa y Chocolate. Eso y los zapatos altos, los labios pintados, las argollas brillantes y un bolso enorme de color hiriente, hicieron que me trasmutará en un ser bastante diferente. Algunos amigos llegaron a decirme que me veía mejor así, con la falda apretada y corta, el contoneo sensual y las gafas de armadura cuadrada. Lo siento por ellos, el personaje que interpreté duró poco tiempo y hoy he vuelto a mi despeinada y aburrida apariencia.

A Claudia, Reinaldo, Eugenio, Ciro y otros bloggers no les permitieron la entrada. “La institución se reserva el derecho de admisión” y mis colegas del ciberespacio mostraron la impertinencia de quienes ya han sido excluidos de otros lugares, pero no quieren retirarse abochornados y en silencio. Adentro, yo lograba atrapar una silla a un costado del panel de los expositores. Algunos ojos diestros en mi enclenque fisonomía ya me habían detectado y una cámara me filmaba con la insistencia de quien prepara un expediente.

Un joven escritor pidió la palabra y lamentó que tantos hubieran sido impedidos de entrar; después vino alguien y mencionó términos como “enemigo”, “peligro”, “defendernos”. Cuando finalmente fui llamada, aproveché para preguntar qué relación había entre las limitaciones con el ancho de banda y las tantas webs censuradas para el público cubano. Aplausos cuando concluí. Juro que no cabildeé ninguno de ellos. Después llegó una profesora universitaria que cuestionó el por qué yo había recibido el premio Ortega y Gasset de periodismo. Todavía no he logrado encontrar la relación entre mi pregunta y su análisis, pero los caminos de la difamación son así de torcidos. Al terminar, varios se me acercaron para abrazarme, una mujer apenas con el roce de una mano me dijo “felicidades”. El fresco de una noche de octubre me esperaba afuera.

Si a todos los que no dejaron acceder hubieran logrado participar, aquello habría sido realmente un espacio de polémica sobre la red. Lo que ocurrió me pareció mustio y maniatado. Sólo uno de los conferencistas mencionó conceptos como Web 2.0, redes sociales y Wikipedia. El resto era la vacuna anticipada contra la perversa web, las repetidas justificaciones de por qué los cubanos no podemos acceder masivamente a ella. Tomé mi móvil y twitteé con premura “creo que lo mejor es organizar otro debate sobre Internet, sin los lastres de la censura y la exclusión”. Hoy en la mañana, con las ojeras de haber dormido apenas tres horas, estaba entregando manuales técnicos en la segunda sesión de nuestra Academia Blogger.

Algunas de las imágenes de este video me las hicieron llegar manos amigas y solidarias que estaban en el interior de la sala.

A Halloween agreement in Honduras - Venezuela News and Views


The agreement signed in Honduras yesterday is conveniently close to Halloween, a weird omen about its effectiveness and who might win the battle in the end. It is not just a matter of disguise as a Venetian Carnival would have been. In Honduras the threat of further violence and terror exists behind the continuous masquerade where all know what is at stake but where few dare to say it aloud. Freddy would have a field day playing the different inner terror of these people.

We have several pieces that try to explain what the agreement is. The Wall Street Journal titles Honduras 1, Hillary 0. Besides the note that it givers us our third capital H for the day it would seem that the WSJ is betting on the Micheletti combo to carry the day. They do have a point: the Us indeed wants this masquerade out and is indirectly acknowledging that for 4 months the Micheletti administration has been paying the bills and pushing forward the election. The Zelaya camp besides its clownesque discredit has been sabotaging elections instead of trying to take an active role in them and building for the future, which must be reminded is less than 3-4 years from now, less than the duration of a presidential term.

I am not so sure. Zelaya, or Roldos, or another will have the financial backing of Chavez, the implicit support of Brazil if Lula manages to decide who succeeds him, the complacency of the US, the intrigues of Insulza, etc, etc.... In other words, Honduras is far from having escaped the Chavez communism curse (Chavez himself in a lapsus brutis used the term communism to qualify his pseudo socialism of the XXI century).

The Washington Post has a more complete article and a more skeptical one as to who is in the winning seat. It would be all fine if they had charged the beginning of the crisis at Zelaya's attempt at unconstitutionally changing the constitution rather than the fact of the military putting him in pajamas in an airplane. But certain patterns of guilt attribution seem hard to break no matter how much evidence is brought forth.

Curiously in its editorial the Washington Post is way more sanguine than its article. For them, it is OK to sub-title "How the Obama administration outmaneuvered Hugo Chavez". True, on paper Zelaya gets to return, maybe, to his old job but in a much weakened position, a true lame duck presidency while free and recognized elections can now be held. If the turnout is above 60% this would guarantee final proof that Honduras never supported Zelaya's plan to create his own version of presidency for life. The flaw here is that it all depends on how much the US is willing to bend its muscle to enforce the deal. We might expect in the US favor that Lula, having understood the image damage he did by accepting on his own Zelaya in Brazil's embassy, might consider now that supporting the US here and telling Chavez to back off would be in fact a nice touch for Lula to end his presidency with more of a statesman image. That would explain why Chavez is using his trade mark "por ahora" about Zelaya, understanding that for the time being he cannot do anything further in Honduras. "For the time being", it must be underlined.

The New York Times looks more at the strong arms tactics need by the US to reach an agreement. If the WSJ journal took this allegedly forceful attitude as a way out for the US, the Times is somewhat more positive. though there is a slight pro Zelaya aroma that comes out of the article. The NYT, it must be noted, did not worry as much about the hand of Chavez in the continuous whole story, almost contenting itself in making the Honduras crisis a classical banana republic tale. Today we must note this sentence "But hundreds of millions of dollars in American humanitarian assistance continued to flow" making one wonder whether the NYT journalists would have liked to see more misery in the streets of Honduras... Makes you wonder if they ever called Caracas correspondent Simon Romero to check about the bounties of XXI century socialo/communism...

I am not too sure what to think of this agreement. First, for the Micheletti side to sign, no matter how much pressure Hillary put on them, it must mean that they have a fair sense that they can prevail in the end. After all hurricane season is nearly over an Honduras was spared this year, giving less opportunity for chaos which would have favored the Zelaya side. Second, they got what they wanted, elections at the end of the month with Zelaya out long enough to cease being a major destructive influence on the democratic process. Third, having removed Zelaya for so long allowed the transition government to purge or neutralize the local administration of the worse pro Chavez agents: Zelaya will have a hard time putting them back in charge, in particular if the president elect gets a good share of the electorate and if the runner up recognizes the victory without ambiguity.

Indeed, Zelaya might be so weakened now, equally from the corset about to be set up on him as well as his ridiculous handling of the situation, that the Micheletti camp might feel it worth to take the risk of bringing him back in office, to politically finish him up once and for all. There is also the possibility that Zelaya knows his days are over and he will accept to play the game so as to bring back into Honduras people like Patricia Roldos and pass the baton to them. By coming back even as a figurehead, even for only three months, Zelaya ensure his presidential pension, his retirement on his Honduras land and maybe not a too awful position in Honduras history books.

But in such an aleatory situation one never knows what surprises are in store. So let's wait to see first whether the Honduras congress will vote the agreement, the first mine field to cross. It will take at least a week or two, but no more because they need international observers for the elections. That is the final goal after all for the Micheletti people: reach a recognized election result.

-The end-

Freedom for Darsi Ferrer!!!!




English:

Dear brothers and sisters:


Many of you may never have heard of the Civil Rights Afro-Cuban activist, Dr. Darsi Ferrer. Yet, he is one of the most important Civil Rights leaders in Cuba today, and a tireless, courageous fighter against social exclusion. Dr. Ferrer was arrested more than three months ago, and jailed on absurd, untrue charges of having "stolen materials" from the state.

What did he do?
Dr. Ferrer runs a number of independent programs designed to help impoverished, marginalized and discriminated communities in Cuba (who are overwhelmingly of African descent). But because the government claims that there are no such things as poverty, racism or marginalized communities in Cuba, Dr. Ferrer is regarded as a highly subversive person by the authorities.
Herein, you may see for yourselves a documentary produced by Dr. Ferrer, showing the condition of these communities (residents of what are called “tenements”). These are the people that Dr. Ferrer has been assisting for many years. Clicking the link you will see the type of work Dr. Ferrer has tirelessly been engaged: http://www.cubaencuentro.com/es/multimedia/videos/vivir-en-albergue
I want to make clear, that this is the first time in my life, as an anti-racist activist myself, that I publicly raise a voice in support of any Cuban dissident. If I have done so, it is only because the Cuban government has, once again, crossed another threshold in the sort of oppression that it customarily dishes out to its citizenry. We have come to the point where to remain silent before such injustice and oppression, is tantamount to be complicit with it. That is why I raise my voice on behalf of those who have no voice inside of Cuba.



I appeal to your own sense of justice, asking you to help me mobilize world opinion around this case where an honorable, brave, black Cuban citizen, has suffered detention because he dared place himself at the service of the humblest of communities in Cuba.
I am asking for your help to free the black political leader, Dr. Darsi Ferrer.
I thank you from the bottom of my heart, and beg you to sign this online petition.

Carlos Moore



ESPAÑOL:

Queridos hermanos y hermanas:
Yo se que muchos de ustedes nunca oyeron hablar del activista anti-racista Afro-Cubano, Dr Darsi Ferrer. Sin embargo, se trata de una de las figuras más importantes en la lucha por los derechos civiles del pueblo cubano y el más valiente luchador contra la exclusión social. El Dr Ferrer fue detenido, hace algunas semanas, y encarcelado bajo absurdos e mentirosos cargos de "robo de material" del estado. Hace semanas que está en prisión.
El Dr Ferrer dirige varios programas independientes de ayuda a la población cubana discriminada, marginada y pobre (estos son, en su inmensa mayoría, de origen africano). Por esa razón, las autoridades cubanas lo consideran como un elemento altamente subversivo, pues según el gobierno, en Cuba no hay ni pobreza, ni racismo ni marginación poblacional.
Aquí les envío, por lo tanto, un documental producido por el Dr Ferrer que muestra las condiciones de esas personas (los moradores de albergues), a los que el presta ayuda desde hace años. Vean el trabajo del Dr Ferrer en el documental que conseguirán en el ENLACE DE CUBA ENCUENTRO AQUI
Aclaro que es la primera vez, en toda mi vida de militante antirracista, que elevo la voz para reclamar apoyo a un disidente cubano; lo hago porque la magnitud de la injusticia que ha cometido el gobierno cubano ya llegó a límites que nadie puede tolerar sin convertirse en cómplice de la opresión de aquellos que no tienen voz en Cuba.

Apelo al sentido de justicia de cada uno de ustedes para que ayuden a movilizar la opinión pública mundial sobre este caso de detención política de un ciudadano cubano negro, honrado, valiente y dedicado a la causa de los mas humildes en Cuba.
Pido ayuda para liberar al dirigente negro, Dr Darsi Ferrer.
Agradezco su ayuda con el corazón y les pido que firmen esta petición.
Carlos MOORE

Venezuela y Nicaragua renuentes a celebrar acuerdo Honduras

31 Octubre 2009 ·Al final, como pasa siempre, se le ve el plumero a los del eje del ALBA, encabezados por los de siempre, el “abominable hombre de Caracas” y su “caballito de la OEA”. Ellos nunca han querido democracia en Honduras, lo que querían era colarse en Honduras a como diera lugar , introducir su Socialismo del Siglo XXI, destruir la economía y anexarla a sus “grananacionales” y hacerlas dependientes de sus asquerosos petrodólares ; y está claro que se quedaron en eso. Añoran el portaviones en tierra. Querían masacre, insurgencia, caos, terrorismo, ingobernabilidad. Ahora como es lógico armaran la pataleta, pues las cosas vuelven a ponerse de derecho y estos seguidores de la doctrina que viene de La Habana de “demócratas ” no tienen nada. Lo vergonzoso es que el mundo siempre lo ha sabido pero les hicieron el juego.El Universal | Venezuela

venerdì, ottobre 30, 2009

¡CUIDADO CON LAS NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS! - Guillermo Fariñas

CUBA: ¡CUIDADO CON LAS NUEVAS TECNOLOGÍAS!

Por Guillermo Fariñas

Periodista independiente.

La Chirusa, Villa Clara, octubre 29 de 2009 (PD) Hace unas semanas, una no publicitada visita, de la Subsecretaria de Estado de los Estados Unidos de América, la señora Bisa Williams, sorprendió a los radicales castristas atrincherados en la intolerancia, la mejor de las justificaciones para que el estado de crispación sea permanente.

Williams le comunicó a la parte cubana que estaban dispuestos a hacer transferencia de tecnologías de punta en materia de comunicaciones sin pedir concesiones políticas o nada a cambio. Esta transferencia de tecnología incluía el tendido de cables submarinos, cobertura telefónica total, uso de los sofisticados satélites del vecino norteño y correo postal.


Representantes nacionales solo aceptaron la reanudación del correo postal entre Cuba y Estados Unidos. O sea, a regañadientes estuvieron de acuerdo con aceptar la menos sustanciosa de todas las propuestas traídas por los yanquis e informaron que valorarían las otras en una reunión que todavía está por definir.

Una nota de prensa salida en el diario Granma refleja el miedo de los que dirigen a Cuba hace 50 años y un poco más, a sus subordinados planificadamente desinformados. Ellos saben mejor que nadie en este mundo, que información es poder y desinformación es la manipulación inescrupulosa de los que mandan.

La información expresa en la quinta página del número del día 19 de octubre y sin que se sepa quien es la agencia de prensa que la difunde: “Washington utiliza tecnologías para subversión, afirma experta”. De entrada conocemos que la investigadora Eva Golinger acusó a la CIA de estos supuestos malos manejos.

Levanta sospechas en los indispuestos cubanos cansados de medio siglo de mentiras castristas, que se plantea textualmente: “…. acusó a la Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) de utilizar la adicción a aplicaciones de nuevas tecnologías como Twiter y Facebook para reclutar agentes”.

( Bisa Williams, Subsecretaria de Estado de los Estados Unidos de América )

Aquí la nomenclatura castrista trata de emprenderla contra los logros en informática y otros éxitos en la rápida comunicación entre los seres humanos. Los totalitarios de esta isla-prisión del mar Caribe le temen al libre intercambio de ideas, pues saben que perderían en cualquier debate no mediatizado.

Tras estas expresiones de la señora Golinger y sus acólitos puede estar la justificación para tildar de “agentes” y hasta “espías de la inteligencia yanqui” a aquellos residentes en la isla que hagan uso de los Blogg Digitales o Paginas Web Interactivas algo críticas al gobierno, lo que va desde la filóloga Yoani Sánchez hasta el laico católico Dagoberto Valdés.

Sería el inicio de la preparación a la opinión pública nacional o internacional para neutralizar en el mejor de los casos o encarcelar en el peor de ellos, a aquellas disidentes y valerosas voces concentradas en el reproche político-social. Ya la Primavera Negra del 2003 demostró que para los hermanos Castro no existen intocables, ahí está el poeta Raúl Rivero, hoy exiliado.

Otro de los objetivos de la duplicidad que trae aparejada esta información es que se les acaban los pretextos a los fidelistas para no facilitarles a los ciudadanos de a pie equipamientos de comunicación individual, en referencia a tener libre acceso a la Internet o teléfonos móviles cada día de mayor sofisticación como los Blackberry.

Esa corta nota periodística para los lectores cubanos, es sin lugar a dudas de ningún tipo y como dice el viejo refrán, “un parche antes que salga la herida”. El equipo que trabaja junto a Fidel y Raúl Castro conoce que se afanan contra el tiempo para evitar que los cubanos se comuniquen e informen, porque tienen mucho temor a las nuevas tecnologías.

cocofari62@yahoo.es

giovedì, ottobre 29, 2009

Yoani da sola sta scardinando il regime castrista dalle fondamenta.

Con questi soli due semplici messaggi da 140 caratteri Yoani Sanchez ha provato la cosa piu' semplice e rivoluzionaria del mondo: che un cubano puo' oggi parlare al mondo, bucando completamente la cappa della censura.

"le ragazze" ne hanno fatta un'altra delle loro, ma questa volta armate di uno strumento di puro terrorismo: l'SMS-TWITTER
Mentre una si colava nella conferenza vietatissima ai bloggers "indipendenti", l'altra fotografa e documentava gli svolgimenti, e altri ancora piu' defilati riprendevano il tutto.

Fermata una (Claudia), l'altra (Yoani) riusciva a infiltrarsi imparruccata, e faceva a tempo di inviare un SMS che veniva immediatamente inoltrato in TWITTERS e da li in facebook in tutto il mondo.>
Estoy en el interior del debate de la revista Temas sobre internet. Entré disfrazada, me quité la peluca después que me llamaron.
Quando la riconoscono, lancia la sua bombetta puzzolente e se ne va.
Pregunté si el mismo filtro ideologico que bloquea tantas webs en Cuba, se aplico para no dejar entrar a este debate a varios bloggers.
Siamo alla burla, al fare scoppiare il regime come un palloncino: Yoani e Claudia hanno dimostrato che con audacia, organizzazione e sangue freddo si riesce a dimostrare che il castrismo e' tutta una pagliacciata, e che dentro e' marcio e vuoto, pronto a cadere.

Ma il triste e' che tutti lo sanno, e non muovono un muscolo, castrati nei lobi temporali per tutta la vita.

Onore a Yoani e Claudia!
Posted by Picasa

La respuesta de EE UU a la votación en la ONU

La respuesta de EE UU a la votación en la ONU

Toda la verdade sobre Cesare Battisti: un asesino vestido de comunista

Nobstante Lula, hay en Brasil personas decentes.
Aqui es la hystoria del asesino comunista cesare battisti, bien bien clarita, en portugues.
Pa'que aprenda.
Posted by Picasa

lunedì, ottobre 26, 2009

Interview with Daniel Duquenal of Venezuela News and Views - LaGringa Blogicito

Photo: Venezuelan News and Views


Daniel Duquenal has been writing the popular blog Venezuela News and Views since 2003. His award-winning blog began as private letters to friends overseas. Daniel wrote as an introduction, "Unknowingly, I have written the diary of Venezuela slow descent into authoritarianism, the slow erosion of our liberties, the takeover of the country by a military caste, the surrendering of our soul to our inner demons."

He lives in the Venezuelan countryside and thus has more a "ground zero" view of what Chávez has meant for Venezuela outside of the Caracas circles and the international scene where we are more used to hearing from Chávez.

Many believe that Hugo Chávez was behind the moves that eventually resulted in the ouster of Honduran President Mel Zelaya. I thought it might be interesting to readers to hear from someone who has lived through the changes in Venezuela. Daniel has graciously agreed to this interview:


Do you see similarities between the current situation in Honduras as compared to what has happened in Venezuela or Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua?

Yes and now. It is important to observe that what happened in Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela was also based on a deep social crisis whereas Nicaragua and Honduras seem to have been more directly affected by the wish of a small clique to gain power for the long term using Chavez methods and the Venezuelan people money. When necessary, all of them like to paint the social crisis, inherent to every country of the region to a certain extent, as worse than what it really is. Thus "in the name of the people" all sorts of anti-democratic abuses can be perpetrated.

After 10 years of Chávez, has "21st Century Socialism" lived up to its promises?

Difficult question because it would require first to define what the heck is 21st Century socialism. The more we look at it, the more it looks like a warmed up leftover communism that tries to pretend to be something else. In a way, just like for Cuba, whatever good might have come from the foolish adventure happened early in the regime, all the subsequent years becoming just a single matter of survival for the new political caste that emerged with the regime. In Venezuela the only positive thing that I can give to Chávez is to make certain segments of the population that felt excluded to realize that they not only have a right to come forward and ask for their share, but the duty to do so. Unfortunately since this was done in order to create a clientèle system, the side result has a been social division of country, not necessarily along wealth lines (some of the richest men in Venezuela today are very close to Chávez) but along ideological and emotional terms (fed by an extraordinary corruption). Today we have an extremely polarized society with broken friendships and families, everywhere, at all levels of society. We will pay dearly for that.

As for the material results, the numbers today speak for themselves: Venezuela has the highest inflation and according to any serious international agency, it is one of the countries of the world that will emerge the last from the current world crisis. Non oil exports now represent barely 5% of the total export value.

A lot of North Americans have a misconception of exactly what a constitutional assembly is. Can you give us a brief explanation of how that functioned in Venezuela?

A constitutional assembly, in the good sense of the term, is an assembly elected in a country after either a major national disaster or a major change in the political system. For example after a lost war followed with invasion and occupation a society tends to rebuild itself from scratch. Or when a country decides to fire its king then it needs to figure out a new political system. Chavez subscribed and made his own the idea that political problems of a country can be cured through a new constitution, when in fact what is needed is political resolve and consensus. The ploy worked because too many people in fact, even if they did not like Chavez, thought that a constitution needs to be changed on occasion even if historical precedent in Venezuela indicate that the only "successful" constitution was the one of 1958 which lasted 40 years, the longest one of all.

Just like in Honduras, the 1958 constitution had a no reelection clause, though not as strict: a president could be reelected only AFTER two full terms of his first term. That is, ten years after s/he left office. What Chavez really wanted was immediate reelection and the only way to do that was through a new constitution since the old one would have been too difficult to amend on this matter. Along the way he pushed up the term from 5 to 6 years and thus gained for himself basically 14 years rule when you include the first two years under the old system.

While most Hondurans want to have elections next month and move on, the Honduran Resistance movement has threatened to boycott elections. Election boycotts also occurred in Venezuela. Did a significant portion of the voters boycott? Did the OAS or UN cast any doubts on the Venezuelan elections as a result of the boycott?

The opposition boycotted the 2005 legislative election because it was demonstrated that the privacy of the vote was not guaranteed. Since this happened a few days before the election there was no time (nor will from the government) to address the problem and the election was boycotted. International organizations recognized the result anyway: after all Chavez had won the year before the recall election and massively the regional election. All polls said anyway that chavismo was going to retain its majority in the new assembly. The opposition error was not to boycott, there was a political cost for Chavez there. The real error was to fail in offering a strategy for after the election. That is the real reason why that assembly, elected with less than 15% of the electorate could rule at ease.

What would happen to Honduras vote? Hard to tell. The OAS is obviously a president's club and as such cannot accept that one of their members is booted like that. In other words the OAS has NO CONCERN about the judicial or the legislative powers of its country members. Looking at Venezuela and observing how the OAS allowed Chavez to take over undemocratically the Judicial and Legislative power speaks volumes. On the other hand, once a new president is sworn in and that the vote included at least 60% of the electorate, it will be very difficult to maintain the Zelaya charade. I bet you that some countries will break rank within the OAS once credible elections happen. The challenge here is for the current government to make sure the elections are as free and fair as possible and that as many people as possible do go to vote. After, it is essential that all sides unite behind whomever is elected.


Based on your knowledge of what has happened in Venezuela, if you could advise Hondurans, what advice would you give to them?

It is not for me to give any advice to anyone. I cannot approve of the way Zelaya was ousted, no matter how deserving of it he was. Now you are paying for it. However the destructive attitude of Zelaya who is not afraid to expose Honduras's people blood for his glory establishes without any doubt that he is totally unfit to be a democratic ruler of any country.

I am very amused by the parallel made by the Micheletti "regime" and the one from Chavez. As far as I can tell from here, there seems to be more freedom, more respect for human rights in Honduras today than in Venezuela!!!!!

Maybe the method you chose to resist the Chavez take over of Honduras was not the right one, but most reasonable folks will agree that leaving Zelaya in office was extremely risky. For Chavez it is very cheap to buy an election in Honduras. After all, it would be no more than what he spends each time he campaigns in Zulia state. The anti Zelaya camp could never raise the funds to match what Chavez would give Zelaya for any referendum. Zelaya was not going to play fair and it is up to the Micheletti et al. camp to convince people of that. It is tough but that is the way it is. I truly wish you the best, that you avoid the moral misery that Venezuela has become.



Many thanks go to Daniel. Please visit his blog Venezuelan News and Views. This link will take you to his articles about Honduras.
Blogged with the Flock Browser

domenica, ottobre 25, 2009

Código Venezuela » Injerencia chavista en Colombia

Injerencia chavista en Colombia

Injerencia chavista en Colombia
Alek Boyd creó vcrisis.com y desde octubre de 2002 lleva un blog sobre Venezuela en idioma inglés. Desde entonces, ha trabajado como investigador independiente, reportero, lobista y activista de derechos civiles y políticos. También ha hecho consultoría política y estratégica en América Latina. En el 2006, Alek se convirtió en el primer bloguero en seguir como sombra a un candidato presidencial en Venezuela. Actualmente es vicepresidente de programa en The Human Rights Foundation.

El dinero de los contribuyentes venezolanos se invierte en propaganda e injerencia en el extranjero

Amigos lectores: los invito a que, juntos, tratemos de definir el siguiente caso. Piedad Córdoba es una senadora colombiana, harto conocida en Venezuela por su participación en negociaciones para la liberación de rehenes que se encuentran en poder del grupo narcoterrorista FARC. Sin ánimo de entrar en detalles sobre las simpatías políticas de la senadora Córdoba, son hechos incuestionables: 1) que ella es senadora, y 2) que es colombiana. Hasta ahora estamos claros, ¿no?

Bien, pasemos ahora al siguiente hecho inobjetable: 3) el régimen de Hugo Chávez ha mantenido por varios años una oficina de propaganda en Washington, léase la capital del imperio, llamada (en inglés) Venezuela Information Office. De allí han salido luminarias revolucionarias, tales como Andres Izarra y Eva Golinger. Esa oficina ha recibido millones de dólares provenientes del erario nacional, para contrarrestar lo que los chavistas llaman “ofensivas mediáticas”, léase periodistas haciendo su trabajo. De todo lo citado existe suficiente información pública, revelada por mi, y otras fuentes, hace años.

Ahora bien. Empleados de la Venezuela Information Office, Olivia Goumbri para ser más preciso (no olvidemos: devengando un sueldo proveniente del dinero de todos los venezolanos para defender la imagen de Chávez en EEUU), estuvo encargada de hacer toda clase de contactos tendientes a organizar encuentros y citas, entre Piedad Córdoba y congresistas y senadores norteamericanos.

Por tanto, estimados lectores, ¿cómo podemos definir eso? Es decir, ¿por qué el dinero de los contribuyentes venezolanos es utilizado en pagarle a alguien para que le organice encuentros a una senadora colombiana en los EEUU? ¿Es que los senadores del hermano país no ganan lo suficiente para pagarse sus propios asistentes? ¿Es que Colombia no tiene representación diplomática en Washington, capaz de encargarse de tales eventualidades?

Chávez, y sus apólogos, resienten acusaciones de injerencia. Pero ante este nuevo ejemplo, ¿cómo llamar lo narrado anteriormente? Espero sus comentarios.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Alek Boyd: Olavo de Carvalho explains Lula and the Sao Paulo Forum

Olavo de Carvalho explains Lula and the Sao Paulo Forum


Recent events in Honduras demonstrate, clearer than any other problematic political situation in Latin America, the moral fickleness of the so called international community and the media. For that country’s independent and sovereign institutions, read the Supreme Court, the Attorney General’s Office and Congress, ruled, unanimously in the case of Congress, in favor of removing Manuel Zelaya from power, owing to his violations to Honduras constitution. This crucial fact notwithstanding, we have seen universal condemnation of the new administration of Honduras. It comes relentless from all quarters, from all locations, from across parties, it is an issue that has exemplified, like no other, the essence of what unelected world government means. To hell with local authorities, to hell with rulings from local people’s representatives in Congress, for it is the ‘will of the world’ that a man who was trying to do away with democracy, be reinstated in power, as if nothing had happened.


But if the reaction of the international community as a whole is not proof enough of collective stupidity and utter racism, the actions of Brazil, in its open interference in Honduran affairs, is something to behold, not least because is doing it so brazenly, before the eyes of the world, and all one could hear about is praise for the Brazilian president, the Latino version of Obama as far as personality cults are concerned. This is not the first time Lula shamelessly sticks his imperial self in the internal politics of other countries, as we Venezuelans are painfully aware. Lula, whose rag to riches sort of ascent to power from lowly union ranks has captured the imagination of one too many sycophants, continues to be referred to in uncritical terms, as the saviour of the new Latin-American left. Lula represents the “good left, the progressive left”, that left which, totally uncalled for, forces its way into the sovereign affairs of nations, to the delight and thunderous applause of the media and the international community. Therefore given current coverage, I thought pertinent to call upon someone who does know Lula, who has followed his career, a fellow from Brazil who actually knows what he’s talking about, and ask him a few questions. What follows is my interview to Olavo de Carvalho.


—Perhaps you remember Olavo that, in November 2005, we were part of a small group of people who were invited to brief former US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Tom Shannon, about the political situation in our respective countries. I do remember, very vividly, your warnings about Lula during that particular meeting. With the passing of time, I must say how pleasantly surprised I am with the turn of perception vis-a-vis Hugo Chavez. Mind you, in November 2005, the DoS still harboured the notion that he was a democrat, purportedly just like Lula. However, recent developments in Honduras show that Lula is as keen on interfering in other countries internal affairs, as his Venezuelan counterpart. Yet one would be hard pressed to conclude, by way of how mass media portrays the Brazilian president, that such is in fact the case. For this reason, taking into account that you are Brazilian, and that you have been following your country's politics for longer than most reporters are aware of Lula's very own existence, I would like to ask you a few things about him, starting with: why do you think the media is given him such benign treatment? Most analysts and media types believe that Lula is a moderate, a democrat. How do you reconcile that with, for instance, the foundation by Lula, at Fidel Castro's personal request, of the Foro de Sao Paulo (FSP)?


There is nothing there to be properly reconciled. The image and the reality, in that case, are in complete contradiction to each other. The legend of Lula, as a democrat and a moderate, only holds up thanks to the suppression of the most important fact of his political biography, the foundation of the São Paulo Forum. This suppression, in some cases, is fruit of genuine ignorance; but in others, it is a premeditated cover-up. Council of Foreign Relations’ expert on Brazilian issues, Kenneth Maxwell, even got to the point of openly denying the mere existence of the Forum, being confirmed in this by another expert on the subject, Luiz Felipe de Alencastro, also at a conference at the CFR. I do not need to emphasize the weight that CFR’s authority carries with opinion-makers in the United States. When such an institution denies the most proven and documented facts of Latin American history of the last decades, few journalists will have the courage of taking the side of facts against the argument of authority. Thus, the São Paulo Forum, which is the vastest and most powerful political body that has ever existed in Latin America, goes on unknown to the American and, by the way, also worldwide public opinion. This fact being suppressed, the image of Lula as a democrat and a moderate does indeed acquire some verisimilitude. Note that it was not only in the United States that the media has covered up the existence and the activities of the Forum. In Brazil, even though I published the complete minutes of the assemblies of that entity, and frequently quoted them in my column in the prestigious newspaper O Globo, from Rio de Janeiro, the rest of the national media en masse either kept silent, or ostensibly contradicted me, accusing me of being a radical and a paranoid. When at last President Lula himself let the cat out of the bag and confessed to everything, his speech, published on the president’s official website, was not even mentioned in any newspaper or TV news show. Shortly afterwards, however, the name “São Paulo Forum” was incorporated into video advertisements of the ruling party, becoming thus impossible to go on denying the obvious. Then, they moved on to the tactic of harm management, proclaiming, against all evidence, that the São Paulo Forum was only a debate club, with no decisional power at all. The minutes of the assemblies denied it in the most vehement manner, showing that discussions ended up becoming resolutions, unanimously signed by the members present. Debate clubs do not pass resolutions. What’s more, the same presidential speech I have just mentioned also disclosed the decisive role that the Forum played in the sense of putting and keeping Mr. Hugo Chávez in power in Venezuela. Nowadays, in Brazil, nobody ignores that I told the truth about the São Paulo Forum and the rest of the media lied.


On the other hand, it is clear that Lula and his party, being the founders and the strategic centre of the Forum, had to keep a low profile, leaving to more peripheral members, like Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales, the flashiest or most scandalous part of the job. Hence, the false impression that there are “two lefts” in Latin America, one democratic and moderate, and the other radical and authoritarian. There are two lefts, indeed, but they are rather the one that commands, and the other that follows the first’s orders and thereby risks its own reputation. All that the Latin American left has done in the last nineteen years was previously discussed and decided in the Forum’s assemblies, which Lula presided over, either directly until 2002, or through his deputy, Marco Aurélio Garcia, afterwards. The strategic command of the Communist revolution in Latin America is neither in Venezuela, nor in Bolivia, nor even in Cuba. It is in Brazil.


Once the fact of the existence of the São Paulo Forum was suppressed, what has given even more artificial credibility to the legend of the “two lefts” was that the Lula administration, very cunningly, concentrated its subversive efforts upon the field of education, culture, and moral rules, which only affect the local population, prudently keeping, at the same time, an “orthodox” economic policy that calmed down foreign investors and projected a good image of the country to international banks (a double-faced strategy inspired, by the way, in Lenin himself). Thus, both the subversion of the Brazilian society and the revolutionary undertakings of the São Paulo Forum managed, under a thick layer of praise for President Lula, to pass unnoticed by the international public opinion. Nothing can illustrate better the duplicity of conduct to which I refer than the fact that, in the same week, Lula was celebrated both at the World Economic Forum in Davos, for his conversion to Capitalism, and at the São Paulo Forum, for his faithfulness to Communism. It is quite evident, then, that there is one Lula in the local reality and another Lula for international consumption.


—Could you expand a bit on the sort of organization the FSP is, and the democratic credentials of some of its members?


The São Paulo Forum was created by Lula and discussed with Fidel Castro by the end of 1989, being founded in the following year under the presidency of Lula, who remained in the leadership of that institution for twelve years, nominally relinquishing it in order to take office as president of Brazil in 2003. The organization’s goal was to rebuild the Communist movement, shaken by the fall of the USSR. “To reconquer in Latin America all that we lost in the European East” was the goal proclaimed at the institution’s fourth annual assembly. The means to achieve it consisted in promoting the union and integration of all Communist and pro-Communist parties and movements of Latin America, and in developing new strategies, more flexible and better camouflaged, for the conquest of power. Practically, since the middle of the 1990’s, there has been no left-wing party or entity that has not been affiliated with the São Paulo Forum, signing and following its resolutions and participating in the intense activity of the “work groups” that hold meetings almost every month in many capital cities of Latin America. The Forum has its own review, America Libre (Free America), a publishing house, as well as an extensive network of websites prudently coordinated from Spain. It also exercises unofficial control over an infinity of printed and electronic publications. The speed and efficacy with which its decisions are transmitted to the whole continent can be measured by its ongoing success in covering up its own existence, over at least sixteen years. Brazil’s journalistic class is massively leftist, and even the professionals who are not involved in any form of militancy would feel reluctant to oppose the instructions that the majority receives.


The Forum’s body of members is composed of both lawful parties, as the Brazilian Worker’s Party itself, and criminal organizations of kidnappers and drug traffickers, as the Chilean MIR (Movimiento de la Izquierda Revolucionaria) and the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia). The first is responsible for an infinity of kidnappings, including those of two famous Brazilian businessmen; the latter is practically the exclusive controller of the cocaine market in Latin America nowadays. All of these organizations take part in the Forum on equal conditions, which makes it possible that, when agents of a criminal organization are arrested in a country, lawful entities can immediately mobilize themselves to succour them, promoting demonstrations and launching petition campaigns calling for their liberation. Sometimes the protection that lawful organizations give to their criminal partners goes even further, as it happened, for example, when the governor of the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Olívio Dutra, an important member of the Workers’ Party, hosted a FARC commander as a guest of state; or when the Lula administration granted political asylum to the agent of connection between the FARC and the Workers’ Party, Olivério Medina, and a public office to his wife. Sometime before, Medina had confessed to having brought an illegal contribution of $5 million for Lula’s presidential campaign.


The rosy picture of Brazil that has been painted abroad is in stark contrast with the fact that from 40,000 to 50,000 Brazilians are murdered each year, according to the UN’s own findings. Most of those crimes are connected with drug trafficking. Federal Court Judge Odilon de Oliveira has found out conclusive proofs that the FARC provides weaponry, technical support, and money for the biggest local criminal organizations, as, for instance, the PCC (Primeiro Comando da Capital), which rules over entire cities and keeps their population subjected to a terror regime. Just as I foretold after the first election of Lula to the presidency in 2002, the federal administration, since then, has done nothing to stop this murderous violence, for any initiative on the government’s part in that sense would go against the FARC’s interest and would turn, in a split second, the whole São Paulo Forum against the Brazilian government. In face of the slaughter of Brazilians, which is more or less equivalent to the death toll of one Iraq war per year, Lula has kept strictly faithful to the commitment of support and solidarity he made to the FARC as president of the São Paulo Forum in 2001.


      

In face of facts like these, it is always recommendable to take into account the concentration of the ownership of the means of world communication, which has happened over the last decades, as it has been described by reporter Daniel Estulin in his book about the Bilderberg group. Even the more distracted readers have not failed to notice how the opinion of the dominant world media has become uniform in the last decades, being nowadays difficult to perceive any difference between, say, Le Figaro and L’Humanité concerning essential issues, as, for example, “global warming,” or the advancement of new leaderships aligned with the project for a world government, as, for example, Lula or Obama. Never as today has it been so easy and so fast to create an impression of spontaneous unanimity. And since the CFR proclaims that the São Paulo Forum does not exist, nothing could be more logical than to expect that the São Paulo Forum disappears from the news.


—Other analysts have made the preposterous argument that foreign intervention, imperialism by any other word, has never characterized Itamaraty's policy. In light of "union leader" Lula's direct intervention in helping Chavez overcome the strike in 2002-03 by Venezuelan oil workers, by sending tankers with gasoline, how would you explain such blatant ignorance?


Itamaraty’s traditions, however praised they were in the past, no longer mean anything at all. Today, the Brazilian diplomatic body is nothing but the tuxedoed militancy of the Worker’s Party. At the same time, the intellectual level of our diplomats, which had been a reason of pride since the times of the great baron of Rio Branco, has formidably declined, to the point that nowadays the intellectual leadership of the class is held by geniuses of ineptitude, such as Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães. No wonder then that everywhere now our ambassadors are simple agents of the São Paulo Forum. It cannot be said that this properly expresses Brazilian imperialism, for our Ministry of Foreign Relations does not hesitate to sacrifice the most obvious national interests before the altar of a more sublime value, which is the solidary union of the Latin American left. There is no Brazilian imperialism, but rather São Paulo Forum’s imperialism.


—Do you think Marco Aurelio Garcia is behind Zelaya's return to Honduras, as has been alleged? If yes, it is evident that is a matter of a FSP member coming to the rescue of a fallen comrade, but what's in it for Brazil?


The Brazilian government denies having something to do with that, but Zelaya himself confessed that his return to Honduras had been previously arranged with Lula and his right hand man, Marco Aurélio Garcia. The most evident thing in the world is that this grotesque installation of Zelaya in the Brazilian embassy is an operation of the São Paulo Forum.


—Given that Tom Shannon is now US Ambassador to Brazil, would you reiterate what you told him about Lula, and his partners in crime, in November 2005, or would you advise differently?


Tom Shannon did not pay due attention to us in 2005 and this was, no doubt, one of the causes of the aggravation of the Latin American situation since then. It is likely that he read Maxwell’s and Alencastro’s speeches at the CFR, and thought that such a prestigious institution deserved more credibility than a handful of obscure Latin American scholars with no public office or political party. Unfortunately, we, not the CFR, were the ones who were right.


—Finally, as in the case of Chavez, has Lula done enough institutional damage to remain in power, or will he hand over power democratically?


The alternation in presidential power no longer has any great meaning, for the two dominant parties, the Workers’ Party and the Brazilian Social Democrat Party, act in concert with each other and, despite minor differences in the administrative economic field, they are equally faithful to the overall strategy of the Latin American left. Lula himself has celebrated as a big victory of democracy the fact that there are only leftist candidates for the 2010 presidential elections, as if the monopoly of the ideological control of society were a great democratic ideal. On the other side, the most celebrated of the so-called “opposition” leaders, former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, has already acknowledged that between his party and the Workers’ Party there is no substantive ideological or strategic difference, but only a contest for offices. It matters little who will win the next elections, for, in any event, the orientation of the Brazilian government must remain the same: in the social and juridical field, overpowering subversion; in the economic field, moderation to anesthetize foreign investors. The only difference that may arise is in the field of security, in the case that the candidate of the Brazilian Social Democrat Party, José Serra, wins, for his party, despite being as much a left-wing party as the Workers’ Party, does not formally belong to the São Paulo Forum, being therefore free to do things against organized crime, which Lula himself could never do. As governor of the state of São Paulo, Serra showed to be the only Brazilian political leader who pays attention to the slaughter of his fellow-countrymen. It is still early to know whether or not he will be able to do what he did in his state, but it is certain that he would wish to do it.
Blogged with the Flock Browser