Salvar a Venezuela

Por Ricardo Alarcón de Quesada

La hostilidad del imperialismo estadounidense hacia la Revolución Bolivariana ha sido permanente y multiforme desde que Hugo Chávez resultó electo Presidente. Según avanzaba el proceso de transformaciones sociales promovido por Chávez, siempre respetando las normas constitucionales y la legalidad, el Imperio ensayaba nuevas acciones agresivas violatorias del Derecho Internacional.

La obra revolucionaria rescató a millones de venezolanos de la pobreza absoluta y la miseria, puso fin al analfabetismo, garantizó a todos y todas el acceso a la educación y la atención médica gratuita, les devolvió, en fin, la plena soberanía.

Venezuela ha cambiado sustancialmente. Sus grandes riquezas naturales, por primera vez en la historia, no son para el disfrute exclusivo de una minoría, sino que han sido y son redistribuidas para beneficio de las amplias masas. Pero ha sido una marcha cuesta arriba sorteando obstáculos de todo tipo.

Defender lo mucho que ha logrado y seguir conquistando mayores cotas de justicia constituye un perenne desafío para el pueblo del Libertador. Intentos de golpe de estado, “huelga” petrolera, sabotajes, sanciones económicas, diplomáticas y políticas, amenazas militares y una descomunal, multimillonaria, propaganda para aislarla y pretender justificar la intervención foránea, han sido el pan de cada día impuesto a un pueblo que, en contraste, no sólo no ha atacado ni dañado a nadie sino que se convirtió, al mismo tiempo, en ejemplo de fraternidad para con los otros pueblos del Continente.

Porque si Venezuela ha cambiado mucho, el Imperio no ha cambiado nada. Ayer, Obama, sin temor al ridículo, determinó que Venezuela es “una amenaza inusual y extraordinaria para la seguridad nacional de Estados Unidos”. Ahora Trump blande contra ella la llamada Carta Democrática Interamericana, cuyo texto debemos suponer que no ha leído pues, como se ufana en proclamarlo, el actual mandatario detesta la lectura.

La muerte de Hugo Chávez fue un golpe doloroso que estremeció a su país y al mundo. Desde Bolívar nadie hizo tanto como él por la emancipación de su pueblo, nadie supo hacer de Venezuela paradigma de solidaridad humana y auténtica democracia. Dedicado a su causa hasta el último aliento, antes de despedirse, Chávez propuso como a su sustituto y continuador a Nicolás Maduro, su mejor discípulo, un joven obrero y cercano colaborador, quien, en aquellas dramáticas circunstancias y enfrentando a una poderosa maquinaria de difamación y odio en su contra, resultó vencedor en las elecciones generales.

El gobierno de Maduro no ha conocido un instante de respiro. A la drástica caída en los precios del petróleo en el mercado internacional se ha unido la guerra económica desatada por Washington y en la que participa abiertamente la oligarquía local que especula con las limitaciones materiales y provoca escaseces y malestar. Estos fueron los factores principales que permitieron a la oposición obtener una mayoría de escaños en la Asamblea Nacional.

Hay que recordar que desde la primera elección de Chávez como Presidente en Venezuela se han realizado más elecciones, plebiscitos y otras consultas populares que las que hayan podido efectuarse en los países del Hemisferio que cínicamente quieren erigirse en jueces de la situación venezolana. En la mayoría de esos ejercicios democráticos vencieron las fuerzas del chavismo y cuando no fue así los resultados fueron aceptados por Chávez y por Maduro.

Conviene recordar asimismo que ganar o perder transitoriamente la mayoría de los miembros del órgano legislativo no significa ganar o perder el gobierno en los países de América Latina. Tampoco lo es en Estados Unidos: si tal cosa rigiera en el vecino del Norte la lista de Presidentes despojados de sus cargos sería interminable: por ejemplo Clinton, Bush y Obama, para sólo mencionar los más recientes en una bicentenaria tradición en la que resulta normal ejercer la jefatura del Estado contando con una minoría parlamentaria. Para no hablar de Trump cuya presidencia no es cuestionada -aunque Hillary Clinton lo superó por más de tres millones de votos- y ostenta el mayor índice de desaprobación del que haya memoria en aquel país.

No debe olvidarse, sobre todo, el carácter subversivo, anticonstitucional, proclamado sin ambages por Henry Ramos Allup cuando, al asumir la dirección de la Asamblea, anunció un plan para expulsar de la jefatura del Estado a Nicolás Maduro en seis meses. No formuló un programa legislativo, anunció un golpe de estado. Desde entonces no ha hecho otra cosa que alentar el caos y la inestabilidad institucional.

La OEA en cueros

La conducta ilegítima e irresponsable de la oposición lejos de sumarle apoyo interno ha generado la creciente resistencia de un pueblo que, más allá de las ideologías, necesita y desea la paz y la convivencia frente a la agresión externa. Para derrocar al Gobierno legítimo había que recurrir al exterior y buscar en Washington lo que no pueden encontrar en Caracas.

Entonces aparece, nada más y nada menos, que la llamada Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA) y su insólito Secretario General, Luis Almagro.

La historia del “ministerio de colonias yanquis” es sobradamente conocida. Hace más de un siglo, ante los primeros pasos para crear el “panamericanismo”, José Martí advirtió el peligro y llamó a pelear por la independencia verdadera de Nuestra América.

Para Almagro –o sea para el Imperio- el único problema en el Hemisferio es Venezuela. Su enfermiza obsesión antibolivariana los ha arrastrado al punto increíble de dar una suerte de golpe de estado dentro de la propia institución, desconociendo a sus propias autoridades –al representante de Bolivia, Presidente del Consejo Permanente y Decano de sus embajadores y al Vicepresidente que es el representante de Haití- para imponer su estrategia antivenezolana.

Si la OEA tuviese un mínimo de seriedad no le alcanzaría el tiempo para ocuparse de los problemas reales del Continente.

La represión masiva contra los latinoamericanos en Estados Unidos; el infame muro de Trump y sus medidas de proteccionismo comercial; la vergonzosa destitución de Dilma Roussef; la constante aparición de cementerios clandestinos en México y otros lugares; los asesinatos cotidianos de periodistas; los muchachos desaparecidos de Ayotzinapa, las niñas muertas en Guatemala, el incendio del Parlamento paraguayo; las huelgas y protestas populares en Argentina, Brasil y otros países, son parte del largo temario que interesa a los pueblos pero que no existen para Almagro ni para el dócil rebaño que lo sigue.

Porque la OEA no fue creada para bregar con la realidad. Nunca ha sido otra cosa que instrumento para la dominación imperial. Que a estas alturas echen mano a la vieja y desprestigiada herramienta, pisoteando incluso sus reglas y procedimientos, es un llamado de alerta. La agresión imperialista está en marcha y debemos detenerla.

El crimen se está cometiendo a la luz del día, a la vista de todos y contemplarlo en calma sería una complicidad imperdonable.

Urge multiplicar la solidaridad. Hay que salvar a Venezuela.

 

Publicado originalmente en Punto Final

It´s my party

Margarita Alarcón Perea

The OAS is an organization that dates back to way before the United Nations was created shortly after the end of World War II. Cuba is a founding member of both multinational bodies of work.

The objective of the UN is to safe guard the world from ever finding itself in situations like those created during the two world wars of the past century. The objective of the OAS was to unite the countries of the Americas in one body where nations belonging to the region could discuss and reach collaborative objectives aimed at furthering both development and security in the region.

After the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959, numerous member nations of the OAS backed a proposal made by the government of the United States whereby Cuba was voted out of the organization. Well, not quite. Most of the votes were actually abstentions made by those nations who didn’t wish to put their relationship with the US in any kind of peril. Those nations were: Argentina, Bolivia, Brasil, Chile, and Ecuador. México voted against Cuba’s exclusion.

Fifty years later, the OAS finds itself a bit alienated. First of all, because of something the United States did a little over 25 years ago when it sided with The United Kingdom over the Faulkland Island dispute between Argentina to whom the islands rightfully belong and the UK way over on the other side of the world who pertains to retain ownership of the territory. Understandable given that the Brits have this nasty habit of taking what isn’t really theirs. The US broke hemispheric protocol by siding against the Americas on this issue. It was the Reagan era and so much more was yet to come that I really shouldn’t dwell on this point.

Today things are different. Cuba has survived rather well without belonging to the OAS. NAFTA has proven that in spite of US and Canadian insistence it simply doesn’t work for anyone, least of all the women in Tijuana and the ever increasing factory shutdowns in the US. In 1994 in Miami (where else?!), the US convened all the nations of the Americas to partake in the First Summit of the Americas where it proposed a new economic plan for the region. FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) was never approved by the region; that´s why most of the readers have probably never heard the acronym, I am familiar with the Spanish translation ALCA and had to Google the English original. Subsequently other Summits have taken place and FTAA is still an unfamiliar term that simply doesn’t cut the mustard. Even more interesting is the fact that these summits don’t take place in a continuous and constant fashion like say on a yearly or biennial basis or even like the Olympics every four years. They have a rather unpredictable schedule which doesn’t offer much security when dealing with matters of state.
Incidentally, Cuba has never been invited to any one of these Erratic Summits of the Americas.

In 2004 President Hugo Chavez proposed the creation of a new hemispheric body in response to the Summits of the Americas, the OAS and the insistence of the US in favor of finally reaching consensus in favor of FTAA. ALBA was born. ALBA, Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas. For those interested in linguistic word play, “alba” also means ¨day break¨ in Spanish which makes for the ideal acronym.

Cuba is a co-founder of the ALBA.

At its onset, the Latin American economic, social and cultural alternative had only a few members, but it is growing in numbers at a constant rhythm. It also gathers on a constant basis and has among its main objective to unite the continent. This year has already seen the celebration of the XI Summit of Presidents of the Alba Nations in Caracas, Venezuela. During the Alba Summit President Rafael Correa of Ecuador suggested that if Cuba was once again excluded from partaking in the Summit of the Americas or the OAS, Ecuador would boycott those summits from which Cuba were to be excluded from. Nicaragua and Bolivia followed suit backing this proposal.

In the month of April of this year, Cartagena de Indias in Colombia will be hosting the 6th Summit of the Americas.

The President of Colombia in a desperate intent to not have his country look foolish during next month’s event was down here trying to find a consensus whereby Cuba would understand that although most member states desired the island nation to join them during these meetings, unfortunately there had been a “veto” vote against Cuba´s participation. I´ll give the reader three guess….

Correct! The government of the United States doesn’t want Cuba to be a participant, or a member or even a guest at what they consider to be their party.

But the real question is why?

Human rights? Socialism? The former Soviet Union? Universal health care and education? Oil? Salsa bands? Another Ricky Ricardo?

A Star is Born? Enter the CELAC

From The Huffington Post

By Manuel Barcia

Barely a few weeks ago heads of state of all 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries converged in the city of Caracas to launch a new initiative for regional integration, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, better known by its Spanish acronym CELAC (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños).

The CELAC is by no means a new type of experiment. Initiatives such as the Organisation of American States (OAS), the Rio Group, and more recently the Alianza Bolivariana para los Pueblos de Nuestra América (ALBA) have previously attempted to create a block of regional states with the capacity to solve the Continent’s problems.

This time, however, the stakes have been raised. Both the US and Canada have been purposely left out of the new organisation; a move that many of these countries would have steered clear of a few years ago. More problematic for the US, Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa expressed the wish, probably shared by others, that the CELAC may eventually replace the OAS. Additionally, while the US and Canada find themselves marooned, a former pariah, Cuba, has been welcomed with open arms. This is the first time Cuba has participated in a Continent-wide forum since 1962, when it was expelled from the OAS in the Eighth Meeting of Consultation in Punta del Este, Uruguay.

By acting independently of the US, the CELAC was destined for a mixed reception. It has been straightforwardly dismissed as another vain and quixotic attempt to achieve integration among countries that are, the story goes, incapable of working together. John Paul Rathbone from the Financial Times rushed to dismiss it in predictable fashion as “a blind and one-legged colossus, with one arm tied behind its back” (5/12/11), while Tim Padgett from Time Magazine was quick to underestimate the capacity for integration among Latin American countries by ironically suggesting that the biggest challenge facing the new body would probably be surviving Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is suffering from cancer (2/12/11).

Both opinions, typical of those circulating in cyber space, represent the familiar pattern of downplaying any sort of regional cooperation, pointing the finger at countries of the region for their violent and unruly societies and lack of respect for human rights, as if these problems were endemic to the region. The truth, however, is quite different. While the US and Europe find themselves bailing out their banks and economies, and enforcing pointless austerity measures in the hope that the markets will correct themselves following the Milton Friedman paradigm, the CELAC countries constitute a formidable block with a population of 550 million and emerging economies growing at approximately 6% in 2010 (UNCTAD). Journalists and politicians may believe that the CELAC is destined to fail, but their opinions represent nothing but a cacophony of neo-colonial fallacies disguising a real fear that for once Latin American and Caribbean countries may begin to make decisions unanimously and independently of the “friendly advice” of foreign powers.

These pundits of course blatantly disregard the extent to which Latin American and Caribbean countries have been able to work together in a sustained manner in the past. Even though it is true that from the Congress of Panama in 1826 divisions between some of these countries seemed insurmountable, the reality is that the US was the main reason why integration never materialised. Not only did they deprive Mexico of half of its territory in the 1830s and 1840s with their first imperialist wars, but they also intervened in the Cuban war of independence in 1898, and subsequently made of Puerto Rico a de-facto US colony.

Soon afterwards the US attempted to cut a deal with Colombia so that they could build a transoceanic canal in the Isthmus of Panama and when the Colombian Government refused to kneel, they resorted to their shiny new gunships and created a new nation, Panama, in 1903. They then forced upon the Panamanians the Hay-Buneau-Varilla Treaty (also known as the Treaty that no Panamanian signed) by which they granted themselves the right to build the canal and to exploit it for decades to come. Not satisfied with this, the US then occupied Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua during the Big Stick years and, when military intervention and occupation started to seem problematic, they proceeded to bring down the democratic governments of the region with CIA-backed coups (Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, Salvador Allende in Chile, etc.) and by establishing puppet dictators, who would commit some of the most horrendous violations of human rights in the Continent’s history.

Probably the powers that be, and that includes well-established newspapers and news channels, cannot bear the fact that, as Chavez argued, there is an opportunity for Latin American and Caribbean countries to be united in their differences and to demand respect. More to the point, Latin American and Caribbean people have perhaps reached the point at which integration is finally a real possibility. It is a chance for these 33 countries to make a stand together and to demand political and economic independence.