The real threats to democracy in the Americas...

[Downwinder]

Sat, 03/20/2010 - 05:04 — AP

WHAT ARE THE REAL THREATS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE AMERICAS?:

A HONDURAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION & THE NEW "COLD WAR" OF THE U.S.A.

By Annie Bird, Rights Action, March 2010

On March 10, the U.S. House Sub Committee on the Western Hemisphere held a hearing to chart the course of their agenda in Western Hemisphere over the coming year.

On March 12-15, the National Popular Resistance Front in Honduras (FNRP) held a national meeting to pave the way for a Honduran Constitutional Convention, even in the wake of last June’s military coup and constant killings of FNRP activists.

What does a meeting in Washington, of men who influence or control the strongest military and covert operations network in the world, have to do with a meeting of a non-violent social justice movement made up of campesinos, indigenous, and impoverished peoples who have throughout the history of their nation been denied their fundamental democratic right to have a voice in the policies of their nation? Everything.

THE CAST OF CHARACTERS ON THE HILL IN WASHINGTON

In a House of Representatives hearing room, a crowd of about two hundred people, mostly congressional staffers with a scattering of Latin American ambassadors, press, lobbyist and NGO observers, gathered to watch as three, and at times four, congressmen voiced their opinions and listened to the testimony of the new Deputy Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, Arturo Valenzuela, and three “independent experts” including former State Department official and “consultant” Otto Reich.

What emerged was a disturbing portrait of the foreign policy agenda that the pundits of big business are selling to US policy makers and the press.

Their new ‘Axis of Evil’ consists of a growing partnership between Iran and the Venezuela – Ecuador – Nicaragua alliance, which is “gaining influence” on other nations in the U.S.’s “Front Yard” (they carefully avoided saying “back yard”), even with key regional partners like Brazil.

Honduras plays a big role in this drama as the ‘brave little nation’ that ‘stood up to Chavez’ by pulling their elected president out of bed at gunpoint and sending him into exile.

The problem with this narrative is that it completely distorts reality in order to advance the interests of transnational corporations.

Déjà vu? Yes, you have been there before. They are trying to relive the “cold war” in Latin America, the good old days when the so-called National Security Doctrine provided the cover necessary to topple governments, and torture and massacre anyone who attempted to defend their fundamental rights when those rights got in the way of economic interests. In Central America alone it cost about 400,000 lives in the 1970s and 80s.

This is not to say that every congressperson on the Western Hemisphere Sub Committee of the International Relations Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives buys this argument or is advancing it, but the complete absence of a voice to clearly contradict this very dangerous narrative is frightening.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN LATIN AMERICA

The ludicrous argument advanced in favor of militarily tossing Honduras’ elected president onto an airstrip in Costa Rica is that the army was ‘defending the constitution’.

The line being spun in Washington, repeated in the March 10 hearing, is that the drafting of new constitutions in the region is part of a trend (or ‘Cuban backed conspiracy’, depending who is speaking) in which ‘populist’ governments get themselves elected then ‘take down democracy from within’ by rewriting constitutions to allow themselves to be reelected.

Yes, Constitutions are being rewritten in Latin America, as they have been constantly through history. Constitutional law in Latin America is just not the same as in the United States, just as the charters of nations in Europe are different.

In Latin America, constitutional law is an evolving body of law that reflects the changing political context, at times progressive- promoting a growing body of human rights and democratic principals, and at times restrictive, limiting rights and debilitating democratic governance. Honduras has had sixteen constitutions, El Salvador fifteen, and Guatemala ten.

This year the Dominican Republic adopted a new constitution, last year Bolivia did and the year before Ecuador. Venezuela’s new constitution was adopted in 1999. These are the countries which have been breaking with transnational business, re-nationalizing resources that over the past decades had been privatized and in the process straining relations with the United States and Canada.

Though much focus has been placed on Presidential term limits, changes to term limit restrictions are not what has differentiated the newest constitutions. Term limit changes have occurred in the region through amendments to the constitutions, like the 2007 amendment in Venezuela, and 2005 amendment in Colombia.

What does distinguish this new generation of constitutions is a strong focus on defending social and economic rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, collective rights, promoting national control over natural resources and strategic industries and services.

MASSIVE DEMAND FOR A NEW CONSTITUTION IN HONDURAS

The Honduran National Popular Resistance Front is a massive and mobilized movement. It has representatives from almost every village, town and neighborhood in Honduras and has sustained massive protests, at times of around 500,000 people, since the June 28, 2009 coup. Their demand is a truly representative Constitutional Convention.

The proposal for the drafting of a new constitution in Honduras was not new, it had appeared in previous administrations. Zelaya had no intention of extending his presidency.

The proposal was to hold a national survey in the form of a balloting process asking if Hondurans wanted a chance to vote, in a non-binding poll during the November 29, 2009 presidential elections, voicing their opinion on whether it would be a good idea to host a constitutional convention. Then, if the new congress decided to call a constitutional convention, Zelaya would already have turned over the presidency to the newly elected president.

What scared the established power structures in Honduras, and the Washington pundits who represent their interests, was not changes to term limits, it was the fact that the call for the new constitution was coming from a massive, broad alliance of the social movement, and that their demands were centered around the need for a constitution that would protect Honduran national assets, natural resources, telephone and electric systems, against privatization, and possibly even facilitate nationalization of concessions already granted, for instance mining concessions that are destroying the lives of communities surrounding mines.

But it appears that not even a military coup, and not even massive violent repression that has claimed anywhere from a couple dozen victims to a couple hundred victims, depending on the source, is able to stop the Honduran people from demanding a new Constitution, a new charter for their nation.

March 12 through 15, hundreds of representatives of organizations of indigenous peoples, campesinos, academics, unionists, feminists, artists, lawyers, gatheried in La Esperanza, Honduras, bringing their own blankets and food, to create proposals for a Constitutional Convention that will take into account the demands of the population.

This proposal is not a communist or Islamic ploy. It does not come from hatred of the United States. It is the natural, logical fruit of decades of work to build up real forces for democracy, organizations of people who are interested in defending their own fundamental human rights.

The Honduran people have seen that the Constitutional framework that was put in place by a U.S. backed, military dominated government in 1981 is not sufficient to guarantee those rights.

FROM THE “COLD WAR” TO THE “WAR ON TERRORISM”

Now that there is no cold war, it just is not good PR to declare an open war on indigenous and campesino communities. So the spin doctors have focused on demonizing the figure of Hugo Chavez and the ‘danger’ that his leadership in the region presents.

In Wednesday’s March 10 hearing, the demand to have Venezuela added to the list of nations that support terrorism was often repeated and Assistant Secretary Velenzuela was questioned about Chavez’s ties to ‘terrorist’ organizations, in addition the FARC.

It might seem logical that a neighboring nation be interested in facilitating an end to the decades long conflict in Colombia, and that Chavez’s efforts to help facilitate the release of those held by the FARC might seem like progress in that direction. Instead, the efforts have been met with anger and accusations of support for the FARC, mostly stemming from supposed information contained in a computer captured during the Colombian military’s illegal raid into Ecuadoran territory.

Given the Colombian military’s history of disinformation (an example – the “false positives” – kidnapping and killing youth, the carrying their bodies across the country to show as combat casualties of the FARC), it is hard to understand how anyone can possibly lend credence to this kind of evidence, unless they have a very concrete interest at stake.

Valenzuela alluded to information he couldn’t share in ‘open session,’ but Otto Reich pointed out recent press reports linking Venezuela with support for ETA in Spain.

The following day, March 12, the Commander of the U.S. Southern command testified before the U.S. Senate that he had not seen any verifiable connections between the Venezuelan government and ETA.

Another possibility was discussed in an October 2009 joint hearing of three International Relations sub committees on the growing influence of Iran, and the Hezbollah, in Latin America. Granted the U.S. history with Iran and Iraq is complicated – to put it politely, and this isn’t the first time it is becoming entangled with Latin America (Iran Contra Affair), and yes these are serious issues, but the actors and interests involved have a long history of lying to the public for their own purposes; this is worth its own article.

FROM GENOCIDE TO EMERGING MARKETS

What has changed from the “cold war” to the “war on terrorism”, slightly, is not the cast of characters, there are only a few new faces, but the sectors at stake. While the economic interests that cloaked themselves in the cold war ideology tended to be principally about controlling land and agricultural production (and of course the governments) and even oil, they have moved on to set their sights on consolidating control of energy, mining and telecommunications, industries that during the cold war were largely owned by the State and strategically important to maintain the repressive military regimes.

In Central America, in the late 1980s, the same powers behind the military regimes that so brutally destroyed democracies and violently crushed the social organizations that must flourish in any authentic democracy (unions, churches, student movements, indigenous movements), also set up the skeletal structures that could officially be categorized as “democracies” (new constitutions, elections, civilian governments).

In the 1990s, 2000s, under the new ‘democratic’ orders, communities struggled to piece themselves back together. They worked incredibly hard to found and build a new generation of social organizations from the ground up, human rights organizations and a few judges and prosecuting attorneys with incredible courage confronted the death squad networks, which still active were transforming (or unveiling) themselves into organized crime.

At the same time, the backers of those military regimes, who also controlled the ‘democratization’ process, went to work securing their interests. First on the agenda was land. A wave of legislation across the region destroyed legal mechanisms that secured the possibility of collectively owned land; its impact resonated loudest in Mexico where the change of article 27 of the Constitution, that destroyed the Ejido system, was an important factor in the Zapatista movement.

In Honduras, that same international land agenda hit hard. In 1992 changes to Honduras’ agrarian reform legislation made it possible for land acquired through the agrarian reform program to then be resold. This allowed the powerful Honduran businessman, Miguel Facusse, to become one of the largest landowner in Central America through the use of paramilitary violence to intimidate cooperatives into selling, and to acquire land for the purpose of reselling it to him.

THE TELECOM, ENERGY & MINING TSUNAMI

In the mid 1990s the wave of privatization of energy, mining and telecommunications sectors hit. Laws rewritten by advisers from the Inter American Development, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, with direct participation by mining and energy companies, allowed billions and billions of dollars worth of assets of Latin American nations to be sold off.

Free trade initiatives were, and are (a Panama – Colombia free trade agreement was universally lauded in the March 10th hearing), promoted to guarantee the security of transnational investment – obligating governments to pay massive indemnity for lost property and ‘future profits’ should a government decide to reverse the privatizations, or ‘expropriate’.

Somehow the Honduran national telecommunications and energy sectors managed to fend off much of the privatization feeding frenzy, but as a saying goes, their wealth proved to be their curse, their enticing national assets drew the attention of corporate interests.

Enter Otto Reich, and his colleagues.

WHO IS OTTO REICH?

Let’s check the program, or the Otto Reich Associates web site. After working in USAID from 1981 to 1983, he went on to work for the State Department until his post as US Ambassador to Venezuela ended in 1989. From 1989 to 2001 he went into the private sector “advising clients on international government relations, market access and strategic planning.”

In 2001 President Bush named him Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, post which he held during the failed April 11, 2002 coup attempt against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Later in 2002, he became special Envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives, reporting to Condoleezza Rice in the National Security Council.

He left government service in June 2004, shortly after the February 2004 coup , backed by the U.S., France and Canada, ousted Haitian president Jean Bertrand Aristide.

Since June 2004 he returned to his work as a consultant to multinational corporations, but doing what? He advises corporations on developing defensive political strategy to “reduce expropriation exposure”, identifying and securing foreign investment and privatization opportunities in Latin America and provides “non-litigious resolution involving commercial and investment disputes for major US corporations which had exhausted the judicial process”.

So how does he do this? His web site is full of photos of himself with Bush administration officials and John McCain. It is influence he is selling.

His name constantly surfaced in reports surrounding the coup in Honduras, especially related to a “corruption” scandal in the state owned telephone company Hondutel, a scandal that has provided political cover for coup. He was reported to make frequent trips and regularly consult with key figures around the coup. And let’s face it, there was a marked rise in the incidence of presidents being forced into airplanes during his last stint in the State Department.

Who are his clients? Past clients include, AT&T, Verizon, Mobil Oil, Lockheed Martin, among others. But, his page notes that he will not disclose current clients.

These “experts” that testify in Congress, and, well, probably the Congress members themselves, should wear racecar driver style jumpsuits that clue us in to their sponsors.

DENOUNCING CORRUPTION?

Otto Reich’s name first came up in association with the Honduran coup because of an association he maintains with a non profit foundation in Washington, DC, the Arcadia Foundation, which according to a Mexican newspaper report, later picked up by Honduran press in 2007, released an enigmatic report with accusations of corruption against Zelaya administration Hondutel executives. Though former Hondutel executives are now being imprisoned, the Honduran judicial system has been so clearly corrupt during and after the coup that the possibility of fair trails seems remote.

Last week, Romeo Vasquez Velasquez, the Honduran General that materially and intellectually authored the June 28, 2009 coup (and who, over a decade ago, was jailed for participation in an organized crime network for auto theft), has been named head of the national telephone company Hondutel, some of Otto Reich former (and current?) clients might have a better chance at buying up the company.

A refreshing highlight of the hearing was the guest performance of Rep Dan Burton (of the Helms-Burton Act) who stopped by to throw in a pitch for helping 14 U.S. businesses which had been ‘de facto expropriated’ in Honduras recover their money, like, as he pointed out, he had been able to do for companies that had invested in Nicaragua. The only company he bothered to name was a cement company that - previous to Zelaya’s election in 2005 - was forced out of the Honduran market.

At least Burton’s agenda is out in the open. A race car jump suit is in order for him not only for his current corporate ‘clients’, but also because he was involved in a 1995 scandal in which he was accused of demanding a $5,000 contribution from a lobbyist for the government of Pakistan, and threatening the lobbyist to make sure none of his friends or colleagues would meet with him if he didn’t come up with the money.

The most vocal fan of the Honduran coup was Minority Chair Connie Mack of South Florida. His district alone gives some clues to where his backing comes from.

THREATS TO DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES?

Ok, so which is a greater threat to democracy in the United States, and the Americas - indigenous communities, thousands of miles from the U.S., attempting, for the first time in recent history, to charter the course for their nation, or American lobbyists and public servants willing to distort reality to serve the interests of the highest bidder, even if that means dragging the U.S. into conflicts that in no way benefit its citizens?

http://www.quotha.net/node/811

[protocol rv]

1. I didn't know one could write so much on DU

Could you give us a summary of what you wrote above?

[Judi Lynn]

2. When Otto Reich does the world the honor of dying it's going to be a much cleaner world

for everyone else.

He operated the Office of Public Diplomacy for Ronald Reagan, churning out filthy lies, monstrous attacks on U.S. American journalists who were assigned to covering Nicaragua, making filthy assertions about their characters, public statements they were consorting with male/female prostitutes in Central America, even going into tv stations, newspaper offices to harrass tv reporters and real journalists, conducting his own personal war against people to devaluate their reports on Contra actions, and he was charged by the U.S. Congress for using illegal forms of propaganda.

The illegal tactics he employed should have earned him serious legal problems, but Ronald Reagan ran interference for him. Congress didn't forget, however. When _{George W Bush} first brought up his name as his nominee for the Assistant Sec. of State in charge of Latin American affairs in the State Department, they REFUSED to accept it, and _Bush simply waited until Congress was out on a recess, and slid him into place behind their backs using a "recess appointment."

Otto Reich

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com.nyud.net:8090/PageMill_Images/redblueline.gif

Otto Reich
from the book Robbing Us Blind (book) - Steve Brouwer - p179

In the 1980s, Otto Reich was chief of a department in the State Department that was ; called the Office of Public Diplomacy and staffed with CIA and Pentagon "psychological ; warfare" specialists. The function of the operation was to fool the American public about the nature of the conflicts in Central America by disseminating false information, discrediting reporters whose work the Reagan administration did not like, and using other means of mist leading propaganda. In short, the Office of Public Diplomacy was in the business of producing disinformation of the kind that is generally used to mislead an enemy during conventional warfare, except that during the unconventional and illegal Contra war it was being used to lie to journalists, Congressional committees, and the U.S. people. Reich "helped plant stories and opinion pieces praising the Contras in U.S. newspapers. It wasn't just the stories that were phony, so were the authors. Reich's office wrote them all." Congress, once it uncovered the illegal operations of this office, closed it down and Otto Reich barely avoided indictment.

Otto Reich was sent off as Ambassador to Venezuela after the Contra war, where he was able to secure the release of the jailed Cuban exile terrorist, Orlando Bosch. This man had been jailed for eleven years for his role in the worst instance of airline terrorism in the Western Hemisphere (up until September 11, 2001, that is). This was the bombing of a Cuban plane which killed all 73 civilians on board in 1976. The U.S. Justice Department had evidence of Bosch's involvement in more than 30 other terrorist acts, some of them committed within the United States, including a rocket attack on a Polish ship in Miami. With the help of Otto Reich and Jeb Bush, who was busy ingratiating himself with right-wing Cuban Americans in Florida, Bosch was pardoned by George Bush I in 1992.

In 2001, Reich rejoined the Bush Gang by taking over the Latin American desk at the State Department for just one year. The Administration used a special loophole that allowed for his temporary appointment without getting the approval of the Senate. This was because many Senators, such as Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, would have grilled him about his past activities and opposed his formal nomination. When the one year term expired, Reich was immediately appointed as a special Latin American envoy to the National Security Agency, another post that does not require congressional approval.

This allowed him to keep pursuing his major preoccupation, which was the same as Abrams'-to overthrow regimes and control oil. The only difference was that Reich was assigned to raid and plunder in the Western Hemisphere (not the Middle East), where he was overseeing the destabilization of the government of Venezuela, the biggest American oil producer. He was also seeking to oust President Chavez, the democratically elected leader who was detested by the Bush Gang for his obstinacy and independent thinking, particularly on the issue of using Venezuela's vast oil revenues. Chavez had stated that he wanted to use the country's oil wealth to serve and educate the poor, who form the vast majority of the country's population.

Reich regularly met with Chavez's upper-class opponents in Washington to contemplate strategies, one of which was a constant barrage of attacks from the Venezuela's press and television, almost all of which are controlled by a right-wing business oligarchy. A military coup was engineered by the oligarchy in April 2002 after repeated consultations with Washington, but it failed. Then, in December of 2002, a large scale petroleum strike was engineered by state oil company executives in concert with a commercial business shutdown planned by the oligarchs and the rest of the upper class. Both actions failed to dislodge President Chavez. As of the spring of 2003, the Venezuelan upper class had failed in their coup attempts. The plots that Reich had helped initiate were as ill conceived as the Iran/Contra scandal and ended up as fiascos. The business shutdown in December hurt the middle class more than the poor, while the sabotage of the oil industry nearIy wrecked the economy and cost the country many billions of dollars. The oil shutdown also helped push the price of oil sky-high as the U.S.A. and the world braced for war in the Middle East.http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zeroes/Otto_Reich.html

[protocol rv]

3. But today almost all the media is controlled by the government

Count the channels transmitting pro-government propaganda, and you'll see this is true. And of course there's the cadenas, when Chavez forces all stations to transmit his endless speeches.

[Judi Lynn]

4. Just like Uribe? Correa? Etc.? Please. n/t

[protocol rv]

7. Some comments on these comments

First, let me quote:

"This year the Dominican Republic adopted a new constitution, last year Bolivia did and the year before Ecuador. Venezuela’s new constitution was adopted in 1999. These are the countries which have been breaking with transnational business, re-nationalizing resources that over the past decades had been privatized and in the process straining relations with the United States and Canada."

1. I can't find anything about a new Constitution for the Dominican Republic - my source is

http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/DomRep/dominicanrepublic.html

2. Venezuela's constitution is being violated by the government (see the Caracas mayoralty case, the illegal nationalizations, etc). The President of the Supreme Court, who has become a trained seal for Chavez, has said the separation of powers weakens the state.

3. Nationalization of resources strains relations with everybody. Why do you think the Chinese failed to reach an agreement with Ecuador regarding the contruction of a hydropower plant? They don't trust Correa. I know you made a huge noise about the foreign companies which bid on the Carabobo round in Venezuela. But it has been a month now, and yet there's no further action on their part. And I'm sure you know their little secret: they didn't really nationalize anything. What they did was change the system, and in the process they gave 40 % ownership to foreign corporations of properties which were 100 % Venezuelan.

And they keep doing it.

What do you think just happened last week? They handed over several fields to our dear long lost friends, the Belarussians, in a no-bid process completely lacking in transparency. Now we get to see these Belarussian "friends", who know nothing (and I mean nothing) about oil and gas field developments, try their hand at learning how to do it here in Venezuela.

And this is the nationalization you brag about. Like they say in New York, this is a crock of fecal matter, this nationalization you brag about amounts to giving away piecemeal, in an absurd and illegal fashion, national assets to foreign corporations, merely because they are associated with the right type of dictator. I sure hope those ignorant Belarussians and the other foreigners who are being given our land don't ruin the fields before we can take them away and nationalize them for real, after we change the government.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Kicking and rec.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

[Wilms]

6. k&r n/t