*** Washington manipulators revealed as helping to de-stabilize Venezuela, to sabotage and to oust President Hugo Chavez Frias from power?

*** Germany: Brandenburg intelligence service slanders the 

World Socialist Web Site. 

*** ¿Qué queda del proyecto político
de Sánchez de Lozada?

Washington manipulators revealed as helping to de-stabilize Venezuela, to sabotage and to oust President Hugo Chavez Frias from power?

VHeadline.com commentarist Oscar Heck writes: Have you ever wondered exactly how the USA (Washington) is involved in helping to de-stabilize Venezuela, especially recently, during the attempts by the opposition (CTV, Fedecamaras, Gente de Petroleo, COPEI, etc.) to sabotage the country and to oust Chavez from power?

I have some proof.

Although probably only the tip of the iceberg, this proof is representative of the extent to which the USA (most specifically, Washington) has been involved in backing the Venezuelan opposition’s acts of sedition, treason, sabotage and dis-information.

The following is a summary of monies received by “Venezuelan” organizations from the NED (National Endowment for Democracy). The information was gathered from the NED website.

Based in Washington, the NED is one of several supposed non-governmental US-based, not-for-profit organizations involved in granting monies to “pro-USA-style-democracy-collaborators” in foreign countries. The NED’s opening statement includes:

“...premised on the idea that American assistance on behalf of democracy efforts abroad would be good both for the U.S. and for those struggling around the world for freedom and self-government...”

and,

“...Governed by an independent, nonpartisan board of directors, the NED makes hundreds of grants each year to support pro-democracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East...”

Without having done a complete search of who exactly is involved in or sitting on the boards of directors of the “Venezuelan” organizations in question (below), I have done a rather time-consuming search of a portion of the NED website http://www.ned.org regarding its reporting on “aid” given to “Venezuelan” organizations for the promotion of “democracy,” USA-style.

The following are the results.

Between 1992 and 2001, the NED gave US$4,630,255 to “Venezuelan” organizations that supposedly promote democracy. Of this, $2,797,970 (60%) had been granted during the period 1998-2001, and a substantial percentage was granted in the 2 years previous to 1998. (Chavez was elected at the end of 1998).

The following is the breakdown of the monies received by “Venezuelan” organizations from the NED, starting with the organizations that received the most funding:

IRI: (International Republican Institute), a Washington-based “pro-democracy” organization promoting fundamental “american principles.” The IRI’s Venezuela base is: Fundacion Pensamiento y Accion, whose president is (according to their website) Eduardo Fernandez who also seems to be the president of Copei, one of Venezuela’s two major traditionally corrupt political parties, and anti-Chavez.

Cesap: A Venezuela-based organization that appears to be concerned with equality within Venezuelan society.

Sinergia: (¿?) One document appears to link them to Cesap and the World Bank (in their search for financial support).

Escuela de Vecinos: (seems to be directly linked to the NDI.)

Fundacion Momento de Gente

Victims of Caracazo

Primero Justicia

Comprension de Venezuela

Educational Association

Constitucion Activa

Red De Apoyo

Prodel

Consorcio Justicia

Observations:

1) It appears that the NED’s increased financial “assistance” was to some degree synchronized with the events aimed at ousting Chavez. Both the CTV and Fedecamaras (along with Venezuela’s privately-owned media: particularly, El Universal, El Nacional, Globovision, RCTV, TeleVen, Venevision, Tal Cual and others) were heavily involved both in the April 2002 coup against Chavez (which also led to the dictatorial abolishment of the National Assembly and the reform laws) and the 2-3 month business-backed “stoppage” (which plunged Venezuela into serious economic problems). The CTV and their “associates” were provided with $515,676US during the time that Chavez has been in power, versus $72,250US before Chavez came into power (approximately a 700% increase in funding!).

2) The major so-called “Venezuelan” organizations that the NED claims to have backed (at least publicly), were essentially Washington-based organizations (IRI, CICP,ACILS and the NDI) who were directly sponsored through facades: Fundacion Pensamiento y Accion, Fedecamaras, CTV and (apparently) Escuela de Vecinos de Venezuela.  There are several other business/political Venezuelan organizations linked to the NDI as well, all of which appear to be anti-Chavez, and not mentioned in this document. A search of the NED grant details will lead you to them. The percentage of funds dealt to these organizations by the NED during the time of Chavez (compared to pre-Chavez times) is 65% ($2,083,973) of the total monies granted to them over an approximate 10 year period. The total amount of funds received by these four organizations (Washington-based, but in Venezuela) over the 10-year period is almost 70% of all the moneys granted to all organizations in Venezuela by the NED for the same time period.

3) Although Fedecamaras’ (and other business associations’) share of the pie appears to have decreased during the time that Chavez has been in power, the amount in-of-itself is substantial: $211,281.  However, the Venezuelan business community may not have wanted more “publicized” funding from the NED in order to appear “clean,” not to mention that they probably have plenty of money anyways ... unless they did receive additional NED funding during 2002-2003, which does not appear on the NED website as yet.

4) The most astounding amounts of monies provided by the NED during the time of Chavez appear to have been given to Copei (through the IRI) and to other “hard-to-trace” Venezuelan cohorts linked directly to the NDI. The total amount is: $1,357,016.

5) Unless the NED’s website is not up-to-date, it strikes me as interesting that no monies seem to have been transmitted to the above mentioned “Venezuelan” organizations in 2002-2003. (I really don’t think that the NED would want to publish any details yet anyways ... at least not until Chavez is out for good.) I suspect, however, that if any monies were granted in 2002-2003, most, if not all monies would have been “delivered” before the end of February 2003 (when the Chavez government enacted currency exchange restrictions, suddenly cutting off “accessible” US-dollar supplies).

Things just seem to fall into place: with currency exchange controls, whatever US$ would enter Venezuela (after the currency exchange laws were in place), would have to remain in Venezuela for an indefinite period of time. The opposition began to cut back their sabotage-type efforts at the end of February 2003 and Carlos Fernandez and Carlos Ortega left for Costa Rica and Miami, probably relying of the last batch of US$ accessible to them. As the few recent months have shown, it does not appear feasible for any USA-loving Venezuelan anti-Chavez (anti-democratic) activist to receive any US-based (democratic?) financial help since such activists would have to spend the money in bolivares, in Venezuela ... no financial backing for free travel to the USA or exorbitant spending on Caribbean islands!

6) The NED is only one of several US-based organizations promoting US-style “democracy” throughout the world by providing financial support. Every one of the websites related to such organizations (and their grantees) also either state or imply adherence to and promotion of equality and “human rights.” However, from what I can see, the financial support provided by such organizations appears to go to members of the corrupt elite in Venezuela and abroad. Such moneys (supposedly aimed at pro-democracy activities and “human rights efforts”) end up in the hands of those elite who themselves have continued to perpetuate inequality and corruption.

Just look through the websites of some of these organizations and you will find some pictures of “pro-democracy/pro-human-rights meetings” taking place in very posh hotels ... the members and participants almost entirely “white.” It appears to me that the words, “democracy and human rights,” have become almost a “code” for corrupt-pro-USA Venezuelans looking for US hand-outs.

One simple example is the CTV ... how much of the $587,926 did they use? For what purpose exactly? To pay for rooms at El Tamanaco for “meetings” and press conferences aimed at inciting people to violence and sabotage? To pay for top-rate lunches in Las Mercedes? To take trips to Washington to try to convince Washington that Chavez is a communist? To pay for trips to Miami to seek Venezuelan-Miami support to assassinate Chavez? Democracy? Human rights?

7) If the NED and others are so interested in promoting democracy, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that promotional campaigns, educational courses and offices should be found within the geographical areas that most need the services? In Venezuela, this would mean, in the barrios. Not surprisingly, all the “Venezuelan”-based pro-democracy organizations that are subsidized by the NED appear to be based in wealthy areas of Caracas and meetings are held at 5-star hotels and restaurants and at beach-side resorts.

8) Now, for Washington to claim that they support democracy (and that they have had no hand in the attempts to oust Chavez) is ludicrous. The above figures are ample evidence of direct Washington involvement in subversive attempts at de-stabilizing Venezuela’s democratically elected government.

The above figures are concrete evidence that the USA (Washington) is directly involved in financially assisting criminal/terrorist activity in Venezuela; sedition/treason by the CTV and Fedecamaras, Carlos Ortega’s call for the assassination of Chavez in Miami, sabotage of the Venezuelan economy by the Venezuelan Business Associations, and more.

Hold on a second!

Isn’t Washington hunting downs all sorts of “Arabs” and “Muslims” that financially assist supposed Islamic “terrorist” organizations? Isn’t this exactly what Washington is doing ... financially supporting criminal and terrorist organizations such as the CTV and Fedecamaras?

9) The monies received from the NED by the supposed pro-democracy organizations in Venezuela were/are probably shipped to them “tax-free.” Based on my experience with the Venezuelan elite, I suspect that much of the money, if not most of it, was/is used for personal gain and corresponding taxes owed to the Venezuelan government were/are probably not duly paid. I propose that the Venezuelan government investigate tax evasion at all the above-mentioned organizations that received moneys from the NED. $4,630,255 tax-free, is a lot of money.

10) The NED has not contributed to VHeadline.com ... perhaps the most pro-democracy English-speaking Venezuelan news source. On the contrary, Washington, as proved above, wholeheartedly and actively supports the Venezuelan opposition, the same Venezuelan opposition that has been doing everything to try to shut down VHeadline.com by sabotaging our computers and threatening our sponsors. We have also received many death threats from Venezuelan opposition people and US citizens who do not like the fact that we bring up points that they (Washington included) would rather keep hidden from the public.

11) In the approximate 10 years of NED funding in Venezuela (1992-2001), only $80,000 was granted to the organizations involved in “setting things right” after the 1989 Caracazo food riots which left hundreds, if not thousands dead (mostly apparently shot and killed by government orders ... not Chavez’ government).

12) It would be very interesting to investigate to see who exactly sits of the board of directors of all the Venezuelan organizations funded by the NED, particularly, the several “small” organizations that were only funded during the time of Chavez. I would venture to say that most of the people involved in most of the above mentioned organizations are related either by family, business or friendship.

Finally, as if the above isn’t proof enough of corruption and hypocrisy on the part of Washington, on Monday, December 20, 1999, USAID, a Washington-based US government agency that purports to assist in world “needs,” published the following, regarding the Vargas (Venezuela) disaster where thousands of people died after massive land slides:

“USAID has already provided over $800,000 in assistance, including an eleven-person USAID Disaster Assistance Response Team which will coordinate U.S. Government relief activities, conduct damage and needs assessments, and oversee $225,000 which has been provided to the US Embassy in Caracas for the local purchase of supplies, including 30,000 tetanus vaccines and 40,000 syringes. USAID has also airlifted relief supplies to the region including, blankets, plastic sheeting, individual water containers and collapsible water tanks that arrived on December 19 and 20.”

Because of the way the statement is written, I suspect that part of the $800,000 (if not all) was to be used to pay the 11-person response team. The other $225,000 went to the US embassy to buy medical supplies. Who did the US embassy contract for the purchases? I suspect, a US-linked distributor.

While Washington dishes out $2,797,970 (1998-2001) to help support the criminal sabotage of a democratically-elected government, Washington also dishes out $1,025,000 to supposedly assist in a humanitarian disaster, most of which, in my opinion, would have fallen back into the hands of US contractors and/or the Venezuelan elite. Some help.

USAID is also apparently heavily involved in the “re-building” of Afghanistan and Iraq ... which, as all of us know, were destroyed by the USA itself.

Washington has an urgent need to give the impression of being benevolent benefactors while they try to reject any evidence that they themselves are co-conspirators in promoting inequality, destruction and corruption ... as they have done in Venezuela, and probably keep on doing to this day.

Oscar Heck
oscar@vheadline.com

The Venezuelan Military: The Making of an Anomaly Monday, Oct 20, 2003 Print format   By: Marta Harnecker - Monthly Review, Spetember 2003 Led by Hugo Chávez, a former military officer, a “Bolivarian revolutionary process” has been underway in Venezuela since Chavez’s election to the presidency in 1998.  While genuine progressive changes have been made and Chavez has won the enmity of the country’s rich and powerful, this “Bolivarian revolution” has been rejected by some on the left because it is headed by a military man and because the military has played a significant and outstanding role in numerous state institutions and government plans.  The reason for this rejection is the standard left wisdom that the military is an integral part of the bourgeois state’s repressive machinery, imbued with a bourgeois ideology, and therefore incapable of playing a revolutionary role in a capitalist society. But perhaps this is a mechanistic interpretation.  It might be better to avoid generalizations and analyze each country’s military within its own specific reality.  If we take this approach, we see that Venezuela’s military has not played that negative role.  During more than four years in which the military has occupied a key space in the Venezuelan political scene, they have defended the decisions made democratically by the Venezuelan people and they were the main actors in supporting Chávez’s return to power when in April 2002 a group of senior officers —most of whom found themselves with no soldiers to lead—knelt before the major interests in a coup attempt.[1] Military personnel have also headed important social projects organized by the government.  They have placed their work capacities, technical skills, and organizational knowledge at the service of the poorest sectors of society.  The most important of these undertakings has been Plan Bolivar 2000, a broad program aimed at improving the living standard of the poor, by, among other things, cleaning up streets and schools, improving the environment to fight endemic diseases, and recovering the social infrastructure in both urban and rural areas.  The goal of the Plan was to find solutions to social problems while generating employment in the neediest sectors and incorporating community organizations into these efforts. It is important to note that the Plan was begun during Chávez’s first year in power, when he faced a very unfavorable balance of forces.[2]  Most of the country’s governors and mayors were members of the opposition, and the same was true for the national Congress and the Supreme court of Justice.[3]  In addition, most of Chávez’s political cadres were then working on the political challenge first of amending the constitution to make it possible to implement his popular mandate and then in a series of elections to renew the mandates. Chávez’s victory had produced huge popular expectations, and it was necessary to begin immediately to satisfy the people’s aspirations.  The only apparatus with a national structure capable of carrying out Chávez’s mission (besides the Catholic Church) was the military. The Venezuelan armed forces, especially the junior officers, took on these tasks of social reconstruction with enthusiasm.  And as they made direct contact with the problems suffered by the very poor, these officers became more socially aware and engaged.  The junior officers now belong to the more radical sectors of the process.  This phenomenon, so unusual in Latin America, raises the question: Why has the Venezuelan military given overwhelming support to a process of profound social transformation, becoming deeply engaged in solving the problems of the poorest people?  The analysis which follows is based upon recent interviews with nine officers of the Venezuelan armed forces. The interviews and the analysis have recently been published in a book, Venezuela: Militares Junto al Pueblo.[4] A number of factors appear to distinguish Venezuela’s military personnel from their Latin American counterparts. First, the country’s military has been deeply influenced by the philosophy of Simón Bolívar, the most outstanding figure of Latin America’s struggle for independence from Spain.  While Bolívar never spoke of class struggle, he did insist on the need to abolish slavery and his work always shows concern for the common people.  His major contribution was perhaps his understanding of importance of Latin American integration.  He understood very early on that our countries had no future unless they joined in their struggle against European countries and the United States.  Already in the second decade of the nineteenth century he foresaw that “in the name of freedom, the United States of North America seem to have been destined by providence to plague America with miseries.”  He also believed that democracy had to be conceived as a political system to give people supreme happiness.  According to him, no military man should ever aim his weapon against the people. Second, beginning with Hugo Chávez’s generation, most of the military’s officers were trained not in the infamous School of the Americas (in the United States) but in the Venezuelan Military Academy.  In 1971 the Military Academy underwent a radical transformation, the Andrés Bello Plan, which brought it up to university standing.  Army cadres began to study political science and to read what had been written about democracy and about Venezuelan reality.  In their military strategy classes they studied Clausewitz, the Asian strategists, and Mao Zedong.  Students often went to the universities to specialized themselves in specific university subjects and began exchanging their experiences with other college students.  If some of them did go on to study at the School of the Americas, they went to the United States well-fortified with progressive ideas. Third, this generation of military officers never had to face a growing guerilla force as did so many other Latin American military.  On the contrary, it was trained in the 1970s, by which time the country had been for all practical purposes pacified and only a few guerilla nuclei remained active.  When soldiers patrolled peasant zones in the frontier, what they found was not a guerilla force but poverty.  They could see with their own eyes that the ideology so common among Latin American elites—that the poor are poor because they drink, because they have no initiative or will to work, because they are not very intelligent—was false.  They came to understand that behind poverty stands a national oligarchy hoarding the nation’s riches, along with the United States whose policies sow this poverty throughout the country. Fourth, there is no discrimination in the Venezuelan armed forces; anyone can reach the highest ranks. There is no military caste as in other countries.  Most of the senior officers are sons of poor urban and peasant families, and they know from experience the difficulties their people have to undergo to make a daily living.  This does not mean, of course, that because of their humble origins, they are immune to the clever coopting maneuvers of the oligarchy with whom they inevitably come in contact once they reach the higher ranks.  Some officers forget their social origins and start kneeling before the interests of the dominant classes. A fifth factor is the effect on the Chávez generation of the social upheaval commencing on February 27, 1989. This convulsion was aimed at rejecting the package of neoliberal economic measures imposed by the Carlos Andrés Pérez government, which, among other things, sought to reduce public expenditures, deregulate prices, liberalize trade, promote foreign investment, and privatize state companies. The immediate cause of the popular rebellion was the increase in public transportation fees provoked by higher gasoline prices.  People from the poorest neighborhoods took to the streets and began setting buses on fire, looting trade centers, and destroying stores and supermarkets.  The military came out to restore “order.”  The revolt, known as the “Caracazo” because it was centered in the capital city (though similar outbreaks took place in several other parts of the country) ended with a huge massacre.[5]  These events were very important in shaping the new political awareness of many of the junior officers. Sixth, even before the Caracazo, the enormous inequality in wealth in Venezuela, an inequality reinforced by endemic corruption and one which prevented the country from solving its social problems despite an oil boom which could have provided the revenues to do so, produced a current within the military which rejected the status quo. In December 1982 this current became an underground movement called the Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario 200 and  started growing internally and reaching civil sectors. This Movement took its inspiration from three main sources: Simón Bolívar, Simón Rodríquez, and Ezequiel Zamora.  We have already spoken about Bolívar.  Simón Rodríquez was Bolívar’s teacher and friend, a fine pedagogue and social reformer who strongly defended the originality of our Latin America with its multiethnic composition and argued for the need to integrate indigenous peoples and black slaves into the continent’s future societies.  He was a strong advocate for the creation of original institutions adapted to our own world, and he rejected the imitation of European solutions, convinced that, “We either invent or we err.”  Ezequiel Zampora was a liberal general who fought against the conservatives during the federal war of 1850 and who encouraged a struggle to death against the oligarchy and in favor of the distribution of land to the peasants. The Caracazo accelerated the plans of the young Movimiento, and three years later, on February 4, 1992, it organized a military rebellion against president Pérez that failed in its immediate goals but placed lieutenant colonel Hugo Chávez Frías, the main leader of the Movimiento, at the center of the nation’s theater of events.  This charismatic leader needed only two minutes of television time to register his personality in the minds of his people.  In that short space of time he publicly assumed responsibility for events, in a country where no other leader had ever before adopted this kind of attitude.  He called upon the insurgents to surrender, but he issued his famous sentence: “For the time being!”  This was a clear message to the people that he had not given up the struggle. Thanks to this attitude he was able to build positive public opinion around him and his project, in a country where skepticism for politics and politicians permeated much of society, including the middle classes.  This initial commitment by Chávez paved the way for his strong victory in the 1998 presidential elections.  His election, accepted favorably by many of his fellow military men, provides a seventh reason for the Venezuelan military’s uniqueness—they are now in a favorable position to carry out the tasks of the new government.  By doing this, the military could recover its prestige and overcome the negative image provoked by the Caracazo.  And supporting Chávez and his program allowed the military to put into practice what officers had learned in their schooling and from their experiences, that is, to defend the democratic system.  Had not respect for the Constitution and its laws been one of the main principles they had received during their training and one of the reasons why some of the officers who now defended Chávez and his project had adopted a rather critical attitude toward the coup of 1992 he had organized? In most Latin American countries, any attempt to carry out a deep social transformation has faced the complex straightjacket of existing laws, whose only goal is to protect the system from any change affecting the interesting of the ruling classes.  To overcome this barrier to change in Venezuela, the first measure of the newly-elected government was to launch a democratic process to change the rules of the game inherited from the past and found in effect a new State, giving birth to a new set of institutions which would allow social change to occur.  A Constituent Assembly was call in 1999 with 131 members. It sat for about six months and finally submitted a draft for a new constitution, approved by an overwhelming majority (129 votes). This draft was then submitted to the Venezuelan people, obtaining 70 percent approval. This new constitution is centered on social justice, freedom, the political participation of the people, the protection of the nation’s heritage (in effect, opposition to neoliberalism), and the staunch defense of  Venezuela’s national sovereignty. Equality before the law includes indigenous populations, who now have the right to keep and develop their ethnic and cultural identities, values, spiritual beliefs, and holy places, as well as those where they practice their cults. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the experience of making a new constitution is the fact that this “Magna Carta” introduces the concept of popular sovereignty. It states, All male and female citizens have the right to freely participate in public affairs, either directly or through their elected representatives, be they male or female. People’s participation in the implementation and control of public administration is what we need to guarantee full individual and collective development. The State is obliged, and society has the duty to contribute to open the way for the most favorable conditions to put this into practice. Further on, the constitution states that “electors have the right to receive from their representatives public, transparent and periodic reports on their work, which must follow the program they made public.” The constitution emphatically demands respect for the nation and its sovereignty, explicitly rejecting foreign military bases. It also declares the need for a truly neutral judiciary, to apply justice without having to submit to judicial leaders or bureaucrats, and a state respected by all. In the case of indigenous people, their legitimate authorities will implement justice locally on the basis of their ancestral traditions, following their own rules, provided they do not go against the constitution. Judges must be elected after a process of selection that will ensure the suitability of all participants. The law must therefore guarantee the participation of all citizens in this process to select and name judges. The national executive has the duty to give an annual report to the assembly on the political, economic, social, and administrative aspects of its work. Deputies must also report back to their voters and answer their questions, so the people will have a permanent control over those it has elected. Besides the three traditional branches of government (the executive, legislative, and judicial), the constitution has created two more: citizen power and electoral power. The first is implemented through the Republican Ethics Council, consisting of a people’s defender, the general prosecutor, and the general comptroller of the republic. The National Assembly must approve its members. The people’s defender is responsible for the promotion, defense, and control of the rights and guarantees established by the constitution as well as of the citizens’ legitimate collective or particular interests. Electoral power is exercised through the National Electoral Council, which acts like an arbiter to control elections and guarantee their transparency. The constitution became the great ally of the Chávez revolution. This is because, as we have seen, the Venezuelan military took seriously its duty to defend what the people democratically decide. Once the military was committed to defending the constitution, it simultaneously was committed to defending the changes being carried out by Chávez, since these changes and the new constitution are, in effect, equivalents.  When old-line military leaders tried to engineer a coup against Chávez in 2002, General Baduel, a zealous advocate of military respect for the democratic rule of law, was able to use the authority of the new constitution to defy the orders given by his putschist superiors.  This same constitution was used by junior officers and soldiers when they organized resistance against the coup and pressured their commanders from below to join them. We can make two final points in our effort to explain the uniqueness of the Venezuelan military. Chávez’s economic program is a nationalistic program.  It is opposed to a neoliberal, foreign-oriented globalization; instead it promotes national investments and local development.  It is opposed to the privatization of the oil sector, and it tries to give priority to solutions for the problems suffered by the poorest parts of the population.  The overall thrust of the program therefore fits very nicely with the military’s vocation to defend sovereignty and national wealth. This makes it easy to understand why the recent actions of those opposed to Chávez—the strikes organized by employers and the sabotage of oil production—have been massively repudiated by the Venezuelan armed forces, thus consolidating military support for Chávez’s programs. Finally, the importance of the charismatic personality of Chávez himself cannot be underestimated. Chávez has inspired great admiration and love among the majority of the soldiers of the army.  He is both legally and emotionally their commander-in-chief.  During the April 2002 coup, it is precisely to these rank-and-file soldiers—whom he met during his pilgrimage from prison to prison, from the Tiuna fort to the island of Orchila, the last place in which he was imprisoned—that he owes his life. Together with their people, and often encouraged by them, the Venezuelan military men have done what few Latin militaries have ever done, and in the process, they have been equal to the enormous challenges the revolutionary Bolivarian process has faced. La Havana, April 1st, 2003 [1]  It is not very well known that the only putschist senior officers in real positions of command were Ramírez Pérez, head of the Armed Forces General Staff, and Vásquez Velasco, Army commander general.  Several retired generals supported the coup, along with only200 out of 8 000 officers ( generals, admirals, colonels, lieutenant colonels, and lower grade officers).  Eighty percent of commanding officers participated in the Plan to rescue Chávez, and the number could be higher because at the time of the coup communications were very difficult. [2]  The Plan was announced to the country on February 27, 1999, ten years after the Caracazo. [3]  Elections for governors and mayors had been held the year before the presidential election. [4]  Marta Harnecker, Militares Junto al Pueblo, Vadell hnos.,Caracas, 2003. See English versión in www.rebelion.org/harnecker.htm. [5]  The true number of casualties is not known.  The official number recognized by the government is 372 dead, but human rights organizations have put it at 5,000. Original source / relevant link: Monthly Review

	Top of page

Germany: Brandenburg intelligence service slanders the World Socialist Web Site

Statement by the WSWS Editorial Board
20 October 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The intelligence service of the east German state of Brandenburg (Verfassungsschutz) has published an article on its web site accusing the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) of promoting violence. The article claims that the WSWS is part of a milieu of violent “left extremism.” The Editorial Board of the WSWS completely rejects this slanderous accusation and reserves the right to take legal action to force the intelligence service to retract its report and to publish a reply from the World Socialist Web Site.

The intelligence service’s article is a malicious slander of an online publication that pursues socialist and democratic aims. It is an attack on freedom of speech by a department of the state that is supposedly obliged to uphold the German constitution.

The intelligence service justifies its insinuation on the basis of a WSWS article published two and a half years ago that it says was found at the scene of an attack on an immigration office in the city of Frankfurt (Oder). Someone had broken the office’s windows in the early morning hours of September 16 and tossed a foul-smelling liquid inside. In addition, glue was inserted into the outer doors and slogans spray-painted on the outside of the building.

The WSWS article was a political critique of the German government’s refugee policies. The intelligence service was compelled to concede that it was “legally unassailable.” Nevertheless, it cites the article as evidence of an “extreme leftist background to the deed.” It goes on to assert that the article can be “ranked alongside a number of similar publications which taken together promote or produce a propensity for violence.” They conclude with the words: “The road to criminal acts is paved with such texts.”

The following must be said about these allegations:

1. The World Socialist Web Site is a socialist and not a “left extremist” publication. It is published by the International Committee of the Fourth International and its section in Germany, the Socialist Equality Party (PSG). It stands for a socialist orientation and the defence of democratic and social rights. The PSG has repeatedly taken part in German elections and is officially recognised as a party by the German electoral commission. It rejects as a matter of principle the methods of individual violence.

2. The article that was allegedly found at the scene of the attack, published by the WSWS on February 24, 2001 (March 8, 2001, in English), under the title “The deadly consequences of Germany’s refugee policy,” criticises German state policy towards foreigners. The article is correct in both its presentation of the facts and its political evaluation. It criticises the outrageous conditions confronting immigrants and gives concrete figures on the number of victims who have died or been injured as a result of police actions on the German and European borders. It bases itself on generally accessible sources of information that can be easily checked, including the ARD television programme Monitor, the Antiracist Initiative Berlin (ARI) and the daily newspaper tageszeitung. The article castigates the double-speak of the German federal government, which routinely condemns the “violence against foreigners when the violence is committed by neo-Nazis and racists on the street,” while “the message communicated by the anti-refugee actions of the German state reinforces the neo-Nazi calumny that the lives of ‘unwanted’ foreigners are worthless.”

3. The Brandenburg Intelligence Service’s claim that the publication of such an article promotes or produces an inclination toward violence has broad implications. It places any criticism of government policy in the orbit of illegal activity. If this is accepted, it is sufficient for a confused person or provocateur to break a few windows to provide the pretext for silencing political opponents of the government. With the same argument, any critic of the German government’s “Agenda 2010” program of social cutbacks could be made responsible for the actions of a desperate unemployed person who runs amok. Or one could accuse any opponent of the introduction of the euro in Sweden of “paving the way” to the murder of Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindt—a prominent advocate of the euro—who was stabbed to death at the height of the referendum campaign.

4. This sort of argumentation recalls the darkest days of German history. There have been decades of experience here of police states—both fascist and Stalinist. The police regimes of such states always maintain that political criticism of the government is equivalent to support of violence—and thereby justify the suppression of political opponents. The right to free speech guaranteed in the German constitution, on the other hand, expressly includes the right to criticise a government without in any way making oneself liable to prosecution.

5. The intelligence service justifies its claim of left extremism with regard to the WSWS with an amalgam of half-truths and falsehoods. On the one hand, it maintains that the text published in the WSWS proves the “left extremist background to the deed.” On the other hand, it substantiates the left extremist nature of the article by the fact that it was allegedly found at the scene of the attack. This is obviously a circular argument.

Unable to find anything in the article that could in any sense be interpreted as the advocacy of violence, the intelligence service foists its own statements on it. They write: “In many left extremist publications it is argued that through its own activities the state directly encourages the extreme right wing to deal violently with foreigners and refugees. Thereby the state shows its real—fascist—face. This is why anti-fascists must regard the state as their enemy.”

Once again, the intelligence service employs a circular argument. It maintains that the article by the WSWS is “left extremist” and then goes on to demonstrate this by introducing statements from fictitious “left extremist publications.” Such statements are nowhere to be found in the already mentioned WSWS article, or any other article published on the WSWS. The statement that the state “shows its real—fascist—face,” echoing the banal language of the Red Army Faction (RAF), is foisted on the WSWS, although it is nothing but an invention of the intelligence service itself.

6. It is a matter of public record that the German intelligence services work with the methods of infiltration and provocation. They have extensively penetrated extreme right-wing circles, and undercover agents of the intelligence services have on occasion taken part in acts of violence by these groups.

As early as the end of the 1970s, secret service agents blew a hole in the wall of the prison in the town of Celle, in order to fake a violent attempt to free an apparent member of the Red Army Faction. In the spring of this year, attempts to legally ban the neo-Nazi NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany) collapsed when it was revealed that one in seven leading members of the organisation was on the payroll of the German secret service. The extent of infiltration of the NPD led one constitutional judge to comment that many of the activities of the party could be regarded as “organised by the state.” There are a series of known cases where the Brandenburg Intelligence Service has employed right-wing extremists with a history of violence. The left radical milieu has also been penetrated by state agents in a state whose interior minister, under conditions of widespread right-wing violence, regularly warns of the danger of “underestimating left extremism.”

In light of this situation, it is necessary to pose the question: Were agents of the intelligence services involved in the attack on the Frankfurt immigration offices on September 16? Does the Brandenburg Intelligence Service know more than it is saying? Was it directly involved in planting the WSWS article at the scene?

There is a strange disparity between the accusations levelled against the WSWS and the official investigation into the attack on the Frankfurt immigration office. According to the state attorney in charge of the case, two weeks of investigation into the attack have proven fruitless. There is apparently little effort being made to further the probe. For its part, however, the Brandenburg Intelligence Service has published shortly after the attack an article devoting just a few lines to the actual assault and four fifths of its content to an attack on the WSWS.

“No, yo no soy capaz de matar”, le ha dicho el Vicepresidente Carlos D. Mesa al Presidente todavía en funciones. Hay, en estas palabras, un abismo de historia que Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada no es capa de comprender.

Balance en la urgencia

¿Qué queda del proyecto político
de Sánchez de Lozada?

Gustavo Guzmán

Con la Biblia en las manos, y con una rápida lectura del Eclesiastés -–“...seamos humildes y amables...–, la señora Ximena Iturralde de Sánchez de Lozada, el miércoles 15, convocaba al pueblo de Bolivia “a orar en las iglesias, a orar por la familia...”. Poco antes, aparecieron en las pantallas de la televisión los presidentes de las dos cámaras del Congreso, con una bandera en las espaldas, adosada de un crespón negro.
Estas dos imágenes expresan con precisión el espectáculo mediático que ofrece la política todavía instalada en Palacio de Gobierno. La mujer del Presidente –Capitán General de unas Fuerzas Armadas que asesinaron a más de 60 bolivianos– invitando a rezar... ¿rezar por esos bolivianos asesinados o por que Cristo Salvador salve a su marido?
Los presidentes de las cámaras del Congreso, a diferencia de la señora citada, por supuesto que no invitaron a rezo alguno, estaban allí en la televisión para proponer un mensaje de “normalidad”, a pesar del crespón negro de la bandera nacional que lucían en sus espaldas... ¿señal de duelo por esos bolivianos asesinados, por esas muertes de las que son responsables políticos?

Cinismo y crimen

Es el tiempo del cinismo en Palacio de Gobierno, el tiempo de la política asomada a la brutalidad del crimen. El tiempo de las marionetas (la señora citada y los pajes del Congreso). Hay, sin embargo, en el fondo de ese comportamiento, el signo preciso de la decrepitud de un régimen político que agoniza porque vuelve a su médula esencial, la que niega la democracia: la respectiva dosis de muerte frente al desacato de la masa, el escarmiento a punta de bala.
El Eclesiastés y el crespón negro de las marionetas, sin embargo, son poca cosa frente a la agonía de un hombre –el Presidente dueño de las marionetas–, que en menos de 14 meses de gobierno ha sido abatido por la ventolera de unos indios que desprecia –los de Warisata, Omasuyos y los de El Alto– y que hoy le han resucitado el fantasma inacabado de una rebelión que no cabe en los desportillados cánones de su idea de democracia.
Pero eso no es todo, porque los indios –en la historia larga– han sido siempre los hombres de la vereda del frente, los del asedio social y militar permanente, los que no caben en la idea democrática anglosajona que manda en la mente de Sánchez de Lozada.
Eso es historia, un duelo no resuelto que hoy le toca enfrentar al neoliberal más lúcido de la democracia boliviana, ahora sometido, en su agonía y decrepitud, a ese espacio de la política en que sólo cabe el imperativo militar: se manda y se obedece, porque el precio que se paga por no hacerlo es simplemente la desaparición política. En esas está el “reformador estructural”, y a ver cómo sale. Éste es uno de los vértices de la agonía.

Yo no tengo el valor de matar

Los datos de la decrepitud no son sólo históricos, proceden de la historia corta y empiezan cuando el hombre que Sánchez de Lozada eligió para conducir su gobierno ha decidido ofrecerle una bofetada: Carlos D. Mesa Gisbert, lector de la historia por añadidura, “incapaz de matar”, como acaba de decir él mismo, le ha dicho a Sánchez de Lozada que no va más.
No es poco lo que acaba de decirle Carlos D. Mesa a Sánchez de Lozada: “Me han preguntado si tengo el valor de matar. Y mi respuesta es no, no tengo el valor de matar, ni tendré mañana el valor de matar. Por esa razón es que es imposible pensar en mi retorno al Gobierno”.
Esta frase refleja, sin vueltas, el abismo que ha abierto la muerte entre Sánchez de Lozada y Carlos D. Mesa, y uno, cualquiera que mire el país, puede permitirse una lectura adicional: usted, señor Presidente, sí es capaz de matar (¡y cómo!), yo no. Algo muy parecido, pero sin la elegancia del Vicepresidente, dice la multitud en las calles: “¡Asesino”!
Y con Carlos D. Mesa, con ese gesto de honestidad y dignidad intelectual, se ha desatado un desacato mayor hasta hace poco sencillamente inconcebible, uno más próximo a la alcurnia política que explica al Presidente en agonía: las capas medias, las “clases tranquilas” por definición, han comenzado a levantarle la mano, y se espera que no sea sólo por la ausencia de una garrafa de gas. Ése es otro de los vértices de la agonía del Presidente.
Un par de apuntes más sobre el último mensaje vicepresidencial. Tomando distancia de “los otros”, ha dicho también Carlos D.Mesa que no está dispuesto “a servir como instrumento en un proceso creciente y peligroso de polarización de la sociedad boliviana”. Ha dicho que no se presta a ser “instrumento ni bandera de ningún grupo cuyos intereses hoy trascienden también los intereses de la patria”. Se desmarca y toma distancia el Vicepresidente de los indios alzados, y tiene sus razones también históricas, no se le puede pedir más, se trata de “una utopía que nadie sabe a donde va”, tal como dice –quizá para pena del Vicepresidente– el propio Sánchez de Lozada. Y quizá por eso mismo, el Presidente que sí puede seguir matando considere que Carlos D. Mesa es un “ingenuo” o la “solución ilustrada” de la crisis. Es el viejo duelo no resuelto de la historia, paradoja para el historiador.

“Tarde llegaste marqués”

Pero si esas son las palabras del Vicepresidente, las que pronuncia Sánchez de Lozada son otro más de los vértices de su agonía. Se trata de un catálogo de palabras desesperadas cuyo origen sólo puede proceder, precisamente, del duelo histórico no resuelto y del extravío político: “Acecha un gran proyecto subversivo, organizado y financiado desde el exterior para destruir la democracia boliviana”; “no es posible que se reemplace la democracia con una dictadura sindical (o a través de “un golpe narcosindical”, según la última versión del verbo presidencial); “... es una sedición financiada desde los intereses más bajos del mundo”.
Esas fueron palabras pronunciadas el lunes 13 de octubre. Vinieron luego las del miércoles 15, “razonadas” con sus socios, el MIR y NFR, alfeñiques de la ocasión. Allá Sánchez de Lozada esgrime su última carta “democrática”, la “concesión” a los alzados: a) Referéndum Consultivo para exportar el gas; b) revisar la Ley de Hidrocarburos en común acuerdo con las petroleras; y c) incorporación de la Asamblea Constituyente a la Constitución Política del Estado.
Éste ha sido el último gesto “democrático” del Presidente en agonía. Poco después, en un diálogo a distancia con corresponsales de la prensa internacional, esgrimiría su verdadera carta: “Lo que hay en Bolivia es un golpe de Estado en marcha”, un “narcogolpe” se puede suponer. Se equivoca Sánchez de Lozada, apela al discurso del “susto” para unas clases medias que, con Ana María Romero de Campero, la ex Defensora del Pueblo y hoy coordinadora de un intenso movimiento de resistencia, le han respondido así: “tarde llegaste marqués...”.
Se equivoca el Presidente todavía en funciones porque en sus palabras no hay una sola mención a los muertos que carga en sus espaldas, se equivoca porque aún si cuajara el “golpe” del que habla, mientras Bolivia no resuelva el duelo histórico pendiente, las masas que hoy lo destinan a la agonía insistirán en convertir al Estado en su permanente rutina, un estado de sitio.
Se equivoca Sánchez de Lozada porque aún sin “golpe” y bajo un nuevo sometimiento temporal de los eternos alzados bajo el fuego de las armas, ¿cuánto tiempo más podrá gobernar? ¿Qué le queda al más lúcido de los neoliberales? Muerte, sólo muerte.

La recuperación de Venezuela en todos los ámbitos es cada día más evidente. Cifras en mano, el Presidente de la República. Hugo Chávez enumeró algunos de los signos que apuntan hacia la veracidad de esa tesis.

El jefe de Estado comentó que "siguen apareciendo noticias positivas en el horizonte. Por ejemplo la tasa de desempleo sigue bajando, después de que subió tanto producto de la locura mediática, politiquera, terrorista de los que pretenden volver pero que no volverán".

El Primer Mandatario Nacional explicó que la tasa de desempleo bajó a 17,8 en el mes de agosto "y estoy seguro que seguirá bajando para fin de año" De igual forma el Servicio Integrado de Administración Aduanera y Tributaria, SENIAT, sigue incrementando progresivamente su recaudación al alcanzar en el mes de Septiembre el 89,2 de la meta.

En el aspecto financiero, el jefe de Estado informó que la tasa de interés activa continúa experimentado un ritmo a la baja "sigue decreciendo y eso está ejerciendo un impacto muy positivo, sobre todo para fin de año, y para el próximo.

Asimismo las exportaciones no tradicionales se incrementaron en el mes de julio 48, 9 por ciento y las Reservas Internacionales alcanzaron para el cierre de Septiembre 19 mil 300 millones de dólares.

Por todo lo anterior, el riesgo país de Venezuela está, en la actualidad ubicado en el nivel más bajo de los últimos seis años. "En lo económico el país sigue recuperándose, creciendo la producción" El Presidente Chávez explicó que gracias a esta palpable recuperación del país se ha hecho posible el impulso de misiones sociales coyo objetivo es garantizar el bienestar del pueblo.

En este orden de ideas el Primer Mandatario anunció que "la Misión Robinson ya llegó a un millón setenta y tres mil compatriotas estudiando y medio millón de personas que ya han aprendido a leer y escribir También informó que los días primero y segundo de Noviembre se realizará a nivel nacional el censo para la Misión Ribas "los que comenzaron bachillerato y no lo terminaron tienen asegurado el cupo" Pero además dio a conocer que "hay un plan de becas masivo para esta misión para todos aquellos venezolanos y venezolanas que vengan, se inscriban y estén en condiciones de pobreza, Estamos ya calculando los montos con la cooperación de Pdvsa y el Ministro de Energía y Minas, Rafael Ramírez quien es el presidente de la Misión Ribas".

El Presidente Chávez recordó que el inicio de la Misión Ribas será el 17 de Noviembre en todo el país, el 3 de Noviembre comenzará el .3 de Noviembre la Misión Sucre con un primer lote de más de 100 mil estudiantes, quienes podrán contar con una beca de 100 dólares mensuales para cada uno.

Canciller Roy Chaderton llama a la ministra de Defensa colombiana "piedra en el zapato" en las relaciones entre ambos países

El titular del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Roy Chaderton Matos, hizo referencia a las declaraciones de la Ministra de Defensa de Colombia, Martha Lucía Ramírez, ofrecidas ayer durante un acto de el Harvard Club de Nueva York, organizado por la Colombian American Association:

"Los daños recurrentes que la distinguida Ministra de Defensa de Colombia ha venido causando a la salud colombo-venezolana parece que sólo pueden ser curados por el Dr. Scholl".

"La distinguida Ministra es una piedra en el zapato en nuestras relaciones. El trabajo de filigrana que elaboramos los diplomáticos con la manos para servir mejor a Colombia y a Venezuela, ella lo desbarata con sus pies. Con ella no valen cortesías ni rigores, mucho menos razones.

Pretende tratar a los venezolanos como trata a los militares colombianos".

"Su memoria es mala. Nunca una palabra de condolencia o de solidaridad por los militares y civiles venezolanos caídos en el combate contra irregulares y delincuentes colombianos. Jamás un reconocimiento, una palabra de simpatía por un vecino y hermano víctima del terrorismo, el narcotráfico, el secuestro, el robo de vehículos, la contaminación ambiental y los problemas sociales desbordados de Colombia a Venezuela por más de cincuenta años. Nunca una palabra de aprecio por haber acogido en nuestro territorio a más de tres millones de hermanos colombianos, ansiosos de paz y de empleo. Tampoco un reconocimiento a nuestro apoyo a las iniciativas de paz de varios gobiernos colombianos.

"Todo lo contrario. Logró persuadir a desinformados o maliciosos generales estadounidenses para que arremetiesen contra Venezuela desde territorio colombiano. Ahora utiliza el territorio de los Estados Unidos para ofender a mi país y autoproclamarse como la más antiterrorista de los antiterroristas y arrancar aplausos de nerviosos ultraderechistas en la meca del neoliberalismo".

"De allí sale bailando en punta de pies, en su apoteosis neoliberal, entonando en sueños la misma consigna de los golpistas venezolanos: ¡Ni un paso atrás! Sólo que sus botas de guerrera belicista le aprietan demasiado".

Jorge Martín
El Militante