You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘alba’ tag.
Unfortunately, for the intrepid Mr. Greenwald he’ll be in a brig, probably Gitmo, or the the Embassy of an ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) country, before we know it! Maybe he’ll outright get to an ALBA country since he lives in Brazil, which borders Venezuela and Bolivia. Dilma’s been getting ticked about all of this spying stuff, I’d have said he’d have a better chance of his own country (where he resides) sheltering him with Lula. But Dilma’s a bit of a wild card now, I think. I wouldn’t underestimate Dilma!
Self-styled Latin America expert Nicolas Kozloff has only just recently attacked the eminently admirable Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. In a column for America Online’s Huffington Post Kozloff describes the laudable Ecuadorian leader as “dubious”, and with (according to Kozloff) “backward tendencies”. Kozloff is unequivocally immensely dubious, and what his tendencies are I won’t even venture to say, but to attack such a genuine article populist/progressive leader as Correa is certainly deeply wrong — and an egregiously disagreeable thing for this Ecuadorian “aficionado” in my opinion to say.
Additionally, Kozloff attacks Correa for his policies vis a vis the Ecuadorian media. In contradistinction, I find these slanders against Correa to be akin to those leveled against Hugo Chavez in relation to RCTV (Radio Caracas Television). In that case of course Chavez had closed a station, that was complicit in taking part in a violent attempted coup d’etat against him! Noam Chomsky even once commented on that particular incidence/situation. And the noted linguist and political philosopher, opined that if an analogous event had taken place in the US; that the principals of the station would have, incontrovertibly, been tried and put to death!
The Real News Network examined some of the purported claims out there that Correa is heavy-handed, and unfair with the Ecuadorian media. Finding them wanting, and that Correa has actually opened up more space for exploration, investigation, heterogeneity and diversity in the Ecuadorian press! Prior to Correa out of seven private networks, five of them were owned by banks. Correa made it illegal for banks to any longer own television networks, and today there are four public networks in Ecuador and three private ones.
Correa questions the entire “quintessential” model of what has become known as a free press in the United States. Considering it to actually be a model of private networks in the communications business that are more interested in making a profit, rather than adhering closely to the ideal fundamental principles of journalism, and diligently informing the general public/citizens. Moreover, Correa finds that the private ownership of media will ineluctably lead to stories/investigations presenting themselves that will pose a conflict of interest to the ownership. And in Correa’s view the ownership will, of course, side with its interest — over the public one — in each and every case!
We have seen the reality of this in the not too distant past in the United States. As the Fox News Channel acted as an apologist for, and played down their owner’s (Rupert Murdoch’s) phone hacking scandal in the UK. In fact, the British Parliament even rendered a verdict that the Aussie tabloid monger Murdoch was unfit to run a major business! Something that I don’t think was even reported whatsoever/at all on Fox. Nor was it widely reported in the US mainstream press! One of Murdoch’s gutter/yellow journalism tabloids, the News of the World, even unconscionably hacked the phone of a missing (murdered) 13-year old girl. Something not known at the time, and her family has even said that this had given them false hope that their daughter may have still been alive! (Again this was not reported by Fox, or widely whatsoever in the US so-called free and “mainstream” press.) MSNBC when General Electric was its parent company, did not really make a lot of the issue of its owner’s failure to pay any taxes in 2010, although it is ostensibly a left-liberal oriented network; promoting higher taxes on stateless global jet-setting corporations like General Electric, rather than common “working stiffs”!
Returning to Ecuador and President Correa, however, Correa has furthermore responded to attacks upon his media strategy, by asking why a nation that ostensibly touts press freedom, is guilty of the torture of Private Bradley Manning!!? (A man who, undeniably, made available a good deal of information to the US and the Western so-called free press.) Journalists are, of course, supposed to protect their sources — if not derelict in their chosen craft — yet a source that provided major fodder for US and Western media, has not received sufficient indignation/outrage; certainly, in said media over of his crass, barbaric and inhuman treatment!
I must admit that I have not followed Nicolas Kozloff’s work very assiduously, but I do believe; however, that he fancies himself a supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution. Perhaps Kozloff only supports Venezuelan progressivism/revolutionary change, whilst he condemns the other ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) nations, though! Support for the Bolivarian Revolution certainly does not equate to support for every nation that is a part of ALBA, but Chavez was a “pan-Latin Americanist” undoubtedly, I’d say. And he was not only instrumental in the germination of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, of course, but the CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) organization as well! And CELAC, in fact, includes amongst its ranks such right-of-center Latin American governments as: Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, and Colombia. Colombia a nation with an abysmal human rights record, and a close ally of the US and the West — both of which, irrefutably, have innumerable “backward tendencies”.
Other attacks that Kozloff levels upon Correa are his allegiances with Iran and Belarus. Whatever Kozloff thinks of the human rights, civil liberties, and democracy (or lack thereof) in these countries. Both countries are, in truth, prominent nations insofar as nations attempting to strive for sovereignty on this Earth! And moreover, these are two insurgent nations that have been critical players in attempting to reinvigorate the — for far too long lying virtually entirely dormant — NAM (Non-Aligned Movement). In a world dominated by Machiavellian, and wholly unethical powers; a panoply of options, I don’t think, are afforded to most states. And particularly developing ones that are “seditious” and/or “mutinous” nations, and even nations who would submit to “brazenly” — not follow the path that is laid out for them — and to plumb go against the grain! Nicaragua is currently mulling a plan for China to build a Panama-like canal. Perhaps Kozloff does wholly condemn this (I cannot of course intuit his positions/views)? China is undeniably a nation whose human rights record could, of course, be examined quite strongly.
Venezuela also has good relations, as well as cooperation agreements, with both the nations of Belarus and the Islamic Republic of Iran! In fact, I believe that most of the ALBA nations do as well. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko was; in fact, the only European head of state, to give the late President Chavez the dignity of attending his funeral. And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat next to Raul Castro at the deceased President Chavez’s funeral service! President Ahmadinejad also received flak for hugging Chavez’s grieving mother at said funeral, which many in the Islamic Republic consider to be haram. Ahmadinejad additionally stated at the time of the death of President Chavez that he would return one day with Jesus Christ, and the Imam Madhi — a significant figure in the theology of Shia Islam.
I am not arguing that Correa has a spotless, virginal, or unmitigatedly pristine record! No indeed, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. But neither did FDR, Charles De Gaulle, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Hugo Chavez or the original incarnation of the Sandinistas! Certainly, we do not want to be apologists for every action that the Correa government/administration engages or partakes in! But a dubious figure, and moreover a disreputable individual — replete with backward tendencies? I’m deeply sorry Monsieur Kozloff, but unequivocally and rather indisputably no.
Though his ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas) colleague Hugo Chavez is still battling cancer, Rafael Correa is currently achieving political heights that he has perhaps never seen before. He has won a third term in the presidential election (56.9%), and there is not expected to be a second round. Correa has, of course, come to power leading a “citizens’ revolution”, to eviscerate poverty, strengthen democracy, promote egalitarianism, and in general build socialism for the present age. This is, undeniably, very troubling to the United States of America, which does not allow/like to see any kind of independent initiative or development take shape according to its seemingly stolid, apparently never changing, and exceedingly unenlightened neocolonial view of the Latin American world.
Obama, under an alleged change presidency, has made no discernible alterations to anything that United States does in the Caribbean, Latin and Central America. Obama has been accused of essentially being a Bush II on a number of policy fronts, and this would; unequivocally, be one that isn’t any sort of exception to that whatsoever/at all. In this instance Obama has assiduously followed the paternalistic guidebook. He hasn’t presented any significant reassessment or signal of reimagining of United States’ hegemonic and/or imperial ambitions in this world. In other words, he is simply more of the same, operating vis a vis an ostensibly different sheen.
In any event Correa has promised to deepen the citizens’ revolution he has led, which has; in fact, transformed tens of thousands out of poverty, lack of hope, disillusionment and despair. These events have unfortunately put a sign on his back with the Wall Street Journal referring to him as “Ecuador’s Chavez”, and should that terrible circumstance — of Chavez passing from this world inauspiciously occur — he has been suggested as the possible heir apparent, as the subsequent stand bearer for Latin American (left/center-left) change. I’d suspect he can take all this pressure/heat, at least sans another coup d’etat attempt against him — like that of which occurred in September 2010. The Western media is of course, unequivocally, extraordinarily obtuse, mean-spirited, barbarous and vicious indeed, and so he will; by all means, need as much good tidings and support, as folks of good will (throughout this world) can perceivably render up and share.
The death of Chavez may actually be a birth. He was possibly the first to come via elections, and not be assassinated, and see his revolution through. And varying leaders of varying levels of progressive/revolutionary credentials have followed. The David Wilcocks don’t seem to have been right about 2012, but the shift may have happened in Latin America (quite possibly). Other than Colombia and a few outliers/dead-enders, U$terrorist/the Monroe Doctrine hopefully is gone for good, as a force of domination over the people of this land. Whether Chavez lives and returns or not, I think perhaps it’s too late for Langley, Obama, rogue actors inside the US government, and the Pentagon.
While Bush was fixated on Iraq, though he disgracefully couped Aristide — who only wanted dignified poverty for Haiti — something U$terrorist can and will not, under any means, accept for a black nation; Latin America and the Carribean I think may have been lost (for the imperialists) for good. Viva ALBA! Viva sovereignty for Latin American nations; instead, of a rogue “super”power coming to either surreptitiously or brazenly eradicate people’s/responsive governments. (For hispanohalblantes speeches from Evo Morales, Daniel Ortega, couped ex-Paraguayan leader Fernando Lugo among others have been posted on Telesur’s YouTube.)
“I like Latin America; I view South America as the underdog in this situation. As a moviemaker I tend to make movies about people who don’t get a fair shake.” – Academy Award winning filmmaker, Oliver Stone
“One of the hemisphere’s great democratic leaders.” – George H.W. Bush on Carlos Andres Perez
Obama sounds very ignorant and uniformed and shortsighted, when he speaks on the issue of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Poverty’s down, literacy is up, education is up, and there are even more alternative voices in the Venezuelan media — which is actually largely right-wing. Obama’s blathering on Venezuela, would seem to be lacking a lot of verifiable substance and certifiable facts; and indeed, most Latin American countries had US puppets in power for years, and with dismal/wanting results. Chavez and all the others, in fact, represent, the failure of decades of US policy in Latin America.
Apparently, Obama didn’t read Eduardo Galeano’s Open Veins of Latin America, given to him by Chavez; I don’t think Obama reads anything but the sports pages (we already know that he loves to fill out the NCAA brackets). And as to the issue of Venezuela’s relations with so-called rogue states — as determined by the incomparable rogue state the US — Cuba is now going the way of China, and it has become increasingly ridiculous for our power elite to criticize its “socialist” path. In relation to Iran, Venezuela, of course — unlike the United States — has a foreign policy, that doesn’t involve hating upon countries, that have different systems (or ways of being) than it does.
Chavez has even negotiated better relations with the US bosom puppet state, Colombia, since Juan Manuel Santos came to power. Santos has proven to be somewhat more pragmatic vis-a-vis Venezuela, than his predecessor Alvaro Uribe aka “little Bush”, who Chavez even efforted to work with at times. Uribe strongly attacked his successor for, ultimately, coming to amicable terms with the Bolivarian President. And Chavez was attacked by some on the left for appeasement with the reactionary, serial human rights violating — and supine to the United States — Colombian regime.
Regarding, all of the hoopla relating to the shutting down of the anti-regime channel RCTV, the actual truth of the matter is that the Venezuelan media, is probably freer — and far more open — than the United States media is. Certainly, at least, as a check or an opposition. And moreover, the Venezuelan state media actually has very limited pull; and in fact, the United States media, often acts as a state run media, and not one that is free to report in its pertinent, exacting and judicious role would.
For example, when Obama went into Libya, he did not even consider the Constitution — which was sparsely reported by the MSM. And moreover, the US and NATO almost immediately violated the Libyan UN Resolution in their bombing campaign against that country; and the legalities of that were again sparsely, if at all, commented upon by the mainstream press. In addition, the extrajudicial killing of United States citizens with drones, has not been given its due attention — and has not been rigorously debated — in the US mainstream media so-called dialogue and/or “public square”.
Noam Chomsky, I think, is an illustrative example of the narrow limitations of the US mainstream press. He is, unequivocally, one of the preeminent scholars in the United States — who is in the same “citation league” as Marx, Lenin, Shakespeare, Plato, Cicero, Aristotle and Freud — and he is rarely seen or heard from in the US corporatist press. Why this is so, is certainly up for question/debate, but his sentiment on Israel is certainly a likely culprit; for this, seemingly troubling and irrational stance.
Numerous other noted scholars, authors, and commentators are completely blacklisted from the United States “mainstream” media and press. The media landscape is, in fact, filled with platitude repeating dittoheads and so-called political experts that willfully, and willingly seek to assuage the professional political class. The alleged watchdog role of the media, has certainly seemed to have deteriorated, to that of a lap dog press.
Returning to the question of Venezuela, however, Chavez actually originally came to notoriety, leading a movement against the US-backed Carlos Andres Perez regime. At the time hundreds, were killed in an anti-IMF riot, and his supporters now commonly refer to that day as ‘4F’. Although, Chavez was involved in an attempted coup d’etat, on that occasion, his supporters say this action took place — within the backdrop of a society — that was highly undemocratic and remarkably socially unjust. And not only that, but popular demonstrations, were violently suppressed under this US-backed “democratic” administration. One wonders what the private citizen Obama, was enunciating back then — if anything at all?
Obama — who has hailed Ronald Reagan more than once — is just once again showing his true, nauseating and despicable inner colors. Though he has now long since been unmasked (for any who would care to look), it is just so saddening to see this kind of anachronistic mentality, still being pushed on to emancipating nations of the Global South. Particularly by Obama, of course — a man of partial Kenyan ancestry, proffering this sort of cipherous bile, ridiculous claptrap, and preposterous trash. Venezuela, a comparatively diminutive country, is simply seeking to set out upon an autonomous path. It is a country that is after its own singularly unique, robust and purposeful course.
The Anything and Everything 