Archive for Venezuela


Posted in Blogroll with tags , , , , , on June 5, 2008 by Minimux

Luis Posada Carriles is one of Latin America’s most notorious criminals, a terrorist protected by the U.S. and allowed to live freely within its borders. A Cuban-born Venezuelan citizen recruited by the CIA in 1962, Posada has since carried out deadly bombings and other crimes against humanity.

Luis Posada Carriles blew up a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 passengers aboard, including 24 teenage members of Cuba’s champion fencing team and 11 Guyanese medical students. Until 9/11, this was the deadliest attack on an airplane ever to occur in the Western Hemisphere. Posada was arrested in Venezuela and charged with masterminding the attack, however, he escaped from prison in 1985 and resumed coordinating terrorist acts region-wide. In 1997, Posada was linked to bombings in Havana hotels that left an Italian tourist dead and several injured. In 2000, he was arrested in Panama for attempting to kill Cuban President Fidel Castro using C-4 explosives in a school auditorium. Each time, Posada evaded those seeking to bring him to justice.

In March of 2005, Posada entered the U.S. illegally. He was allowed to languish in a luxurious Miami apartment, emboldened by the fact that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not detained him. In May 2005, Venezuela formally requested his extradition from the U.S. so that he could be tried for 73 counts of murder in the 1976 bombing. The U.S. has yet to honor – or even respond to – the extradition request. Only after Posada Carriles bragged to the Miami press that the DHS was not looking for him did DHS officials respond by detaining the known criminal.

The Immigration, Customs and Enforcement Agency (ICE) quickly stated that it would not deport Posada to Cuba or “a country acting on behalf of Cuba”. By doing so, ICE set a precedent that indicated the U.S. government’s lenient stance on Posada Carriles even before his immigration case had begun. Despite Venezuela’s repeated requests that the U.S. detain Posada Carriles for extradition purposes, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has yet to act. On June 15, 2005, Venezuela filed a formal extradition request with the State Department, providing voluminous documentary evidence of Posada’s crimes. The State Department referred the case to the DOJ, which failed to bring it to court as required by law.

By flaunting extradition treaties, the U.S. has chosen to treat Posada Carriles’ case as a minor immigration offense, charging him only with illegal entry into the country. Posada brought a single witness to testify in that case, his long time lawyer and associate Joaquín Chaffardet, who was never cross-examined nor questioned about his own links to Posada and terrorist activities. Instead, Chaffardet was allowed to testify as an objective expert on Venezuela’s human rights record. The DHS submitted no evidence against Posada Carriles, indicating to the defense and to the Judge that the U.S. government would prefer he be granted Convention Against Torture relief. However, no evidence exists to support claims that he would be tortured in Venezuela.

22 months have passed since Venezuela’s first extradition request, and the U.S. has failed to present Posada Carriles’ case to a federal court, despite treaty obligations that require it to do so. Though an ICE officer admits that Posada Carriles has a “long history of criminal activity and violence in which innocent civilians were killed,” [i] the DOJ has not charged him in the 1976 attack. This is despite the binding obligations of a 1971 international convention to which the U.S. is a party. Nor has Posada been classified as a terrorist, which the Patriot Act allows. Indeed, the 79-year-old terrorist has never been charged by U.S. justice officials with participating in a violent act. [ii]

On May 9, 2007, immigration charges brought against Posada were overturned by Texas District Judge Kathleen Cardone, leaving a man branded by the U.S. DOJ as “a dangerous criminal and an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots” free to roam a country he entered illegally and from which another court has ordered him to be deported. There is no logical explanation for why the courts would approach a high-profile terrorism case as an immigration matter, when it clearly should concern the highest levels of government. In her scathing opinion of the case, Judge Cardone wrote, “In addition to engaging in fraud, deceit and trickery, this Court finds the Government’s tactics in this case so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice. As a result, this Court is left with no choice but to dismiss the indictment.” [iii]

As international condemnation mounts against the U.S. failure to prosecute an admitted terrorist, congressional leaders have demanded to know why U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales never declared Posada a security threat nor jailed him under the Patriot Act. Congressman William Delahunt (D-MA) stated in a letter to Gonzales that “Mr. Posada’s release from prison calls into question our commitment to combating terrorism and raises concerns about a double standard in our treatment of terrorists.” [iv] Delahunt is launching an investigation into Posada’s relationship with the U.S. government as well as the failure of the Bush administration to designate Posada a terrorist. A former prosecutor himself, Rep. Delahunt called Judge Cardone’s critique of the government’s handling of the case unprecedented. Interestingly, Cardone threw out transcripts containing incriminating evidence against Posada on the grounds that an interpreter hired by the U.S. government was unreliable.

By refusing to extradite or prosecute Posada, the U.S. demonstrates contradictions in its war on terror. While claiming to lead a global offensive against terrorism, the U.S. also continues to recruit, tolerate, and protect terrorists within its own borders. A consistent failure to bring Posada to justice – and, more broadly, to allow political loyalties to define who is a terrorist – confirms this fact.

Venezuela’s Ambassador to the White House, Bernardo Alvarez, recently confirmed the same: “While relations between Venezuela and the U.S. have been strained, nothing should prevent the U.S. government from either extraditing Posada to Venezuela or prosecuting him for the 1976 bombing. Posada’s violent attack could not be justified then; much less should it be overlooked now. Should Posada be allowed to escape justice for his vicious crimes, it will send a powerful message to the international community that some terrorism is acceptable. It isn’t.” [v]

Terrorism, USA, Carriles, venezuela, Cuba, Kuba



Posted in Blogroll with tags , , , , , , , , on May 24, 2008 by marcleon009


Brasília, 23 de maio de 2008

The Republic of Argentina, the Republic of Bolivia, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of Chile, the Republic of Colombia, the Republic of Ecuador, the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, the Republic of Paraguay, the Republic of Peru, the Republic of Suriname, the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.


BASED on the shared history and solidarity of our multiethnic, multilingual and multicultural nations, which have fought for the emancipation and unity of South America, honouring the vision of those who forged our independence and freedom in favour of that union and the building of a common future;

INSPIRED by the Cusco Declaration (December 8th, 2004), the Brasilia Declaration (September 30th, 2005) and the Cochabamba Declaration (December 9th, 2006);

AFFIRMING their determination to build a South American identity and citizenship and to develop an integrated regional space in the political, economic, social, cultural, environmental, energy and infrastructure dimensions, for the strengthening of Latin America and Caribbean unity;

CONVINCED that the South American integration and South American unity are necessary to promote the sustainable development and wellbeing of our peoples, and to contribute to the solution of the problems which still affect our region, such as persistent poverty, social exclusion and inequality;

CERTAIN that integration is a decisive step towards the strengthening of multilateralism and the rule of law in international relations in order to achieve a multipolar, balanced and just world, in which the sovereign equality of States and a culture of peace prevail and in a world free of nuclear weapons and of weapons of mass destruction;

CONFIRMING that both South American integration and the South American union are based on the guiding principles of: unlimited respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and inviolability of States; self-determination of the peoples; solidarity; cooperation; peace; democracy, citizen participation and pluralism; universal, interdependent and indivisible human rights; reduction of asymmetries and harmony with nature for a sustainable development;

UNDERSTANDING that South American integration should be achieved through an innovative process, which would include the progress achieved so far by the MERCOSUR and CAN processes, as well as the experiences of Chile, Guyana and Suriname, and which goes beyond the convergence among them;

CONSCIOUS that the process of building a South American integration and union is ambitious in its strategic objectives and will be flexible and gradual in its implementation, ensuring that each State honour its commitments according to its own reality;

RATIFYING that fully functioning democratic institutions and the unrestricted respect for human rights are essential conditions for building a common future of peace, economic and social prosperity and for the development of integration processes among the Member States;


Article 1
Constitution Of UNASUR

The States Party to this Treaty decide to constitute the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) as an entity with international juridical character.

Article 2

The objective of the South American Union of Nations is to build, in a participatory and consensual manner, an integration and union among its peoples in the cultural, social, economic and political fields, prioritizing political dialogue, social policies, education, energy, infrastructure, financing and the environment, among others, with a view to eliminating socioeconomic inequality, in order to achieve social inclusion and participation of civil society, to strengthen democracy and reduce asymmetries within the framework of strengthening the sovereignty and independence of the States.

Article 3
Specific Objectives

The South American Union of Nations has the following objectives:
bb) The strengthening of the political dialogue among Member States to guarantee a space for consultation in order to reinforce South American integration and the participation of UNASUR in the international arena;
cc) The inclusive and equitable social and human development in order to eradicate poverty and overcome inequalities in the region;
dd) The eradication of illiteracy, the universal access to quality education and the regional recognition of courses and titles;
ee) Energy integration for the integral and sustainable use of the resources of the region, in a spirit of solidarity;
ff) The development of an infrastructure for the interconnection of the region and among our peoples, based on sustainable social and economic development criteria;
gg) Financial integration through the adoption of mechanisms compatible with the economic and fiscal policies of Member States;
hh) The protection of biodiversity, water resources and ecosystems, as well as cooperation in the prevention of catastrophes and in combating the causes and effects of climate change;
ii) The development of concrete and effective mechanisms to overcome asymmetries, thus achieving an equitable integration;
jj) The consolidation of a South American identity through the progressive recognition of the rights of nationals of a Member State resident in any of the other Member States, with the aim of attaining a South American citizenship;
kk) Universal access to social security and health services;
ll) Cooperation on issues of migration with a holistic approach, based on an unrestricted respect for human and labour rights, for migratory regularisation and harmonisation of policies;
mm) Economic and commercial cooperation to achieve progress and consolidation of an innovative, dynamic, transparent, equitable and balanced process focused on an effective access, promoting economic growth and development to overcome asymmetries by means of the complementarities of the economies of the countries of South America, as well as the promotion of the wellbeing of all sectors of the population and the reduction of poverty;
nn) Industrial and productive integration, focusing especially on the important role that small and medium size enterprises, cooperatives, networks and other forms of productive organisation may play;
oo) The definition and implementation of common or complementary policies and projects of research, innovation, technological transfer and technological production, aimed at enhancing the region’s own capacity, sustainability and technological development;
pp) The promotion of cultural diversity and the expression of the traditions and knowledge of the peoples of the region, in order to strengthen their sense of identity;
qq) Citizen participation through mechanisms for interaction and dialogue between UNASUR and the various social actors in the formulation of South American integration policies;
rr) Coordination among specialised bodies of the Member States, taking into account international norms, in order to strengthen the fight against corruption, the global drug problem, trafficking in persons, trafficking in small and light weapons, terrorism, transnational organised crime and other threats as well as for disarmament, the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and elimination of landmines;
ss) The promotion of cooperation among the judicial authorities of the Member States of UNASUR.
tt) The exchange of information and experiences in matters of defence;
uu) Cooperation for the strengthening of citizen security;
vv) Sectoral cooperation as a mechanism to deepen South American integration, through the exchange of information, experiences and capacity building.

Article 4

The Bodies of UNASUR are:

1. The Council of Heads of State and Government
2. The Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
3. The Council of Delegates
4. The General Secretariat

Article 5
Institutional Development

Sectoral Ministerial Meetings, and meetings of the Councils at Ministerial level, Working Groups and other institutional levels may be convened as required on a permanent or temporary basis, in order to fulfil the mandates and recommendations of the competent bodies. These bodies will report on their activities through the Council of Delegates, which will present its findings to the Council of Heads of State and Government or to the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, as appropriate.

The agreements adopted by the Sectoral Ministerial Meetings, Councils at Ministerial level, Working Groups and other institutional levels will be submitted for consideration by the competent body which has summoned or created them.

The Energy Council of South America, created by the Declaration of Margarita (April 17th, 2007), is part of UNASUR.

Article 6
The Council of Heads of State and Government

The Council of Heads of State and Government is the highest organ of UNASUR.

Its responsibilities are:

a) To establish policy guidelines, plans of action, programmes and projects of the South American integration process and to decide on the priorities to be implemented;
b) To summon Sectoral Ministerial Meetings and to create Councils at Ministerial level;
c) To decide on the proposals presented by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs;
d) To adopt the political guidelines for relation with third parties;

The ordinary meetings of the Council of Heads of State and Government will be held annually. Upon the request of a Member State, extraordinary meetings may be summoned through the Pro Tempore Presidency, subject to the consensus of all Member States of UNASUR.

Article 7
The Pro Tempore Presidency

The Pro Tempore Presidency of UNASUR will be held successively by each of the Member States, in alphabetical order, for periods of one year.

Its responsibilities are:

a) To prepare, summon and preside over the meetings of the bodies of UNASUR;
b) To present to the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and to the Council of Delegates the annual program of activities of UNASUR, with dates, venues and agenda of the meetings of its bodies in coordination with the General Secretariat;
c) To represent UNASUR in international events, with the prior authorization of the Member States;
d) To undertake commitments and to sign Declarations with third parties, with prior consent of the appropriate bodies of UNASUR.

Article 8
The Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs

The Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs has the following functions:

a) To adopt Resolutions in order to implement the Decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government;
b) To propose draft Decisions and prepare the meetings of the Council of Heads of State and Government;
c) To coordinate positions on central themes of South American integration;
d) To develop and promote political dialogue and coordination on themes of regional and international interest;
e) To oversee and evaluate the integration process as a whole;
f) To approve the annual Programme of activities and the annual working budget of UNASUR;
g) To approve the financing of the common initiatives of UNASUR;
h) To implement the policy guidelines for relations with third parties;
i) To approve resolutions and regulations of an institutional nature or on other themes falling within its jurisdiction;
j) To create Working Groups based on the priorities established by the Council of Heads of State and Government.

The ordinary meetings of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs will be held every semester and may be convened by the Pro Tempore Presidency on an extraordinary basis at the request of half of the Member States.

Article 9
The Council of Delegates

The Council of Delegates has the following functions:

a) To implement, through the adoption of the appropriate Provisions, the Decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government, and the Resolutions of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, with the support of the Pro Tempore Presidency and the General Secretariat;
b) To prepare the meetings of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs;
c) To prepare draft Decisions, Resolutions and Regulations for the consideration of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs;
d) To ensure the compatibility and to coordinate the initiatives of UNASUR with other existing regional and subregional integration processes in order to promote the complementarity of efforts;
e) To establish, coordinate and oversee the Working Groups;
f) To oversee the political dialogue and consultation and coordination on issues of regional and international interest;
g) To encourage the opportunities for dialogue so as to facilitate citizen participation in the South American integration process;
h) To propose to the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, for its consideration and approval, the draft ordinary annual working budget.

The Council of Delegates is composed of one accredited representative of each Member State. It will meet preferably every two months, in the territory of the State which occupies the Pro Tempore Presidency or another agreed venue.

Article 10
The General Secretariat

The General Secretariat is the body that, under the leadership of the Secretary General, executes the mandates conferred upon it by the organs of UNASUR and represents them accordingly. Its headquarters shall be the city of Quito, Ecuador.

Its responsibilities shall be:

a) To support the Council of Heads of States and Government, the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Council of Delegates and the Pro Tempore Presidency in the fulfilment of their duties;
b) To propose initiatives and to oversee the implementation of the directives of the organs of UNASUR;
c) To participate with the right to speak and to perform the role of secretary in the meetings of the organs of UNASUR;
d) To prepare and submit the Annual Report and the respective reports to the corresponding organs of UNASUR;
e) To serve as depository of the Agreements in the framework of UNASUR and to arrange for their respective publication;
f) To prepare the draft Annual Budget for the consideration of the Council of Delegates and to adopt the necessary measures for its proper management and execution;
g) To prepare the draft Regulations for the functioning of the General Secretariat and to submit them for the consideration and approval of the corresponding organs;
h) To coordinate with other integration and cooperation entities of Latin America and the Caribbean with a view to developing those activities requested by the bodies of UNASUR;
i) To execute, according to the regulations, all the legal acts necessary for the proper administration and management of the General Secretariat;

The Secretary General shall be appointed by the Council of Heads of State and Government, following a proposal by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, for a term of two years, renewable only once. The Secretary General shall not be succeeded by a person of the same nationality.

During the exercise of his or her functions, the Secretary General and the staff of the General Secretariat shall be exclusively dedicated to UNASUR and will not request, neither accept, instructions from any Government nor any authority other than UNASUR, and will refrain from acting in a manner inconsistent with their status as international civil servants with sole responsibility to this international organisation.

The Secretary General shall be the legal representative of the General Secretariat.

In the selection of the employees of the General Secretariat, an equitable representation for each Member State will be guaranteed, taking into account, as far as possible, criteria of gender, language, ethnicity and others.

Article 11
Juridical Sources

The juridical sources of UNASUR are the following:

1. The Constitutive Treaty of UNASUR and other additional instruments;
2. The Agreements concluded by the Member States of UNASUR as a consequence of the instruments mentioned in the item above;
3. The Decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government;

4. The Resolutions of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs;
5. The Provisions of the Council of Delegates.

Article 12
Approval of the Legislative Measures

All the norms of UNASUR will be adopted by consensus.

The Decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government, the Resolutions of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Provisions of the Council of Delegates may be adopted with the presence of at least three quarters (3/4) of the Member States.

The Decisions of the Council of Heads of State and Government, the Resolutions of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted without the presence of all Member States, shall be forwarded by the Secretary General to the absent States, which shall make known their position within thirty (30) days after receipt of the document in the appropriate language. In the case of the Council of Delegates, that deadline shall be fifteen (15) days.

The Working Groups shall hold sessions and make proposals as long as they have a quorum of half plus one of the Member States.

The legislative measures emanating from the organs of UNASUR will be binding on the Member States once they have been incorporated into each Member State’s domestic law, according to its respective internal procedures.

Article 13
Adoption of Policies and Creation of Institutions,
Organizations and Programmes

One or more Member States may submit for the consideration of the Council of Delegates a proposal for adoption of policies, creation of common institutions, organisations and programmes which will be adopted in a consensual manner, on the basis of a flexible and gradual criteria of implementation according to the objectives of UNASUR and the provisions of Articles 5 and 12 of this Treaty.

Programmes, institutions and organisations in which Member States participate prior to the entry into force of this Treaty may be considered as UNASUR programmes, institutions or organisations, in accordance with the procedures outlined in this article and in accordance with the objectives of this Treaty.

The proposals will be submitted to the Council of Delegates. Once approved by consensus, they will be forwarded to the Council of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and, subsequently, to the Council of Heads of State and Government, for approval by consensus. When a proposal has not obtained consensus, it may only be submitted to the Council of Delegates six months after its last inclusion in the agenda.

Once a proposal is approved by the highest body of UNASUR, three or more Member States may begin to implement it, provided that the possibility of inclusion of other Member States in such a common initiative is guaranteed and periodical reports of its implementation are presented to the Council of Delegates.

Any Member State may completely or partially refrain from implementing an approved policy, be it for a period defined beforehand, or for an indefinite period, without preventing it from later joining the total or partial implementation of that policy. In the case of institutions, organisations or programmes which are created, any Member State may participate as an observer, or refrain from participating fully or partially for a definite or indefinite period.

The adoption of policies and the creation of institutions, organisations and programmes will be regulated by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, following a proposal by the Council of Delegates.

Article 14
Political Dialogue

The political consultation and coordination among the Member States of UNASUR will be based on harmony and mutual respect, strengthening regional stability and supporting the preservation of democratic values and the promotion of human rights.

Member States will reinforce the practice of consensus-building on the central themes on the international agenda and will promote initiatives that affirm the identity of the region as a dynamic factor in international relations.

Article 15
Relationship with Third Parties

UNASUR will promote initiatives for dialogue on themes of regional or international interest and will seek to strengthen cooperation mechanisms with other regional groups, States and other entities with international legal character, focusing on projects in the areas of energy, financing, infrastructure, social policies, education and others to be identified.

The Council of Delegates with the support of the Pro Tempore Presidency and the General Secretariat is responsible for overseeing the implementation of activities. For the purpose of achieving proper coordination, the Council of Delegates shall be informed of and consider the positions that UNASUR will adopt in its relationship with third parties.

Article 16

The Council of Delegates will propose to the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, for consideration and approval, the draft Annual Ordinary Budget for the functioning of the General Secretariat.

The financing of the ordinary budget for the functioning of the General Secretariat will be based on differentiated contribution quotas of the Member States to be determined by a Resolution of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, following a proposal by the Council of Delegates, taking into account the economic capacity of the Member States, shared responsibility and the principle of equity.

Article 17

The creation of a South American Parliament, whose seat shall be the city of Cochabamba, Bolivia, will be the subject of an Additional Protocol to the present Treaty.

Article 18
Citizen Participation

Full citizen participation in the process of South American integration and union will be promoted by means of dialogue and interaction in a broad, democratic, transparent, pluralistic, diverse and independent manner with the various social actors, establishing effective channels of information, consultation and supervision in the different bodies of UNASUR.

The Member States and organs of UNASUR will promote innovative mechanisms and spaces to encourage discussion of various issues ensuring that the proposals submitted by civil society receive adequate consideration and response.

Article 19
Associate States

Other Latin American and Caribbean States that request participation as Associate States of UNASUR may be admitted with the approval of the Council of Heads of State and Government.

The rights and obligations of the Associate States will be regulated by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

Article 20
Accession of New Members

After the fifth year of the entry into force of the present Treaty and taking into account the aim of strengthening Latin American and Caribbean unity, the Council of Heads of State and Government may consider requests for accession as Members States by Associate States, that have held such a status for four years, by means of a consensual recommendation by the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The respective Protocols of Accession will enter into force 30 days after the completion of the ratification process by all Members States and the acceding State.

Article 21
Dispute Settlement

Any dispute that may emerge between States Parties regarding the interpretation or implementation of the provisions of this Constitutive Treaty will be settled through direct negotiations.

In the case where a solution is not reached through direct negotiation, the Member States involved will submit the dispute for the consideration of the Council of Delegates, which will formulate within 60 days, the appropriate recommendations for the settlement of the dispute.

If a solution is not reached by the Council of Delegates, the dispute will be taken to the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, which will consider it at its next meeting.

Article 22
Privileges and Immunities

UNASUR shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Member States, the privileges and immunities necessary for the fulfilment of its functions.

The representatives of the Member States of UNASUR and the international employees of UNASUR will therefore benefit from the privileges and immunities necessary for the independent exercise of their functions with relation to this Treaty.

UNASUR shall establish with the Republic of Ecuador the corresponding Headquarters Agreement which will establish the specific privileges and immunities.

Article 23

The official languages of the Union of South American Nations will be English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch.

Article 24
Validity and Denunciation

This treaty will have an indefinite validity. It may be denounced by any of the Member States by means of a written notification to the Depositary, which shall communicate such notification to the other Member States.

The denunciation will have effect six (6) months after the date in which the notification is received by the Depositary.

The notification of the denunciation shall not exempt the Member State of the obligation to pay outstanding ordinary contributions.

Article 25

Any Member State may propose amendments to this Constitutive Treaty. The proposed amendments will be communicated to the General Secretariat which shall notify the other Member States for its consideration by the bodies of UNASUR.

The amendments approved by the Council of Heads of State and Government will follow the procedure established in article 26 for entry into force.

Article 26
Entry Into Force

The present Constitutive Treaty of the Union of South American Nations will enter into force thirty days after the date of receipt of the 9th instrument of ratification.

The instruments of ratification will be deposited before the Government of the Republic of Ecuador, which will communicate the date of deposit to the other States, as well as the date of entry into force of this Constitutive Treaty.

For the Member State which ratifies the Constitutive Treaty after the deposit of the 9th instrument of ratification, the Treaty will enter into force 30 days after the date in which that State deposits its instrument of ratification.

Article 27

This Constitutive Treaty and its amendments will be registered at the United Nations Secretariat.

Transitory Article

The Parties agree to appoint a Special Commission, coordinated by the Council of Delegates and composed of representatives of the National, Regional and Subregional Parliaments, with the objective of preparing a draft of an Additional Protocol which will be considered in the IV Summit of Heads of State and Government. This Commission will meet in the city of Cochabamba. Such an Additional Protocol will determine the composition, attributions and functioning of the South American Parliament.

Done in the city of Brasilia, Brazil, on the 23rd day of the month of May of the year 2008, in original copies in the English, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch languages, the four texts being equally authentic.

Unasur ALBA,Chile Brazil Lula; Argentina Cristina Kirchner; Alan Peru; Alvaro Uribe Colombia; Chavez, Venezuela, Correa, Ecuador;Evo, Bolivia; Duarte Frutos, Paraguay; Guyana, Bharrat Jagdeo,Uruguay.


Varje 11 april kommer att följas av en ny seger för Venezuelas folk

Posted in Chavez, Politics, Venezuela with tags , , , , , , , on April 12, 2008 by Minimux

Militärkuppen i Venezuela blev ett misslyckande tack vare Venezuelas befolkning som mot alla odds intog Caracas gator och återinsatte den folkvalde presidenten Hugo Chavez. Aldrig tidigare har befolkningen lyckats besegra utländska intressen och dess lokala medlöpare på detta sätt.


För sex år sedan genomfördes ännu en militärkupp i Latinamerika. Historien verkade hinna kontinenten ikapp. Minnet av 70-talets blodiga diktaturer som tog livet av tiotusentals vänsteraktivister och införde en kriminell ekonomiskt system – nyliberalismen, fick många latinamerikaner att reagera och visa sitt stöd för Venezuelas förändringsprocess och dess ledare Hugo Chavez. Den var den 11 april 2002.


En grupp militärer och dess uppdragsgivare, USA, Spanien, venezuelanska näringslivet och dess medieimperium, iscensatte en statskupp i Venezuela. Målet var att eliminera den valde nationalistiske och vänsterinriktade presidenten, Hugo Chavez och därmed hindra att fler länder i regionen skulle demokratiseras. Landets rikedomar bland annat oljan var kuppmakarnas viktigaste krigsbyte.


Kuppmakarna upplöste parlamentet och satt landet i undanstagstillstånd. De ockuperade radiostationer och tevekanaler och på så sätt försökte de att hindra befolkningen från att få information om händelserna. De tog till fånga landets president Hugo Chavez och satt honom under arrest. Han fördes bort i väntan på att bli avrättad. Den synlige ledaren för kuppen blev representanten för Venezuelanska arbetsgivarorganisation, FEDECAMERAS som också tillträdde som ny president. USA höll i trådarna i bakgrunden. Under två dagar höll kuppmakarna makten.


Dagen efter kuppen, den 12 april 2002, kunde man läsa i västpressen att genom störtandet av Chavez hade demokratin återställts i Venezuela. Medierna i Sverige lovordade kuppmakarna och det skrevs långa artiklar av de mest kända liberala debattörerna som förklarade att kuppen hade räddat demokratin i Venezuela.


Ingen av de som säger sig värna om demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter försvarade den folkvalda venezuelanska regeringen eller fördömde kuppen. Ingen av de pseudodemokrater som idag skriker högt och protesterar mot Kina eller Zimbabwe protesterade mot kuppmakarna.


Vem av dessa så kallade liberala demokrater har exempelvis uppmärksammat allmänheten om att Venezuelas grundlag är en världens mest demokratiska. Denna grundlag, som upplöstes av kuppmakarna i april 2002, hade röstats fram av landets befolkning i en folkomröstning år 1999. Den garanterar nämligen bland annat rätten att återkalla politiska uppdrag inkluderad självaste presidentens mandat om 20 % av en valkrets kräver det. 


Den venezuelanska grundlagen är som sagt unik i världen. Det finns endast tre länder i världen som garanterar rätten att återkalla ett politiskt uppdrag och det är endast Venezuela som använt sig av denna möjlighet år 2004. Chavez vann denna omröstning med en förkrossande majoritet. Ändå hade de svenska pseudoliberalerna mage att kalla Venezuelas president för en diktator och välkomnade kuppmakarna som frihetens förkämpar. 


Vad var det som gjorde att så kallade liberala debattörer och media skribenter anslöt sig till kuppmakarna och den globala mediediktaturens angrepp mot Venezuela?


Orsaken finns att hitta i Venezuelas historia som liksom hela kontinentens historia är nära kopplad till nyliberalismens utplundringsstrategi.


Venezuela anammar den nyliberala ideologin.

Nyliberalismen som ideologin och som ekonomiskt system hade svept över kontinenten i följespår och i direkt samspelt med de militära högerdiktaturerna under 70-talet.


Den nyliberala ideologin och dess långgående privatiseringar av allmänhetens gemensamma egendomar, avregleringar av arbetsrätten och skattesystemet samt nedskärningar i den offentliga sektorn försatt miljoner människor i djup misär. Nyliberalismen som ideologi och som ekonomisk politik, infördes med hjälp av tortyr och massmord. De så kallade demokratierna i Europa protesterade mot medlen såsom tortyr och massmord, men inte mot ändamålen, en ekonomisk politik som gynnade utländska företag.


Ett sådant brutalt ekonomiskt system kan aldrig införas på ett annat sätt än med direkt våld och kulturell indoktrinering. Orsaken är lika banal som självklart: ingen befolkning skulle i demokratiska val välja att sälja bort landet för smulor till maffialiknande företagskonglomerat, jobba för svältlöner eller montera ner landets sociala trygghetssystem. Friedman, nyliberalismens språkrör på 70-talet, var klart på denna punkt: Om nyliberalismen ska införas så ska den införas snabbt, brutalt och hänsynslöst


I Venezuela hade den nyliberala vågen nått landet i slutet av 80-talet. Detta skedde då resten av kontinenten redan hade dragits in i huggsexa och enorma privata förmögenheter hade skapats som en följd av utplundringen och privatiseringen av tidigare statsägda industrier. Ländernas naturtillgångar reades ut och skattefinansierade anläggningar plundrades av ”finanshajar”. Finansiering av köpeskillingen ordnades passlig nog med lånade pengar från IMF och statens egna medel som ”lånades ut” till förmånliga villkor.



När kraschen kom tog staten ansvaret för lånet så som staten brukar göra när finansfolk och andra skojare slösar bort sina pengar. Allmänheten fick än en gång betala priset för kalaset. Först fick allmänheten via skattsedeln betala uppbyggnad av den nationella industrin och samhällsservicen. Därefter reades ut dessa industrier till spekulanter till subventionerade priser. Det dröjde inte länge förrän skojarna hade tömt verksamheterna på tillgångar och hade kört verksamheten i botten. Då övertog staten deras skulder till utlandet och när de utländska finansspekulanterna hamnade i kris och höjde räntan för att täcka sina förluster drabbade folket i dessa länder av ofantliga utlandsskulder. Det är den nyliberala ekonomiska framgången i fyra akter. Grunden till utlandsskuldskrisen hade lagts.


Venezuelanerna gör motstånd

Venezolanerna gjorde våldsamt motstånd mot detta kriminella system och deras utländska ”experter” och 1988 gav sig folket ut på gatorna för att kräva sina rättigheter och sitt land tillbaka. Befolkningen massakrerades, tusentals mördades i Caracas gator. Ansvarig för massakern, den socialdemokratiske och nyliberale presidenten Carlos Andres Perez hyllades av liberala debattörer som en ”sann demokrat”. Han hade med hjälp av korruption och lögner vunnit valet med ett politiskt och ekonomiskt program som i efterhand anpassades till de internationella finansiella organisationernas krav på ”strukturanpassningar” som IMF dikterade.


Ingen vet exakt hur många som dödades av denna ”demokratiska” regering. En del pratar om ca 10 000 personer eller rättare sagt fattiga. I Venezuelas dåvarande ”demokrati” saknade de fattiga till och med identitetshandlingar. De fattiga fanns inte ens i landets register. De existerade helt enkelt inte. Detta har för övrigt aldrig varit ett ämne att problematisera för svenska demokrater. Det var som väntat ingen i Sverige som protesterade över denna massaker eller mot denna brutala mördare Carlos Andres Perez, Vad skulle hända om Chavez skulle vara ansvarig för en enda dödsfall? Det är klart, Chavez är inte en av våra.


Chavez som Venezuelas nye ledare

Chavez kom till makten för att förbättra folkets levnadsvillkor och göra Venezuela oberoende av de utländska ”experterna” som hade orsakat så mycket misär och lidande. Han vann valet med ett program som lovade politisk deltagande, en ny grundlag som garanterade varje venezuelan sina mänskliga rättigheter. Det handlade om en offentlig sektor som garanterade kostnadsfri vård och skolan, jobb och en nationell industri som hjälpte till att utveckla landet.


Chavez åberopade Simon Bolivar, Latinamerikas store frihetshjälte från självständighetskriget mot Europa som symbol och ledstjärna i sitt projekt – den bolivarianska revolutionen. En revolution som skulle fullfölja 1820- talets ursprungliga projekt om en enad politisk och ekonomisk oberoende kontinent. 


Deltagandet i utformandet av den första bolivarianska grundlag blev en milstolpe i Venezuelas och Latinamerikas politiska historia. Grundlagen diskuterades på arbetsplatser, skolor, på gator och torg, ute i byarna.

Befolkningen röstade igenom reformen år 1999 med en överväldigande majoritet.


Detta var för mycket för de som under 150 år hade styrt landet men inte gjort något annat än att plundra det. Nästan samtliga de vid varje period sittande regeringarna fick genom korruption och allmosor från sina utländska partner sko sig på landets naturtillgångar. Chavez blev alltför farlig för dessa korrumperade venezuelaner och dess utländska uppdragsgivare. 


Terrorkampanj mot den folkvalda regeringen

De reaktionära krafterna satte igång en skrämselkampanj som lyfte upp det kommunistiska spöket som tidigare kommit väl till pass när olika nationalistiska, socialdemokratiska, socialistiska eller t o m ärliga liberaler hade kommit till makten i regionen. Detta fungerade inte.


Oppositionen till Chavez använde sig av hela sin monopolställning inom media och kommunikation för att förtala regeringen. Det blev vanligt att genom media kunde oppositionen utmana folk att ta livet av Chavez. Inte heller detta ökade stödet för oppositionen eller räckte till för att störta Chavez. Anklagelserna mot Chavez blev alltmer aggressiva i ett försök att vända opinionen mot honom. Chavez utmålades mer eller mindre som en förrädare då han påstods ge bort landets olja till Kuba och andra länder. Anklagelserna kom från de som alltid hade gett bort landets naturresurser till multinationella bolag.


Ingenting sades i oppositionens media om att Venezuelas olja gick till Kuba i utbyte mot bland annat 30 000 kubanska läkare som hjälpte att ta hand om de behövande på den venezuelanska landsbygden. Ingenting sades heller om att oljan gick till de fattiga små karibiska stater till förmånligare priser, och till utbyggnaden av sjukhus, bostäder, fabriker och skolor. De korrumperade politiska partierna och dess uppdragsgivare som alltid hade fått sin andel av de multinationella företagens oljevinster blev desperata.


Kuppen som sista utväg? 

Kuppmakarna hade planerat händelsernas förlopp i detalj. De hade för sin hjälp amerikanska rådgivare och specialister i ”demokratins försvar”. De hade en del militärer och näringslivet med sig. De hade kontrollen över massmedia. Under dagen den 11 april 2002 organiserades en demonstration i Caracas och prickskyttar sattes på viktiga platser för att kunna skjuta mot folk, både mot sina egna och mot Chavez anhängarna, allt enligt planerna. Presskonferensen där journalister och generaler skulle begära Chavez avgång för massakern var förinspelat sen ett par dagar innan som en av CNN: s rapporter erkände senare. Samma kväll stormades president palatset.


Vad var det som gick snett för kuppmakarna?

Allt skulle ha slutat där.


Så som många gånger tidigare skulle det ha räckt med att eliminera några tusentals vänsteraktivister, fattiga som ingen skulle sakna, stängt de få medier som kunde tänka sig att informera om sanningen och försäkrat att demokratin var återställd. De utländska investeringarna skulle ha strömmat in i landet då en företagsvänlig politik hade snabbt inrättats. Den internationella pressen som har nära kopplingar de multinationella oljebolagen skulle ha lovordat återställandet av demokratin. I bästa fall skulle några kanske ha kritiserat metoden dock inte målet för återställandet av demokratin.


Kuppmakarna besegras

Men något gick fel. Befolkningens och många militärens reaktion var inte inräknat i förberedelserna inför kuppen. Folket började samlas och diskutera vad de skulle göra. Protesterna växte till sig snabbt och mer och mer organiserade. Det hjälpte inte med att kravallpolis försökte slå ner grupper som krävde presidentens återkomst. Man sköt på demonstranter och obeväpnade ungdomar. Sluminvånarna strömmade till centrala Caracas från deras pappersskjul och från deras misär. Folkmassan började inta Caracas, sjungande, skrikande, uppmanande, dansande, beväpnad med påkar och pistoler, allt i en blandning av karneval, uppror, fest och upplopp. Mot kvällen den 12 april nådde hundratusentals beslutsamma Caracasbor president palatset. Deras krav var tydligt. Chavez skulle bli frigiven eller så skulle kuppmakarna få smaka på folkets vrede.


Ställda inför valet att skjuta på sitt eget folk eller förena sig med dem valde de militärstyrkorna som hade intagit presidentpalatset att ge efter för folkets krav. Att någonting skulle hända var kanske inte så konstigt. Till skillnad från militären i andra latinamerikanska länder har de venezuelanska militärer inte utbildats i USA i doktrinen om den ”inre fienden”. De flesta officerare kommer inte heller från landets välställda områden utan från fattiga familjer. Soldaterna såg sina mödrar eller andra anhöriga i folkmassan. Det var lätt för militären att välja sida.


Kuppmakarna fick fly i panik när soldaterna gick över till folket. Kuppen var över. Några timmar senare återvände president Hugo Chavez och välkomnades av folkmassorna som fyllde Caracas med sina stödrop. Det var den 13 april 2002. Hugo Chavez lovade då att aldrig överge sitt folk, inte ens om det skulle kosta honom livet.


Lärdomar av denna händelse

Detta hände för sex år sedan. En händelse som var unikt i Latinamerikas historia. Folket hade i stället för att gett upp eller tappat hoppet gjort motstånd. Trots den mediala blockaden som den nästan totala kontroll över media som oppositionen hade kunde nyheten om kuppen sprida sig snabbt i de fattiga kvarteren. Invånarna hade gett varandra tröst och mod. De samlade mod och beslutsamhet som enda vapen. De hade ingenting att förlora och mycket att vinna. President Chavez var inte ensam som Chiles mördade president Salvador Allende hade varit nästan 30 år tidigare, den 11 september 1973. Och detta var ingen slump. Chavez hade tidigare berättat för venezuelanerna om Allendes heroiska men ensam kamp i Chiles presidentpalats. Venezuelanerna visste vad som väntade dem. Folkets minne är långvarigt.


Nya utmaningar

Mycket har blivit bättre i Venezuela sedan den 11 april 2002. Det finns dock mycket kvar att göra. Försöken att utveckla den deltagande demokratin möter motstånd från gamla korrumperade politiker och tjänstemän. Försöken att tillgodose befolkningen grundläggande behov möter motstånd från privata företag som prioriterar exporten i stället för att exempelvis producera livsmedel. De oljebolagen som under decennier har roffat åt sig landets rikedomar undergräver landets demokrati. Det tar tid att bygga upp en media som tjänar befolkningens intressen och som bildar människor i stället för att fylla vardagen med dockusåpor och falsk kultur. Kontinentens integration med utgångspunkt från rättvis handel möter kraftigt motstånd från de utländska intressen som har sina tentakler överallt och som köpt politiker och tjänstemän.


Venezuela står inför många hot. Det är mäktiga intressen som vill eliminera allt som har med självständighet och oberoende att göra. Venezuela har att göra med professionella medieterrorister som bakom en demokratisk fasad arbetar dagligen med att undergräva landets institutioner. Propagandan mot Venezuelas förändringsprocess är hänsynslös. Chavez anklagas för allt från kommunistisk diktator till terrorist.


Venezuela är hotad eftersom utvecklingen går framåt. Den dagen omvärlden lovordar Chavez då bör befolkningen i Latinamerika bli oroliga för detta skulle innebära att Chavez har gett efter för de transnationella bolagen och dess medlöpare såsom politiker, journalister och andra opinionsbildare. 


Att Venezuelas ekonomi växer, att Venezuelas inflytande över befolkningen i många länder växer och får alltmer legitimitet passerar inte obemärkt bland folket i resten av kontinenten eller i resten av världen. Var än Chavez är välkommas han som en hjälte. Det är ingen skillnad om det handlar om arabländerna, Ryssland eller resten av Latin Amerika. Chavez hyllas av folket även i Europa och USA. För folket hyser en intuitiv förståelse för vilka är deras vänner och vilka som vill dem illa, vilka som ljuger för dem. Falska profeter är kortlivade. Chavez har redan varit 10 år vid makten och det är ingen tillfällighet. Det är folket som röstat på honom gång på gång.


Det är tusentals venezuelaner och andra latinamerikaner som hat tagit intryck av Venezuelas förändringsprocess. Många har vaknat ur den dvala som högerdiktaturer och den nyliberala dimman hade sänkt dem i.


Folk börjar diskutera, hitta alternativa vägar, man accepterar inte att ”historien är slut” eller att ”det inte finns annan väg” som Thatcher och C. Bildt försäkrade på 90-talet. Man börja se sig omkring och man ser att man inte är ensam. Det finns ett alternativ till den kriminella ordningen som nyliberalismen har inrättat i världen.


Konspirationsplanerna går vidare.

Därför har de mörka krafterna som verkar i slutna rum fortsatt att konspirera och planera nya angrepp mot Venezuela. Dessa krafter vilar inte. De avskyr inga medel. De har inga skrupler, inga hämningar.

En del kommer från mediavärlden och är etablerade journalister. Andra kommer från stora bolag, från utländska regeringar, från lokala maffiabossar, de finns att hitta i högerorganisationer, i paraply organisationer som säger sig försvara demokrati och mänskliga rättigheter, i frivilliga organisationer som ibland har t o m vänsterinriktningar. Många av dem är finansierade av så kallade biståndsorganisationer, andra har aktivt varit rådgivare åt diktaturer, andra har tillhört dödskvadroner eller stött terroristorganisationer såsom paramilitärer i Colombia eller UCK i Kosovo, alla tror sig besitta ett högre värde. Många av dem samlades i Rosario, Argentina förra helgen. Även Sverige var representerad av Mauricio Rojas.


Trots allt detta kommer Venezuela och Latinamerika att gå vidare i sitt sökande av ett nytt samhälle där egen vinning och egoism inte ses som normal. Det är alltfler som inser att mediediktaturen och den ekonomiska diktaturen som råder i världen har omvandlat människor till tanklösa konsumenter av skräp. Nya solidariska värderingar kommer att besegra girigheten och egoismen. Venezuela, Kuba, Bolivia, Ecuador och andra folk visar att detta är möjligt. Men det är inte lätt. Det vet venezuelanerna som den 11 april 2002 besegrade det fösta allvarliga försöket att stoppa deras demokratiseringsprocess. Fler 11 april kommer men fler segrar för folket kommer att bli svaret. 









Bush, USA, nyliberalism, neocons, liberaler, bubbla, skojare, nyliberal, Argentina, Latin America, diktatur, höger, Mexiko, Venezuela, maffia, skojare, Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Agencia Bolivariana, Simon Bolivar Studie Center, Dagens Chavez, hands off venezuela, venezuela nalysis, Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Bus,Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA,Bush, preventivt krig, Imperiet, Imperio, Empire.

American company blocks the access from Telia to Latin American Websites

Posted in Blogroll with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2008 by Minimux 30-03-2008

American company blocks the access from Sweden to Latin American Websites The page and the Bolivian Agency of Information (, among others, have been censured by several suppliers of Internet in Sweden and other countries of Europe.  

The state company Telia, supplier of telephony and Internet  services , was affected by a decision of the North American company CogNet that administers the access to several servers.  The measurement was adopted unilaterally, and prevents all the internet suscriptors through the servers of Telia to accede Rebellion and ABI, among other sites. Most of the users of Internet through Telia found out the censorship after trying, by more than one week, acceding to the mentioned sites without success.  

CogNet had censured the access to certain pages of Spain and Latin America, and it does not exist the possibility that the service returns to be established shortly.  Telia maintains that nothing can make to restore the connection with those sites, and admits that it treats that as a censorship and a limitation to the freedom of information. It adds that it is in negotiations with CogNet, but until now without positive results. 

To the mentioned censured pages it is possible to accede from other Internet servers, in special of smaller companies. In some cities the censorship includes thousands of users, since companies administrators of apartments, like HSB, have the Internet broadband service contracted in for their renters through Telia.  Telia is the greater supplier of Internet of Sweden and is associate to other companies in the Nordic countries.

Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Agencia Bolivariana, Simon Bolivar Studie Center, Dagens Chavez, hands off venezuela, venezuela nalysis, Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Bus

Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA,Bush, preventivt krig, Imperiet, Imperio, Empire. Media gerrilla,

Mauricio Rojas deltog i konferens förra helgen med bedragare, kuppmakarna och mördare i Argentina.

Posted in Blogroll with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 3, 2008 by Minimux


”Freedom fighter” Mauricio Rojas var med och representerade Folkpartiet när den internationella höger samlades i Rosario, Argentina för att diskutera hur dem ska störta de valda vänsterregeringarna i regioner.

En samling höger politiker samlades förra helgen i den argentinska staden Rosario. Bland dem som deltar finns Jose Maria Aznar, Spanien; Vicente Fox, Mexiko, författaren och konvertit, Mario Vargas Llosas, Roger Noriega (USA: s ansvarig för Latin Amerika och suspekt förnekare att ha stött olika terrorister i regionen), Hernán Büchi, förre detta Pinochet minister, bland andra deltar också oppositionsledare från Venezuela (Marcel Granier, president de RCTV, mm), Bolivia (gamla kroatiska nazister som flydde dit efter ww2) samt Manfred Reyes, polischefen i provinsen Cochabamba, från Argentina militär diktaturen supporter och kolumnist, Claudio Escribano, tjuven och bedragare Mauricio Macri och den lokale gangster bossen Gerardo Bongiovanni. Huvudorganisatör är Freedom Foundation med medorganisatörer som de think tank Heritage Foundation ( som stöds av företag som Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical Company, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, GlaxoSmithKline, Mobil, mm .) och Cato Institute ( Stöd av bl.a. Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil, mm).

Samlingen ”barrikaderade sig” i en anläggning med ett stort säkerhetspådrag för att diskutera den fortsatta strategin i regionen. På kvällen tågade ca 20 000 ungdomar mot anläggning för att protestera mot den ”förnäma” samlingen. Författare Mario Benedetti och en av organisatörer till en ”motmöte” dagen efter sade till Telesur TV att det inte kan accepteras att före detta kuppmakare, plundrare, tjuvar och andra representanter av en annan tid ska börja konspirera mot de demokratiska regeringarna under öppet och medvetet stöd från Washington. De förre detta kuppmakarna och fascister var inbjudna av organisationen Freedom Foundation (Fuandacion Libertad) som stöds öppen från Vita Huset, enligt deras ambassadör i Argentina, Earl Anthony Wayne, bekräftade i ruset efter en middag i Buenos Aires, 2006.

Det är ypperligt att dessa herrar samlas under samma tak och öppet visar sitt inneboende beroende och koppling. Nyliberala hycklare, ignorant folk eller godtrogna brukar annars förneka kopplingen mellan diktatorer, mördare, terrorister, bedragare, maffiabossar, nyliberala think tank, media jättar, gangstrar, polismakten, ” debattörer”, Vita huset och ”frihetens förkämpar”.


Men desperationen kräver desperata åtgärder eller hur var det nu?

Frågan är om folkpartiet ska skicka representanter dit, tillåta deras medlemmar delta i partiets namn eller tillåta personer med tvivelaktiga åsikter vara medlemmar i partiet och sitta i ett sådant vridigt sällskap av bedragare, kuppmakarna, mördare och terrorister. Vad säger folkpartiet om det?


 Bush, USA, nyliberalism, neocons, liberaler, bubbla, skojare, nyliberal, Argentina, Latin America, diktatur, höger, Mexiko, Venezuela, maffia, skojare, Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Agencia Bolivariana, Simon Bolivar Studie Center, Dagens Chavez, hands off venezuela, venezuela nalysis, Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Bus,Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA,Bush, preventivt krig, Imperiet, Imperio, Empire. Media gerrilla,

Latin American Meeting proposes to create an International Platform against Media Terrorism

Posted in Blogroll with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 2, 2008 by Minimux

  Caracas, Mar 31. ABN.- The Latin American Meeting, carried out in Caracas from March 27 to 30, concluded that it is a necessity to create an International Platform against Media Terrorism.

In this sense, the Declaration of Caracas, final document of the event that gathered journalists and intellectuals from 14 different countries, calls for a new Meeting to take place in less than two months in a country that has not been decided yet.

To that end, organizers of the Latin American Meeting will work in joint with other organizations, like the Latin American Journalists Federation (FELAP, Spanish acronym), that “it has defended outstandingly the right to the truth and the its slogan: For a free journalism exercise in free
countries; thus, helping to awake the conscience of Latin American and Caribbean people”.

The Declaration of Caracas was made known this Monday in a press conference from the ALBA Caracas Hotel with the Minister of the People’s Power for Communication and Information, Andrés Izarra, and the Director of the Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias (ABN), Freddy Fernández, which was the host of the event.

Furthermore, in the Declaration, the attendants linked to the journalism in Latin America, Caribbean, and Canada, denounced the use of falsification methods by the mass media transnationals as a massive and permanent aggression against the people and governments that fight for peace, justice, and inclusion.

“Media terrorism is the first expression and the necessary condition for the military and economic terrorism carried out by the industrialized North in order to impose its imperial hegemony and its neo-colonial control to Humanity”, the Declaration reads.

Moreover, it adds that, as it is, “is an enemy of the freedom, democracy, and open societies and should be considered as the pest of the contemporaneous culture”.

In addition, it stresses that, regionally, “the media terrorism used as a political weapon to overthrow democratic governments of countries such as: Guatemala, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Peru, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Uruguay, and Venezuela, is being used to sabotage any humanitarian agreement or political solution for the Colombian conflict, as well as expanding the war to the Andean area”.

The attendants to the event, from 14 countries of the Continent, included as well that the current democratic fight in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Nicaragua, in joint with Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Mexico “reassures the political will of our societies to wreck the aggressive and simultaneous distorting campaign of the mass media transnationals and the Inter American Press Association (IAPA)”.

“Cuba and Venezuela represent the most vigorous milestones in this still unfinished battle”, the Declaration states, and it adds: “we are obliged to redouble our efforts due to the dramatic situation that is currently taking place with the democratic journalism in Peru, Colombia, and other countries”.

The Declaration also makes reference to the Administration of the United States’ President, George W. Bush, “which insists on criminalizing any kind of people’s fight or resistance, under the pretext of a treacherous notion of administration’s security”.

In this sense, the document points out that Bush’s Administration “has been responsible for the systematic terrorist aggression last years against alternative, people’s, communitarian, and even some privates media”.

“Presenting the information as a fundamental right and not as a merchandise is a fundamental right of the peoples and it should be part of permanent public policies”.

Furthermore, it ratifies the commitment “of those who preceded us, in order to adjust ourselves to an ethic exercise of our profession, devoted to the values of a real and effective democracy and to the truthfulness thoughts, beliefs, and cultures diversity deserve”.

“It is not only the IAPA, but also gangs like Reporters without Borders, follow Washington’s orders falsifying the reality and worldwide distortion. In this context, the European Union plays a shameful rol contradicting the
heroic struggles of its people against the Nazi-fascism”.

The attendants to the Latin American Meeting against Media Terrorism made a call to journalism professors and students to consider the Media Terrorism as one of the core problems of Humanity.

Moreover, they call free journalists to commit themselves to redouble their efforts in the pursuit of peace, integral development, and social justice. Thus, they made also a call to the Presidents of Latin America and the Caribbean to include media terrorism in international meetings and forums   Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Agencia Bolivariana, Simon Bolivar Studie Center, Dagens Chavez, hands off venezuela, venezuela nalysis, Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, BusVenezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA,Bush, preventivt krig, Imperiet, Imperio, Empire. Media gerrilla,

Venezuelan Media Terrorism Conference Denounces Negative Role of Private Media

Posted in Blogroll with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 2, 2008 by Minimux

Mérida, March 31, 2008 ( Journalists, communications specialists, and other participants in the Latin American Meeting against Media Terrorism in Caracas last weekend demanded that political leaders in the region put the issue of media terrorism on the agenda of all international forums and meetings in which they participate, according to the “Caracas Declaration,” the final collection of the resolutions produced at the conference.Endorsed by participants from 14 countries, the Caracas Declaration denounces the role of the private media in the toppling of democratic governments across the region, and asserts that “media terrorism is the first expression and necessary condition of military terrorism that the industrialized North employs in order to impose its imperial hegemony and neo-colonial dominion on humanity.”

Information should be conceived as a right to be collectively provided, rather than as merchandise or a commodity to be sold, conference participants resolved, iterating a collective commitment to the “ethical exercising of our profession, devoted to the values of real and effective democracy, and to the veracity that is deserved by the diversity of thought, belief, and culture.”

A wave of international journalists at the meeting shared the vision of Puerto Rican journalist Nelson del Castillo for a strengthened network of professional press correspondents across Latin America who actively counteract media terror, so as not “to depend simply on the good will” of committed activists in the shadow of private media that “favor the empire.”

Consistent with the general emphasis on Latin American unity, Ecuadoran Legislator María Augusta Calle expressed that “the continent demands unity and the strengthening of communicational organizations to offset the lies.” Calle advocated that “real perspectives” be emphasized, adding that “the media war is not only against Chávez, but also against the Bolivarian Revolution and all the peoples of America”.

The National Association of Free, Alternative, Communitarian Media (ANMCLA) expressed solidarity with the government but also proposed deep changes in the current communicational order. In a document published on the first day of last weekend’s events, the organization said that Venezuela’s Telecommunications Law, which was written by the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) and passed at the beginning of Chávez’s term in the year 2000, relegates alternative media to an unacceptably marginal status.

As a solution to this problem, ANMCLA proposed changing the Telecommunications Law so that a “public system of communication, not state-run and not private, in the hands of popular communities, forms a structural part” of national communications.

Also, 33.3% of the radio and television frequencies in Venezuela and a third of the government’s publicity budget should be conceded to community-based and alternative media, with the other two thirds divided equally between state-controlled and private media, ANMCLA advocated.

Finally, ANMCLA said a new tax should be levied on private media that would help pay for the expansion of alternative media. It also declared that the means of communication should be managed by an assembly of local community representatives, rather than a few government functionaries.

At the same time, ANMCLA categorically rejected the presence in Venezuela of the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA), which held its conference in Caracas last weekend as well.  

The final report of the IAPA conference condemned the government of Venezuela for its “constant intimidating threats” and violations of the “human rights of journalists.” It accused President Chávez of “imposing” restrictions on freedom of expression by “legislating by decree,” referring to the Enabling Law passed in 2007 by the National Assembly which, according to the constitution, permits the president to pass laws by decree for 18 months. The IAPA demanded that Chávez cease the “hostility” toward the private media, and stop threatening to close media outlets, emphasizing that “freedom of expression should take precedence over political and ideological interests.”

According to ANMCLA, the IAPA is “an organism of the oligarchy, tool of the hegemonic project of capitalism which hides the oligarchic and transnational concentration of the largest means of communication on the continent behind the façade of the defense of freedom of expression.”

Many participants in the meeting against media terrorism postulated that the IAPA has an intensely ideological project to support the interests of big business worldwide. “In many countries the owners of the media are also property holders in large banks…some pertain to the military industrial complex,” asserted the director of the Bolivarian News Agency (ABN), Freddy Fernández, a principal organizer of the weekend’s events.

Over the last few decades, these large media owners, who now make up the leadership of the IAPA, “did not talk about democracy, they talked about the ‘free world,’ and in the ‘free world’ there was Pinochet, Videla, and all the dictators of the continent,” Fernández told reporters over the weekend, referring to IAPA’s long history of support murderous Latin American dictators since the organization was founded in 1943 in Havana, during the reign of the U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Community Media Event

While the meeting against media terrorism was going on in Caracas, CONATEL hosted a “Bolivarian Forum” for over 30 alternative community media outlets in the western state of Trujillo aimed at assessing the progress of community media and strengthening the capacity of these outlets to serve the needs of their communities.

Héctor Reyes, the director of technological assistance to local media, said the goal of the forum was “to achieve a mutual commitment between the institution and the community media.”  

A second community media forum in Trujillo is planned for later this year in order to discuss changes to the Telecommunications Law and the Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, as well as a march for this cause organized by ANMCLA.

Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Agencia Bolivariana, Simon Bolivar Studie Center, Dagens Chavez, hands off venezuela, venezuela nalysis, Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA, Bus

Venezuela, ALBA, UNASUR; COLOMBIA, Latin Amerika, Ibero Amerika, Ecuador, Chavez, Paramilitärer, FARC, Uribe, Imperialism, USA hegemoni, Terrorismen, statsterrorismen, Alternativa Bolivariana, Bolivar, Frihet åt Amerika, Socialism 20 århundrade, USA,Bush, preventivt krig, Imperiet, Imperio, Empire. Media gerrilla,

%d bloggers like this: