The great irony of the current U.S. administrations’ doublespeak is often that it can be so inaccurate but so right at the same time. There was no lack of such speech during the recent hearings before the Congressional Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees where General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker pressed for a continued occupation of Iraq at current troop levels. In the sea of empty rhetoric from all sides, Crocker spoke of Iranian intentions of “Lebanonization” of Iraq. His words remind exactly why, as both Crocker and Petraeus repeated, supposed gains in Iraq are “fragile and unstable” - and why they will remain so as long as the U.S. continues its military and political occupation.
The statement which brought “Lebanonization” to the table, like many of the comments by Crocker, was historically inaccurate: “Iran is pursuing, as it were, a 'Lebanonization' strategy, using the same techniques they used in Lebanon, to co-opt elements of the local Shi'a community and use them as basically instruments of Iranian force,” he said.
Ignoring the fact that Hezba’llah cannot be seen as a mere tool of Iran, the comments do prompt a real reminder of what “Lebanonization” means and just how “fragile and unstable” Iraq becomes each day. In its commonly-held meaning, that Crocker surely must have been aware of, “Lebanonization” occurred when the Arab country of Lebanon entered a civil war led by internationally-backed feudal warlords and their militias claiming to represent sectarian and political groups.
Iraq fits this surface-level description all too well. Beyond this, though, the U.S. is literally architecting the deeper, more dangerous structural problems and militarization that fracture Lebanon to this day in playing a role similar to Syria and Israel in Lebanon.
If anything, Crocker and Petraeus’ speeches sounded like something directly out of the Syrian and Israeli spin machines during and post the Lebanese civil war. The U.S., like Syria, is all of a sudden the only thing that can stop Iraqis from killing themselves, done so by installing itself in the middle of the game and selectively arming groups. The U.S., like Syria, continues to shift its alliances according to its need and finds a new enemy every few months. For the Syrians in Lebanon, the enemy was one day the Palestinians and the next day the Israelis, one day one Shi’ite militia and the next one Christian one; for the U.S., yesterday it was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and today Iran. U.S. hands are in every nook of the Iraqi democratic process, ensuring that only the most friendly to the U.S. make it to the government. There is even the standard Syrian and Israeli practice in Lebanon of torturing prisoners.
In the meanwhile, the presence of the U.S., like the presence of the Israelis in South Lebanon or the Syrians in Lebanon’s center, does nothing more than justify the existence of militias who claim they must protect their country. The Jaish-al-Mahdi in Iraq can claim its stake because it is fighting an occupation; this the current motivation behind the clashes in Sadr City that just yesterday killed 3 and has the U.S. army dressing up as Iraqi security to protect itself. Take away the impetus for these groups and you have a very different situation; as Hezba’llah learned, once the occupier flees armed groups must reshape their role to one of civil politics and have little legitimacy in keeping weapons.
“Lebanonization” also offers clarification of the many supposed successes Petraeus offered Congress on his many charts. The drop in inter-sectarian incidents is quite easily explained in the fact that Baghdad – and the country itself- is becoming a land of walls controlled by local militants. Internal displacement in Baghdad has risen dramatically as over five years of forced segregation becomes cemented, and the prospect of inter-sectarian violence has decreased as Shi’ite, Sunnis, Kurds and Christians, and the political groups-within-these-groups, interact with less frequency. Beirut, like in Baghdad was carved as such, with violence occurring in the same way, mostly on the dividing lines of the city’s sectarian quarters or in dramatic massacres and car bombs.
Lebanon also offers a quite important warning regarding the Sons of Iraq, the quasi-volunteer unit Petraeus touted, which is paid stipends around $10 a day to help defend neighborhoods against AQI, stipends. This barely-compensated group in a fractured society may prove already-armed membership for militias, as the underpaid Lebanese military did when it collapsed in the first days of the war.
This Lebanon-style militia-ization is being codified with efforts by the main U.S. allies in Iraq, such as the Supreme Council of Iraq, who want to capitalize on a federalist-type law that goes into effect this month. This law allows regions to apply for special status similar to that accorded the Kurdish region, giving the local government the right to establish local paramilitary forces and to negotiate deals with foreign oil companies. It now offers the potential for each political faction to arm and fund itself in a state-sanctioned way.
Irrationally removing a central government in weeks, the U.S. replaced it with a political system mirroring Lebanon’s. This very structure in Lebanon is the chief structural cause of sectarianism in Lebanon and continues to be the impetus for deadlock. U.S. actions during the sanctions and its destructive invasion have proved a boon for an underground economy feeding civil war. As in Lebanon, paramilitaries are using the black market to fund their armory and hold down their fiefs; they tax entry into cities and parts of Baghdad and own the channels of external and internal trade.
Crocker was right: “Lebanonization” is occurring and Iraq is “fragile and “unstable.” But the U.S. itself is as an architect and impetus for both these realities. The Democratic Congressmembers could easily have pressed this point, instead of speaking of vague Iraqi responsibility, had they remotely examined the facts of the ground. Instead, political grandstanding took over, another opportunity for change was lost, and the administration gained another green light to speed forward civil war in Iraq.
10.4.08
8.3.08
fun, while it lasted: the press and its old tricks
For maybe two months, at most, it seems the U.S. was seeing some mainstream press coverage that leaned on the more balanced, at the least in terms of our own elections. (I am not talking about international politics or anything of the like, and I am not talking about the Clinton mouthpiece, the New York Times) The new experiment in some sort of U.S. democracy – where for once in a long, long time, there was a slew of candidates markedly different from each other and to some degree, from their predecessors – risks being limited even further from its already limited scope by the mainstream press. Give time for corporate interests, for pressure from an old, entrenched political elite, to take full effect, and the mainstream press seems to be saying: yes, the fun has been had, but ain't no change on the horizon.
Starting with the lead up to the Iowa caucuses in January, it seemed for a second that the energy of the new breed – the Obama, Edwards and, sigh, even Huckabee camps, even the new “clean” McCain strategy, all of these – could captivate and distract the press for the briefest moment. Don’t get me wrong; this was a modest shift, but combined with the actual politics changes on the ground, it was somewhat encouraging. The press was saying things like, “Which universal healthcare plan works,” and asking about real strategies to end the war, shift away from oil, and promote healthier foreign policy.
But no more than three months later than these events, the press has taken hold of it’s old patrons and darlings, the Clintons and the Republican old guard, to lead us back to politics as usual, as dangerous.
Today’s Los Angeles Times presents a clear example of the press’ turn for the worse. The Top of the Ticket political blog took the Obama’s comment that its “premature” for him to speak of becoming vice president to Hilary on the Democratic ticket as Barack Obama “refus(ing) the notion of becoming vice presidential candidate.” Obama suddenly appears to be the grand refuter of the “dream ticket” of a woman and a black man, two birds, one stone, for simply stating that he is still running for President and will follow his intended course. This seems natural, particularly given he is and continues to be, following today’s primaries, the lead contender and yes, a presidential candidate. Clinton is meanwhile positioned as the saintly reconciler for offering Obama the position of VP twice in one week, re-iterating in both instances she would be “on top.”
The main article on the Wyoming victory makes a clear point in the lead paragraph that Wyoming is “sparsely populated” (i.e. meaningless). The article also re-iterated Clinton’s victory in Ohio and Texas, which is not so much a problem except for the fact that at present, the caucus results in Texas are still only partially counted and Barack Obama stands to win an overall victory in the state following the results. (Apparently no one has learned from the early prediction issues caused by the news networks during the 2004 elections.)
Add in the press that Obama supposedly walked off the March 3 press conference in response to "tough questions," while he made it perfectly clear he was simply staying on schedule and took the time to answer all the press' questions on Tony Rezko and other supposed scandals as best possible. The press, meanwhile, took it as a chance to say Obama could not handle the real power of a tough press.
These small examples are only the latest in a process that can be traced back to numerous shifts, or more appropriately, returns to the old ways. Many say the press all of a sudden feels the need to take such a negative tone across the board because of Clinton’s reiteration that the media has been so easy on Obama, a fact she hammered in through her appearances on Saturday Night Live and her other messaging. The key problem in this argument is in its assumptions, but the mainstream media has nonetheless used the argument as a segue into politics-as-usual.
What Exactly is Vetting?
The first disturbing assumption that jumps to mind is that this statement assumes that Obama has some secret harsh past that no one knows about, one similar to that of Clinton’s. If she had some clear point to speak on her opponent, let her bring it up; all she has found to do attack her opponents lack of time in government and his policy, not his integrity (all but for the Tony Rezko scandal, still impossible to link to the candidate). The press, never lazy for scandal, has dug without recourse. Is this a bad thing?
Clinton also acts as if the press has vehemently assaulted Hilary by being straightforward about the fact that Obama, a relatively young political figure, has come out to prove himself a formidable contender in the race and mobilized a formidable movement by running without the utilization of traditional negative campaigning. The other option would be to completely discount Obama’s grassroots campaigning and success and spew more clichés about “is America ready for..?”. The press was quite honest where it needed to, and gave Clinton credit where it was due: that Clinton controls the big states, that the union establishments support her (such as in Nevada), that she has held her own on Super Tuesday. Did she just want reporters to echo her exact words, to parrot her “maybe Obama is not experienced enough” and “maybe Obama is just a big talker?”
But more importantly, and more broadly relevant, the press played its usual “vetting” game with Obama; he has always taken every question with stride since his early campaigning, to the point where he even admitted that yes, he inhaled and “that was the point.” The same with Edwards, Huckabee and sadly, even McCain, who at the onset also campaigned without turning to negative slander. The problem is that none of these campaigners really have spent more than a few minutes of airtime answering to this and spent a lot more time early on speaking to their platforms.
Clinton’s was not a call to ask tough substantive questions: it was a call for the press to get back to the fun ol’ celebrity-image slander and distracting non-politics. It was a call for the press to move away from a potential direction addressing policy – healthcare, a collapsing economy, globalization– to the same political reporting that has dominated the U.S. at least since Reagan. Let’s avoid real politics and focus on the empty, with the occasional reference to terrorism and the threat from the outside. More “It’s 3 A.M. and the phone rings at the White House,” less questions on how to make healthcare accessible.
It’s the same call the Limbaughs and Coulters made to McCain: we do not play a fair game and will not allow any fresh, new ideas to dominate the airwaves or campaign trails. Repeat the word terrorism, abortion and Islam and shut the hell up.
And alas, the press (and Mr. McCain) took the bait. Maybe that Saturday Night Live skit was just that compelling. More likely, the behemoth corporate advertisers who also support the Clintons and the Bushes and the current state of things finally dug their fingers in and asked press to tow the line.
Whatever it is, the mainstream press has demonstrated it has no interest in politics-as-new and much more interest in protecting the status quo. It has now cowed down, erasing Edwards and Huckabee quickly (far too complicated to have more than two people in any race), pressing McCain publicly to become a good ol’ conservative again, and now making Obama look like he is barely hanging on. They even went for the third-partier-America-loves-to-hate, Ralph Nader, ignoring the fact that the Green Party is not even running him and is instead putting forward Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
Another Missed Opportunity
The present elections would have been the perfect opportunity for the mainstream media to exhibit the fact that it responds to the needs of the masses and can ask real questions, instead of veering from any conversations on substantive political change. There are a million questions that could be asked that hit all sides: What exactly does “renegotiate NAFTA” mean? Are white college educated liberals looking to Obama because they want to appease racial guilt or is there a genuine belief in his platform? Is McCain going to stand his ground on immigration and torture or bow to his party’s old guard? What do the largest turnouts in recent history really mean, and what complexities are being caused in state after state by this unprecedented voting?
The first step in this path was to move away from the usual slander and talkshow politics and then really start pressing candidates further in regards to policy. The last stretch of primaries, in the gap time before the conventions, would have been the perfect time to go further and ask the tougher questions mentioned above, utilizing intelligently what may be the last chances before the “real thing.”
The only audacious hope is that the U.S. is wise – or fed up enough with its collapsing economy, infrastructure, and standing in the world – to tune this out.
Sidenote:
The one bright spot in the Los Angeles Times today was Meghan Daum’s opinion, titled “Why we still need Clinton,” positing that she represents an old sofa we cannot get rid of. What is most important, though, and where she could not take it, is that though a good portion of the U.S. seems damn ready for new furniture in a collapsing house, those who own the house, and their mouthpieces, seem unwilling to let us make any change to the décor.
Select Sources and Further Reading:
Slate on the slow results of the Texas Caucus: http://www.slate.com/id/2185920
LA Times “Top of the Ticket” on Democratic VP spot: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamasays-novp.html
LA Times on Wyoming primary: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-nuwyoming9mar09,0,544094.story
Meghan Daum in the LA Times, “Why we still need Clinton” (op): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum8mar08,0,5282321.column
Starting with the lead up to the Iowa caucuses in January, it seemed for a second that the energy of the new breed – the Obama, Edwards and, sigh, even Huckabee camps, even the new “clean” McCain strategy, all of these – could captivate and distract the press for the briefest moment. Don’t get me wrong; this was a modest shift, but combined with the actual politics changes on the ground, it was somewhat encouraging. The press was saying things like, “Which universal healthcare plan works,” and asking about real strategies to end the war, shift away from oil, and promote healthier foreign policy.
But no more than three months later than these events, the press has taken hold of it’s old patrons and darlings, the Clintons and the Republican old guard, to lead us back to politics as usual, as dangerous.
Today’s Los Angeles Times presents a clear example of the press’ turn for the worse. The Top of the Ticket political blog took the Obama’s comment that its “premature” for him to speak of becoming vice president to Hilary on the Democratic ticket as Barack Obama “refus(ing) the notion of becoming vice presidential candidate.” Obama suddenly appears to be the grand refuter of the “dream ticket” of a woman and a black man, two birds, one stone, for simply stating that he is still running for President and will follow his intended course. This seems natural, particularly given he is and continues to be, following today’s primaries, the lead contender and yes, a presidential candidate. Clinton is meanwhile positioned as the saintly reconciler for offering Obama the position of VP twice in one week, re-iterating in both instances she would be “on top.”
The main article on the Wyoming victory makes a clear point in the lead paragraph that Wyoming is “sparsely populated” (i.e. meaningless). The article also re-iterated Clinton’s victory in Ohio and Texas, which is not so much a problem except for the fact that at present, the caucus results in Texas are still only partially counted and Barack Obama stands to win an overall victory in the state following the results. (Apparently no one has learned from the early prediction issues caused by the news networks during the 2004 elections.)
Add in the press that Obama supposedly walked off the March 3 press conference in response to "tough questions," while he made it perfectly clear he was simply staying on schedule and took the time to answer all the press' questions on Tony Rezko and other supposed scandals as best possible. The press, meanwhile, took it as a chance to say Obama could not handle the real power of a tough press.
These small examples are only the latest in a process that can be traced back to numerous shifts, or more appropriately, returns to the old ways. Many say the press all of a sudden feels the need to take such a negative tone across the board because of Clinton’s reiteration that the media has been so easy on Obama, a fact she hammered in through her appearances on Saturday Night Live and her other messaging. The key problem in this argument is in its assumptions, but the mainstream media has nonetheless used the argument as a segue into politics-as-usual.
What Exactly is Vetting?
The first disturbing assumption that jumps to mind is that this statement assumes that Obama has some secret harsh past that no one knows about, one similar to that of Clinton’s. If she had some clear point to speak on her opponent, let her bring it up; all she has found to do attack her opponents lack of time in government and his policy, not his integrity (all but for the Tony Rezko scandal, still impossible to link to the candidate). The press, never lazy for scandal, has dug without recourse. Is this a bad thing?
Clinton also acts as if the press has vehemently assaulted Hilary by being straightforward about the fact that Obama, a relatively young political figure, has come out to prove himself a formidable contender in the race and mobilized a formidable movement by running without the utilization of traditional negative campaigning. The other option would be to completely discount Obama’s grassroots campaigning and success and spew more clichés about “is America ready for..?”. The press was quite honest where it needed to, and gave Clinton credit where it was due: that Clinton controls the big states, that the union establishments support her (such as in Nevada), that she has held her own on Super Tuesday. Did she just want reporters to echo her exact words, to parrot her “maybe Obama is not experienced enough” and “maybe Obama is just a big talker?”
But more importantly, and more broadly relevant, the press played its usual “vetting” game with Obama; he has always taken every question with stride since his early campaigning, to the point where he even admitted that yes, he inhaled and “that was the point.” The same with Edwards, Huckabee and sadly, even McCain, who at the onset also campaigned without turning to negative slander. The problem is that none of these campaigners really have spent more than a few minutes of airtime answering to this and spent a lot more time early on speaking to their platforms.
Clinton’s was not a call to ask tough substantive questions: it was a call for the press to get back to the fun ol’ celebrity-image slander and distracting non-politics. It was a call for the press to move away from a potential direction addressing policy – healthcare, a collapsing economy, globalization– to the same political reporting that has dominated the U.S. at least since Reagan. Let’s avoid real politics and focus on the empty, with the occasional reference to terrorism and the threat from the outside. More “It’s 3 A.M. and the phone rings at the White House,” less questions on how to make healthcare accessible.
It’s the same call the Limbaughs and Coulters made to McCain: we do not play a fair game and will not allow any fresh, new ideas to dominate the airwaves or campaign trails. Repeat the word terrorism, abortion and Islam and shut the hell up.
And alas, the press (and Mr. McCain) took the bait. Maybe that Saturday Night Live skit was just that compelling. More likely, the behemoth corporate advertisers who also support the Clintons and the Bushes and the current state of things finally dug their fingers in and asked press to tow the line.
Whatever it is, the mainstream press has demonstrated it has no interest in politics-as-new and much more interest in protecting the status quo. It has now cowed down, erasing Edwards and Huckabee quickly (far too complicated to have more than two people in any race), pressing McCain publicly to become a good ol’ conservative again, and now making Obama look like he is barely hanging on. They even went for the third-partier-America-loves-to-hate, Ralph Nader, ignoring the fact that the Green Party is not even running him and is instead putting forward Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney.
Another Missed Opportunity
The present elections would have been the perfect opportunity for the mainstream media to exhibit the fact that it responds to the needs of the masses and can ask real questions, instead of veering from any conversations on substantive political change. There are a million questions that could be asked that hit all sides: What exactly does “renegotiate NAFTA” mean? Are white college educated liberals looking to Obama because they want to appease racial guilt or is there a genuine belief in his platform? Is McCain going to stand his ground on immigration and torture or bow to his party’s old guard? What do the largest turnouts in recent history really mean, and what complexities are being caused in state after state by this unprecedented voting?
The first step in this path was to move away from the usual slander and talkshow politics and then really start pressing candidates further in regards to policy. The last stretch of primaries, in the gap time before the conventions, would have been the perfect time to go further and ask the tougher questions mentioned above, utilizing intelligently what may be the last chances before the “real thing.”
The only audacious hope is that the U.S. is wise – or fed up enough with its collapsing economy, infrastructure, and standing in the world – to tune this out.
Sidenote:
The one bright spot in the Los Angeles Times today was Meghan Daum’s opinion, titled “Why we still need Clinton,” positing that she represents an old sofa we cannot get rid of. What is most important, though, and where she could not take it, is that though a good portion of the U.S. seems damn ready for new furniture in a collapsing house, those who own the house, and their mouthpieces, seem unwilling to let us make any change to the décor.
Select Sources and Further Reading:
Slate on the slow results of the Texas Caucus: http://www.slate.com/id/2185920
LA Times “Top of the Ticket” on Democratic VP spot: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/obamasays-novp.html
LA Times on Wyoming primary: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-nuwyoming9mar09,0,544094.story
Meghan Daum in the LA Times, “Why we still need Clinton” (op): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum8mar08,0,5282321.column
returning, with too much to say
ok, so i'm back. yes, there is an extremely large gap in time I have to fill in and many things to say, between Chavez-shut-up and Chavez-you-want-war-Colobmia? but there are oh so many interesting things going on in the U.S. that I'll have to mix and match, a la old mervyn's (?) ads..so yes, i'll be writing more, since i'm in kinda one place.
2.12.07
the shut up heard round the world, and more important things: morales, chavez, and the new latin american socialism
[NOTE: I have sound clips of the Chavez and Morales speeches. If for some reason you are interested, email me and I will figure out how to send them to you, because I don't know how to put them up on a blog. If you do, don't hesitate to let me know how...]
There are times where one stops and wonders, for a brief second, if mainstream news corporations are even trying to present some remotely accurate news or at least operating with some lack of pre-meditated corporate interests. Then, there are times, like reading the deliberate and pointed demonization campaign against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (as well as Bolivian President Evo Morales), focusing in on the Venezuelan constitutional referendums and Chavez’s meetings with the FARC and Iranian president, that you realize you should just throw all those illusions out your 17th story window. (1) These days, it is impossible to ignore the mainstream (U.S. and international) media’s servitude of neoliberalism and imperialism in ripping apart Chavez, whose name is now being tossed around with the same weight as a Saddam or a Fidel Castro, to make him our latest bogey-man of anti-democracy, oppression and general “Third World” rabble rousing.
THE KING, THE SHUT UP, AND THAT DARN CHAVEZ
Here in Chile, I got a first hand view of all of this with the media coverage of the XVII Cumbre Iberamericano held November 9th to 11th, reporting rife with its gratuitous character assassinations of Chavez and hints of a Latin-America wide socialist conspiracy. The mainstream press both here and internationally centered in on the closing discussion of the “official” Cumbre (gathering) - which is a key economic and political meeting of top leaders from throughout Latin America, Portugal and Spain - on November 11th. Even though it was Spanish King Juan Carlos who broke all rules of diplomatic behavior by telling Venezualan President Hugo Chavez “que te calles” (i.e. you – impersonal - shut up) in the middle of Chavez’s debate with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, the press somehow found a way to make Chavez look, once again, like a crazy ranting dictator. Journalists could not help but peg Chavez’s discussions at the forum, which included, god forbid, pleads in support of water access for Bolivia and critiques of neoliberal leaders such as former Spanish PM Aznar, as further proof of his megalomania.
In total contrast to the mainstream media’s campaign, I had the privilege of seeing a completely different reality at the closing event for the Cumbre’s parallel social movement gathering (similar to the World Social Forum), the XVII Cumbre por la Amistad y Integracion de los Pueblos Iberoamericanos, held here in Santiago the same day. At this free and open closing event, I was finally allowed a chance to hear Chavez speak for himself, alongside Bolivian President Evo Morales two other Latin American leftist presidential figures, who took the time to speak to a (unfortunately small) crowd (2) of social movement leaders and general public.
No big surprise: I did not hear any hints of the angry dictator, the demagogue, the trampler of human rights and all-around baby-eater fabricated in the press. Instead, I heard a socially revolutionary and ideologically committed leader encourage further action towards collective economic equality (better known as socialism) in a coherent, accessible, and intelligent manner. Yes, he was animated and forceful, yes, he knew how to move the crowd, and yes, he was unflinching in his critique of capitalism. He even said revolution (gasp). But this charisma and commitment seemed far more the marks of a strong populist leader than the demagoguery and fascism it is so often spun as. And perhaps that is why the oligarchies in his country and the international neoliberal elites fear Chavez, Morales and the newest Latin American left leaders so much.
CHAVEZ: “EL UNICO CAMINO” AND THE VENEZUALAN MIRACLE
In a matter of an hour, Chavez bridged political economic analysis, rhetoric, friendly humor, and anecdote after anecdote to cover everything from the Venezualan economic and social successes, his upcoming reforms, the failures of the private sector and neoliberalism, to the need for cross-Latin America unification under “el unico camino”: socialism. Among others, he cited his creation of a fully functioning public transportation and public air travel system (Confederation Venezuela de Aviation), massive minimum wage increases (that includes an additional food allowance), the state’s planning for a 36 hour workweek, along with a brief recounting of Latin American resistance to imperialism from Bolivar forward. He even had time to indulge in some self-effacing jokes turning the racist “monkey” taunts national and international elites had turned on him and Bolivian President Evo Morales.
These distinct “facts on the ground” in Venezuala cemented Chavez as more than a talking head and into a leader with a concrete, evolving economic model geared towards equity and diverse public benefit. Chavez did not have to rely on the usual Marxist diatribes but could easily turn to the changes he has heralded and will continue to in his country, such as reigning in the majority of Venezualan petroleum revenue towards new schools, hospitals, technical universities, and other social investments to drop poverty by almost half, eliminate illiteracy and raise the income for the working and poorest classes by over 200%.
In a particularly emotional moment, which highlighted Chavez’s overall theme of Latin American and international unification in the face of neoliberalism, a cell phone call came from Cuban President Fidel Castro himself to Chavez, on the Cuban Vice President’s phone. (3) This bridged to the story Chavez had told earlier in his talk, where Castro put in an critical phone call to Chavez during the attempted coup in Venezuela. Castro, where he pleaded for Chavez to keep fighting imperialism to the death in the same way Salvador Allende did. In this less dramatic call, Chavez instead repeated the words of the ailing Cuban leader to the crowd, who thanked Chileans for their support of the movements in Nicaragua, Cuba, and throughout Latin America and urged the continued struggle to socialism.
YES, ANOTHER TERRORIST: EVO MORALES AND "LA LUCHA POR LA IGUALIDAD"
Bolivian President Evo Morales, who followed Chavez, has received his own share of slandering by the neoliberal press and oligarchy in his own country and internationally, some of which, he noted, has gone so far as to call him a “narco-terrorist” and the “Bin Laden Andino.” It was even less imaginable to see this calm, collected, and passionate leader in this light and even more impossible not to be compelled by his developing model of socialism and equitable economics.
Morales calmly recounted statistics regarding plummeting poverty and the results of the steady nationalization of natural gas resources and reclaiming of Bolivia’s natural resources, as well as sketched more of his own plans for public transport, education and poverty elimination in Bolivia. Morales did not miss his opportunity to shut down his critics issue-by issue, including silencing the allegations against him as cheap post 9-11 scare tactics, and reaffirm the Bolivian people’s commitment to protect and advance their young revolutionary state against any imperialist aggression.
Morales – by far, the least career politician - also made perfectly clear his roots out of social movements in Bolivia and reaffirmed the importance of these groups in leading the move towards socialism, especially in defining a form of government appropriate for each country. He and Chavez both made perfectly clear the role of diverse groups – not just either labor or campesinos as it had been in the 60’s and 70’s - in the struggle for socialism and in defining the economic path for each nation, moving far beyond the older, static communist ideology of the 20th Century.
CUBA, NICARAGUA AND A WORD FROM THE OLDER GUARD
The energy and enthusiasm for Chavez and Morales’ talks were built up by the preceding speeches from Cuban Vice President Ricardo Lagre and Nicaraguan President and Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. (4) Lagre brought forward a clear, concise message: Cuba has made socialism happen, Cuba has survived the U.S. brutal embargo, and the people of Cuba will not simply embrace capitalism once Fidel passes on. Refreshingly, he made no attempt to tone down his anger at the recently re-strengthened U.S. sanctions, which was condemned by even the most centrist leaders during the “official” Cumbre the days prior (of course, virtually unmentioned in the U.S. media).
Recently-elected Nicaraguan president and Sandinista party leader Daniel Ortega’s speech centered less on particular reforms and more towards reciting histories of the U.S. aggression in Nicaragua, Cuba, and throughout Latin America, turning frequently to some tried-but-true rhetoric. You could tell, though, the excitement he brought forward in the older activists in the crowd, who had watched and aided the Sandinistas’ bitter fight for survival, as he thanked the Chileans who had come to Nicaragua during the 1980’s to support the movement. His short time in office thus far might have contributed to the fact he had less to say in respect to his current plan for Nicaragua – which has been fairly silent in the media as well – or perhaps he just knew his audience.
By the end of the event, the passion and concrete successes and plans of these leaders turned upside down my expectations (based on the standard U.S. and Chilean activist rallies) of the entire event. Instead of yet another rally full of anti-Bush, pro-“pueblo” speeches and vague calls for revolution, these four figures offered a palpable view into the radical social change sweeping Latin America and perhaps soon, worldwide. (5) After standing mere meters (6) away from these Presidents, the caricatures of Chavez and Morales created by the mainstream international presses were almost laughable in the face of their words and more importantly, in the face of the critical new economic models and social movements backing these leaders.
The real importance of these two conferences in Santiago – and the real reason Spain’s King could not stop himself from literally trying to shut Chavez up – is that they were clear signifiers that times had changed. As Chavez noted, the days are gone where these regional conferences would be a puppet show in the service of the neoliberal consensus and U.S. interests. Suddenly, the social movements and groups that the bourgeoisie hoped would be appeased by mediocre liberal reforms are taking charge of their own broader revolution. Suddenly, concrete but flexible socialist economic models are answering to the will(s) of the majority of its peoples. Suddenly, the tools of democratic elections are being used to dismantle the master’s house. And suddenly, it’s easy to see that it will take more than an ill-conceived defamatory media campaign to turn back the radical changes in economics and politics sweeping – and holding fast – across Latin America.
Footnotes, of sorts:
(1) Just reading Newsweek’s November 19th issue the other day, for example, you could see several casual jabs at Chavez’s governance, all without an actual article on Venezuela. Not so mention the “Ahmenijad and Chavez team up against America” articles all over the press last week…
(2) Unsurprisingly, none of the anti-Chavez opposition who had protested his arrival at the Venezuelan Embassy in Santiago showed up to even hear what he had to say.
(3) Unfortunately, the crowd could not hear Castro because, after a few entertaining minutes of watching the numerous community leaders onstage struggle with the cellphone, they realized the phone itself didn’t have speakerphone. (Yeah, how many leftist revolutionaries does it take to get a cellphone…)
(4) I’m not exactly sure what happened with Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, the newest socialist-leaning (or “Christian left,” as Correa refers to himself), anti-neoliberal leader to emerge out of recent Latin American elections. He was announced as participating and even referred to by the emcee but never actually spoke or was referred to after that. Too bad, because it seems like he has some interesting ideas of his own…
(5) And to top it all off, there was no one selling punk patches, Che T-shirts, indigenous items or revolutionary books on the premises.
(6) Yes, we have embraced the metric system.
There are times where one stops and wonders, for a brief second, if mainstream news corporations are even trying to present some remotely accurate news or at least operating with some lack of pre-meditated corporate interests. Then, there are times, like reading the deliberate and pointed demonization campaign against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (as well as Bolivian President Evo Morales), focusing in on the Venezuelan constitutional referendums and Chavez’s meetings with the FARC and Iranian president, that you realize you should just throw all those illusions out your 17th story window. (1) These days, it is impossible to ignore the mainstream (U.S. and international) media’s servitude of neoliberalism and imperialism in ripping apart Chavez, whose name is now being tossed around with the same weight as a Saddam or a Fidel Castro, to make him our latest bogey-man of anti-democracy, oppression and general “Third World” rabble rousing.
THE KING, THE SHUT UP, AND THAT DARN CHAVEZ
Here in Chile, I got a first hand view of all of this with the media coverage of the XVII Cumbre Iberamericano held November 9th to 11th, reporting rife with its gratuitous character assassinations of Chavez and hints of a Latin-America wide socialist conspiracy. The mainstream press both here and internationally centered in on the closing discussion of the “official” Cumbre (gathering) - which is a key economic and political meeting of top leaders from throughout Latin America, Portugal and Spain - on November 11th. Even though it was Spanish King Juan Carlos who broke all rules of diplomatic behavior by telling Venezualan President Hugo Chavez “que te calles” (i.e. you – impersonal - shut up) in the middle of Chavez’s debate with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero, the press somehow found a way to make Chavez look, once again, like a crazy ranting dictator. Journalists could not help but peg Chavez’s discussions at the forum, which included, god forbid, pleads in support of water access for Bolivia and critiques of neoliberal leaders such as former Spanish PM Aznar, as further proof of his megalomania.
In total contrast to the mainstream media’s campaign, I had the privilege of seeing a completely different reality at the closing event for the Cumbre’s parallel social movement gathering (similar to the World Social Forum), the XVII Cumbre por la Amistad y Integracion de los Pueblos Iberoamericanos, held here in Santiago the same day. At this free and open closing event, I was finally allowed a chance to hear Chavez speak for himself, alongside Bolivian President Evo Morales two other Latin American leftist presidential figures, who took the time to speak to a (unfortunately small) crowd (2) of social movement leaders and general public.
No big surprise: I did not hear any hints of the angry dictator, the demagogue, the trampler of human rights and all-around baby-eater fabricated in the press. Instead, I heard a socially revolutionary and ideologically committed leader encourage further action towards collective economic equality (better known as socialism) in a coherent, accessible, and intelligent manner. Yes, he was animated and forceful, yes, he knew how to move the crowd, and yes, he was unflinching in his critique of capitalism. He even said revolution (gasp). But this charisma and commitment seemed far more the marks of a strong populist leader than the demagoguery and fascism it is so often spun as. And perhaps that is why the oligarchies in his country and the international neoliberal elites fear Chavez, Morales and the newest Latin American left leaders so much.
CHAVEZ: “EL UNICO CAMINO” AND THE VENEZUALAN MIRACLE
In a matter of an hour, Chavez bridged political economic analysis, rhetoric, friendly humor, and anecdote after anecdote to cover everything from the Venezualan economic and social successes, his upcoming reforms, the failures of the private sector and neoliberalism, to the need for cross-Latin America unification under “el unico camino”: socialism. Among others, he cited his creation of a fully functioning public transportation and public air travel system (Confederation Venezuela de Aviation), massive minimum wage increases (that includes an additional food allowance), the state’s planning for a 36 hour workweek, along with a brief recounting of Latin American resistance to imperialism from Bolivar forward. He even had time to indulge in some self-effacing jokes turning the racist “monkey” taunts national and international elites had turned on him and Bolivian President Evo Morales.
These distinct “facts on the ground” in Venezuala cemented Chavez as more than a talking head and into a leader with a concrete, evolving economic model geared towards equity and diverse public benefit. Chavez did not have to rely on the usual Marxist diatribes but could easily turn to the changes he has heralded and will continue to in his country, such as reigning in the majority of Venezualan petroleum revenue towards new schools, hospitals, technical universities, and other social investments to drop poverty by almost half, eliminate illiteracy and raise the income for the working and poorest classes by over 200%.
In a particularly emotional moment, which highlighted Chavez’s overall theme of Latin American and international unification in the face of neoliberalism, a cell phone call came from Cuban President Fidel Castro himself to Chavez, on the Cuban Vice President’s phone. (3) This bridged to the story Chavez had told earlier in his talk, where Castro put in an critical phone call to Chavez during the attempted coup in Venezuela. Castro, where he pleaded for Chavez to keep fighting imperialism to the death in the same way Salvador Allende did. In this less dramatic call, Chavez instead repeated the words of the ailing Cuban leader to the crowd, who thanked Chileans for their support of the movements in Nicaragua, Cuba, and throughout Latin America and urged the continued struggle to socialism.
YES, ANOTHER TERRORIST: EVO MORALES AND "LA LUCHA POR LA IGUALIDAD"
Bolivian President Evo Morales, who followed Chavez, has received his own share of slandering by the neoliberal press and oligarchy in his own country and internationally, some of which, he noted, has gone so far as to call him a “narco-terrorist” and the “Bin Laden Andino.” It was even less imaginable to see this calm, collected, and passionate leader in this light and even more impossible not to be compelled by his developing model of socialism and equitable economics.
Morales calmly recounted statistics regarding plummeting poverty and the results of the steady nationalization of natural gas resources and reclaiming of Bolivia’s natural resources, as well as sketched more of his own plans for public transport, education and poverty elimination in Bolivia. Morales did not miss his opportunity to shut down his critics issue-by issue, including silencing the allegations against him as cheap post 9-11 scare tactics, and reaffirm the Bolivian people’s commitment to protect and advance their young revolutionary state against any imperialist aggression.
Morales – by far, the least career politician - also made perfectly clear his roots out of social movements in Bolivia and reaffirmed the importance of these groups in leading the move towards socialism, especially in defining a form of government appropriate for each country. He and Chavez both made perfectly clear the role of diverse groups – not just either labor or campesinos as it had been in the 60’s and 70’s - in the struggle for socialism and in defining the economic path for each nation, moving far beyond the older, static communist ideology of the 20th Century.
CUBA, NICARAGUA AND A WORD FROM THE OLDER GUARD
The energy and enthusiasm for Chavez and Morales’ talks were built up by the preceding speeches from Cuban Vice President Ricardo Lagre and Nicaraguan President and Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega. (4) Lagre brought forward a clear, concise message: Cuba has made socialism happen, Cuba has survived the U.S. brutal embargo, and the people of Cuba will not simply embrace capitalism once Fidel passes on. Refreshingly, he made no attempt to tone down his anger at the recently re-strengthened U.S. sanctions, which was condemned by even the most centrist leaders during the “official” Cumbre the days prior (of course, virtually unmentioned in the U.S. media).
Recently-elected Nicaraguan president and Sandinista party leader Daniel Ortega’s speech centered less on particular reforms and more towards reciting histories of the U.S. aggression in Nicaragua, Cuba, and throughout Latin America, turning frequently to some tried-but-true rhetoric. You could tell, though, the excitement he brought forward in the older activists in the crowd, who had watched and aided the Sandinistas’ bitter fight for survival, as he thanked the Chileans who had come to Nicaragua during the 1980’s to support the movement. His short time in office thus far might have contributed to the fact he had less to say in respect to his current plan for Nicaragua – which has been fairly silent in the media as well – or perhaps he just knew his audience.
By the end of the event, the passion and concrete successes and plans of these leaders turned upside down my expectations (based on the standard U.S. and Chilean activist rallies) of the entire event. Instead of yet another rally full of anti-Bush, pro-“pueblo” speeches and vague calls for revolution, these four figures offered a palpable view into the radical social change sweeping Latin America and perhaps soon, worldwide. (5) After standing mere meters (6) away from these Presidents, the caricatures of Chavez and Morales created by the mainstream international presses were almost laughable in the face of their words and more importantly, in the face of the critical new economic models and social movements backing these leaders.
The real importance of these two conferences in Santiago – and the real reason Spain’s King could not stop himself from literally trying to shut Chavez up – is that they were clear signifiers that times had changed. As Chavez noted, the days are gone where these regional conferences would be a puppet show in the service of the neoliberal consensus and U.S. interests. Suddenly, the social movements and groups that the bourgeoisie hoped would be appeased by mediocre liberal reforms are taking charge of their own broader revolution. Suddenly, concrete but flexible socialist economic models are answering to the will(s) of the majority of its peoples. Suddenly, the tools of democratic elections are being used to dismantle the master’s house. And suddenly, it’s easy to see that it will take more than an ill-conceived defamatory media campaign to turn back the radical changes in economics and politics sweeping – and holding fast – across Latin America.
Footnotes, of sorts:
(1) Just reading Newsweek’s November 19th issue the other day, for example, you could see several casual jabs at Chavez’s governance, all without an actual article on Venezuela. Not so mention the “Ahmenijad and Chavez team up against America” articles all over the press last week…
(2) Unsurprisingly, none of the anti-Chavez opposition who had protested his arrival at the Venezuelan Embassy in Santiago showed up to even hear what he had to say.
(3) Unfortunately, the crowd could not hear Castro because, after a few entertaining minutes of watching the numerous community leaders onstage struggle with the cellphone, they realized the phone itself didn’t have speakerphone. (Yeah, how many leftist revolutionaries does it take to get a cellphone…)
(4) I’m not exactly sure what happened with Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, the newest socialist-leaning (or “Christian left,” as Correa refers to himself), anti-neoliberal leader to emerge out of recent Latin American elections. He was announced as participating and even referred to by the emcee but never actually spoke or was referred to after that. Too bad, because it seems like he has some interesting ideas of his own…
(5) And to top it all off, there was no one selling punk patches, Che T-shirts, indigenous items or revolutionary books on the premises.
(6) Yes, we have embraced the metric system.
somewhere in santiago..or valparaiso..or chile..or wherever..
so yes, i broke down and did exactly what i said i wouldn't do...a genius academic or at least moderately published enough to be a professor once said "yeah, i contradict myself. so what?" tres postmodern, etc. etc. so yeah. starting in santiago de chile and going who knows where..some thoughts..thanks for reading, especially if you're doing so on someone else's paid time. chau...r
and oh yeah, just because..
santiago at twilight
and in the daytime...
and...past the coastal cordillera, the hills of valparaiso (where i am desperately trying to get back to...)..
and oh yeah, just because..
santiago at twilight
and in the daytime...
and...past the coastal cordillera, the hills of valparaiso (where i am desperately trying to get back to...)..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)