By Keane Bhatt | NACLA | June 19th 2012
The presidential candidate of Venezuela’s coalition of opposition parties, Henrique Capriles, hosted a rally on June 10 to formally initiate his campaign against President Hugo Chávez. “Hundreds of thousands” of Venezuelans—according to Reuters, the Associated Press, and The Miami Herald—flooded the streets of downtown Caracas to support his candidacy.
The “good looks of the bachelor candidate” helped attract a huge crowd to the event in which Capriles walked or jogged six miles to register with electoral authorities, “burnishing his image of physical fitness,” per Reuters’s account. He “exuded youthful energy,” said the AP, and had won praise for being an “energetic and dedicated leader” as the governor of Miranda State, according to The Miami Herald.
All three news outlets contrasted Capriles’s vigor with Chávez’s frailty (he is recovering from an undisclosed form of cancer), while conveying Venezuelans’ disgruntlement. Even some Chávez supporters “have grown tired of a murder rate that rivals some war zones, sputtering public services such as electricity and periodic shortages of staple goods,” asserted Reuters. It was only natural, then, that a marcher was quoted stressing, “It’s time for a change.”
The AP, for its part, quoted a housewife who would vote for Capriles “because of his reputation as an efficient administrator and out of fear that Chávez will ruin the economy and drive millions of Venezuelans to emigrate if he is re-elected.” The AP used the housewife’s ominous prediction as the final sentence for its report: “If Chávez emerges as the winner in October, he’s going to destroy this country.”
Censure for Chávez has so thoroughly permeated Venezuela’s body politic, apparently, that even communists oppose him: “Chávez was the great hope for our cause, but we’ve given up on him because he has turned his back on the people even as he claims to be the voice of the people,” The Miami Herald quoted the secretary general of the Bandera Roja (Red Flag) Party as saying.
So it came as no surprise that just one day later, the U.S. press reported that Chávez’s own rally to officially inaugurate his presidential campaign attracted a crowd an entire order of magnitude smaller than that of Capriles. The AP’s headline, “Chavez rallies thousands launching re-election bid”—a figure also used by NPR and the Los Angeles Times—implied that the number of pro-Chávez participants could have been anywhere between 20 to 500 times smaller than the number present at the previous day’s pro-Capriles rally. The AP’s Fabiola Sanchez cited a higher estimate of “tens of thousands” in the body of her piece, but even this number (also used by The Miami Herald) amounts to just a fraction of Capriles’s “hundreds of thousands” of supporters.
Reuters went further in minimizing Chávez’s support. Correspondent Brian Ellsworth provided a sinister explanation for a 66-year-old pro-Chávez retiree’s observations, as she danced in the city square during the rally. “Look at this sea of people; look at the happiness,” she urged. “For every person that came out yesterday, we’ve brought out 10, 20, 30 more. And that’s going to be reflected in the election.” But Ellsworth countered this with circumstantial evidence that the event was little more than a Potemkin spectacle:
Hundreds of buses that ferried his followers to Caracas stood parked in side streets. . . . Critics accuse Chavez allies of using state resources to swell demonstrations and forcing government employees to attend. Opposition leader Leopoldo Lopez said the ruling Socialist Party had ordered ministries to help bring 120,000 people to the march, citing what he called an internal party document.
Reuters provided no follow-up on the veracity of the unnamed critics’ accusations, nor did it verify the existence of the internal party document that Leopoldo López cited. This lapse in journalistic ethics is even more remarkable considering that in relying upon López’s hearsay for the final word on Chávez’s mobilization, Reuters displayed exactly the same flaw as Fox News’ coverage of Venezuela in 2005. (López, as I will mention in further detail below, is a long-time collaborator of Capriles, and played a crucial role in the short-lived coup government that overthrew Chávez in 2002.)
Ellsworth’s article also failed to include any estimate of the number of participants at Chávez’s rally, despite a widely–distributed Spanish-language dispatch by Reuters itself, which stated in its first paragraph that Chávez was “accompanied by hundreds of thousands of sympathizers.” Although the Spanish news website Público.es and Britain’s The Guardian corroborated this estimate, no major U.S.-based news source used it to describe the number of participants in Chávez’s rally.
*
Far more troubling than partial reporting on the popularity of the two candidates is the U.S. media’s superficial portrayalof Capriles as simply a “a polite, non-confrontational politician,” above the fray of Chávez’s insults and negativity. “I want to be everybody’s president, not the president of a single group,” the AP quoted Capriles as saying. “I am not anybody’s enemy,” he continued. “I’m the enemy of problems.”
At times, Capriles deviates from this persona, as when he referred to poll numbers—many of which consistently show Chávez leading by double-digit margins—as the work of “immoral mafiosos,” according to Reuters. More importantly, his political record betrays far-right tendencies that contradict his inclusive, conciliatory image. As the BBC notes, Capriles “was involved with a group of other young politicians in setting up in 2000 a new opposition party Primero Justicia.” In the lead-up to the 2002 coup d’etat against Chávez, which killed dozens, Primero Justicia indirectly received hundreds of thousands of dollars and training from a foreign government—in this case, the United States, through the National Endowment for Democracy, an agency largely financed by Congress. Leopoldo López and Leopoldo Martinez, two of Primero Justicia’s other top leaders, went on to play key roles in the 2002 coup government of Venezuelan business magnate Pedro Carmona. López—who Reuters deemed fit to comment on the supposedly authoritarian nature of last week’s pro-Chávez rally—himself signed on to Carmona’s 2002 decree to abolish the General Assembly, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution.
During this U.S.-backed two-day coup, hundreds of anti-Chávez demonstrators destroyed cars outside the Cuban embassy in the Caracas municipality of Baruta. They also cut off water and electricity to the building. Capriles, then the mayor of Baruta, was filmed approaching the Cuban ambassador and reportedly asking for proof that there were no Chávez administration officials who had sought refuge inside the embassy. The Cuban embassy later released a statement condemning Capriles’s behavior: “The immediate responsibility of Mr. Capriles Radonsky and other Venezuelan state authorities was demonstrated when they failed to act diligently in order to prevent an increase in the aggression to which our embassy was subjected, causing serious damage and endangering the lives of officials and their families in clear violation of national and international law.”
It is in this light that Chávez’s public broadsides against Capriles become more understandable. The Miami Herald quoted Chávez at his June 11 rally as saying, “We have made the vital strategic decision that every time there’s aggression from the imperialists and the bourgeoisie . . . we will respond by deepening the socialist revolution.” But the Herald leaves out any background information about the 2002 coup d’etat, in which the military reportedly threatened to bomb the presidential palace. Only within this context does the Herald’s quotation of Chávez make sense: “‘Their plan is the imperialist project from Washington,’ he said. ‘They are the puppets of imperialism…and now they hope to trick the people to take back the Miraflores [presidential palace]. But they’ll never get it back.’”
The truly remarkable aspect about Capriles’s candidacy is that more than a decade of aggressive poverty reduction and social spending has created a political climate that has forced an otherwise reactionary opposition to fully endorse Chávez’s social programs in order to be viable with the Venezuelan public. Ten years after the Cuban embassy fiasco, Capriles says he would be “mad” to end Chávez’s Barrio Adentro program, which dispatches Cuban doctors to poor neighborhoods in Venezuela to provide residents with free healthcare. Capriles reassured Venezuelans by saying “the missions belong to the people,” and on a separate occasion announced, “I want to expand them.” In a fairly stunning transformation, the opposition—rather than plotting coups and carrying out debilitating oil strikes—has rallied around Capriles, who has publicly modeled his platform after that of former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who the AP said “financ[ed] expansive social programs . . . that made him popular among the poor.”
As all of the press coverage duly notes, Capriles has an uphill battle, and the poll numbers are not in his favor. It’s hard not to see why. As journalist Stephanie Kennedy notes in the Huffington Post, Venezuela was ranked the “happiest” country in South America by Columbia University, which she attributes, in large part, to serious improvements in Venezuelans’ material conditions under the Chávez administration:
The country currently boasts the highest minimum wage in Latin America and its latest bill for workers rights hails in a new era of legal protection and social security to a large part of the population who had up until recently been labouring within informal and vulnerable frameworks. Domestic workers, voluntary full time carers of family relatives and housekeepers now too have rights and a state pension, whilst peasants, fisherman and others practicing the more traditional trades, who have always been omitted from formal registers, will now enjoy the same rights as their urban peers. There are local clinics where people had never seen a doctor before, new brick-layered houses for people who had been living in cardboard slums, and subsidized food products and medicines.
A leader seeking reelection with a track record of spearheading the policies listed above can surely afford some bravado on the campaign trail.
June 20, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Deception | Associated Press, Hugo Chávez, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Reuters, Venezuela |
1 Comment
Venezuela’s opposition accused the government on Wednesday of turning a blind eye to neighbouring Guyana’s oil exploration in a border region claimed by Venezuela, potentially inflaming a territorial dispute that dates back more than a century.
The conflict was stirred up in recent days by local media reports that Exxon Mobil Corp, in partnership with Royal Dutch Shell, is exploring for crude off the coast of the disputed Essequibo region.
The two South American neighbours squabbled over the area, which is the size of the US State of Georgia, for much of the 20th century. Venezuela calls it a “reclamation zone,” but in practice it functions as Guyanese territory.
”(We) firmly reject the concessions granted by the Guyana government in Venezuela’s Atlantic waters,“ the opposition’s Democratic Unity coalition said in a statement, slamming the government’s stance as ”weak“.
”In the face of the activation of the concessions in the area, the government of President Hugo Chavez should address the issue immediately.“
An Exxon spokesman said in an email it and Shell ”have had an active exploration license offshore Guyana for several years, and we have obtained multiple seismic data sets in the area.”
Oil companies have shown growing interest in the north-eastern shoulder of South America, with industry experts describing a recent discovery off nearby French Guyana as a game-changer for the region’s energy prospects. Local media reported that Guyana halted exploration of the offshore block called Stabroek in 2000 following a protest by Venezuela.
The dispute over the region known as the Essequibo resurfaced last year when Guyana asked the United Nations to extend its continental shelf – the area where countries control ocean resources – toward a region where Venezuela has granted natural gas concessions.
The much smaller and poorer Guyana still relies on imports for its energy needs and has invited companies including Spain’s Repsol to drill for oil in other offshore areas not affected by the dispute.
The Essequibo, an area of rolling savannah and isolated jungle, shows little sign of Venezuelan presence. Many Guyanese see it as a crucial to their economic future due to its reserves of minerals including gold, diamonds and bauxite.
Chavez has taken a conciliatory stance in the dispute, striking up a friendship with former Guyanese President Bharrat Jagdeo and selling fuel to Guyana on advantageous terms under the Petrocaribe energy initiative.
June 15, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | Bharrat Jagdeo, Essequibo, ExxonMobil, Guyana, Hugo Chávez, Royal Dutch Shell, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
World Bank president Robert Zoellick said last week that the days of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were “numbered” economically and politically following a wave of nationalisations.
Zoellick spoke ominously of “an opportunity to make the western hemisphere the first democratic hemisphere” by exploiting Chavez’s hypothetical downfall to force “rapid policy changes” on other countries, naming Cuba and Nicaragua.
Without a trace of irony he talked of how the US could make Latin America “a place of democracy, development and dignity” rather than one of “coups, caudillos and cocaine.”
A bit rich from the country which organised the coups, bankrolled the caudillos and bought the cocaine for decades before the progressive movement spearheaded by Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution began to reshape the continent.
But Zoellick may be underestimating his target. The Bolivarian revolution has made tremendous gains for Venezuela’s democracy, development and dignity precisely by challenging the might of exploitative transnational companies. Here we can look at just one example – Venezuela v a British man nicknamed “Spam.”
Or to give him his full title, Samuel George Armstrong Vestey, third baron Vestey, lieutenant in the Scots Guards, peer, ex-chancellor and lord prior to the Order of St John of Jerusalem, deputy lieutenant of Gloucestershire, Master of the Horse of the Sovereign, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order.
He’s 27th in the Order of Preference for Gentlemen in the UK – a who’s who of the nobility – the ex-husband to Prince Harry’s godmother and owner of the 2,430-hectare Stowell Park estate in Gloucestershire. More importantly he’s the head of Vestey Group.
The group is a British foodstuff conglomerate founded in Liverpool in 1897, which made its fortune importing meat. It moved into Venezuela in 1903 and bought 11 ranches in prime-quality land (classified in the country as “A1,” the best possible for farming), setting up the Compania Inglesa subsidiary in the country which itself set up Agroflora, the cattle-ranching arm of the business.
The company did well, buying up land in a range of other countries from Australia to China and making vast profits for its owners William and Edmund Vestey. William managed to get ennobled as a baron despite opposition from King George V, who was irritated by his demand for tax-exempt status at the height of World War I.
When this demand was refused they went into tax exile in Argentina before setting up a dodgy if legal scheme involving a French trust fund that enabled them to evade almost all tax in Britain until the loophole was closed in 1991. A Sunday Times investigation once revealed that in 1978 the firm had managed to pay just £10 in tax on a profit of around £2.3 million.
They were at their height called “the richest dynasty in the land apart from the Windsors.” Biographer Philip Knightley wrote: “They did not live on the income, they did not live on the interest from their investments. They lived on the interest on the interest.”
Business and tax evasion went excellently for William’s successors until 2001, when the Chavez government passed a new land law allowing it to look into all landholdings of over 5,000 hectares and forcibly nationalise them with compensation if they were deemed inactive, idle or no project was presented for their development.
Spam had a problem – he owned over 420,000ha of land in Venezuela and over 130,000 head of cattle. Twelve of his ranches surpassed the 5,000ha mark. So he held a one-man protest outside Venezuela’s London embassy in February 2001.
Squatters began to settle on his lands and cultivate crops. Though they were making use of previously inactive land, there are reports of these landless farmers being shot at and even murdered by men allegedly paid off by Spam.
In 2005 things got even worse for the tycoon. The government sent troops into his Charcote ranch and confiscated 13,000 cattle. After coming to an agreement with the government Spam received the equivalent of £2.65m in local currency as compensation for two ranches he was forced to give up.
In 2008 there was controversy over the plight of 400 indigenous people who lived on his Morichito ranch. By the terms of the land contract they were literally owned by Spam.
In October 2010 he faced his biggest problem yet when Chavez declared: “All the lands of the so-called Compania Inglesa will be nationalised now. I don’t want to lose another day. Free the land, free the slave labour.”
That meant around 300,000ha of land, all his remaining ranches and 120,000 cattle.
The Central Bank immediately approved funds for buying up the ranches. Chavez pointed out: “We must recognise what is really private land, we’re not stealing it from anyone. Some companies like this insist we pay them in foreign money. No – we are in Venezuela.”
The ranches passed to the state and the jobs of the workers were guaranteed. Some land was distributed to those who lived or worked on it to set up co-operatives, some continues production under state administration and some areas are being restructured for crop rather than cattle-farming.
Spam said: “We have been in constructive discussions with the Venezuelan government for some time now and we continue in that vein in order to find a friendly agreement.”
These discussions went on for about a year. But in October 2011 talks fell apart over the payment issue and lands were ordered to be taken by force.
Spam was offered compensation in the overvalued local currency and no other, a total of 274m bolivars (£46m).
Poor Spam was left without a single ranch.
Many economists, landowners, cattle-ranchers and general bigwigs were up in arms over these land-grabs.
Many peasants, workers, patriots and general country folk supported them.
But the government pointed out that Spam’s deeds had not been in order – and that anyway if you went back far enough the land had been nicked off the people in the first place.
It also reminded us that 90 per cent of the meat produced on these ranches was to be sold in Britain. Venezuelan land, Venezuelan cattle, Venezuelan labour, but virtually no meat for Venezuela at a time when the country was importing 70 per cent of meat consumed.
That this was A1 fertile land – perfect for crop production, not cattle-ranching.
And finally that there were millions of Venezuelans without land, houses or businesses who could benefit from the lots of all three owned by the absentee landlord.
So 2011 was the year that concluded the story of Spam in Venezuela. But not to worry – the third baron Vestey’s colonial adventures continue in, among other places, Australia, Brazil and China.
June 14, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Timeless or most popular | Hugo Chávez, Robert Zoellick, Venezuela, Vestey Group |
Leave a comment
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he will return home this week after receiving another round of radiation therapy for cancer in Cuba, dispelling rumors that he is critically ill.
“I should be there in Caracas, God willing, on April 26,” Chavez told state television VTV on Monday in a phone call interview after a reported 9-day silence.
“It seems we will have to become accustomed to live with these rumors, because it is part of the laboratories of psychological war, of dirty war,” he added.
Chavez left for Cuba on April 14 for what he reported as a final round of radiation treatment and has since been absent from state media and only communicated via Twitter and written statements.
“Some people would like to see me leave here sprinting … not yet, let me recover. I have to rest and look after my diet, the treatment and the hours I keep,” Chavez said.
He complained that radiation has taken a physical toll on him, saying, “The treatment is going well, but it’s very hard and you need to have a lot of willpower and strength.”
The 57-year-old leader also said he would need to return to Cuba for another round of radiation and tests.
In late February, Chavez had surgery in Havana after the recurrence of the cancer he was originally diagnosed with last year.
He began the treatment in Cuba following a tumor removal in late March 2011.
Doctors in Cuba have operated on President Chavez twice to remove the cancerous tumors but he has not specified the type of cancer.
Chavez insists that he will overcome the cancer and win re-election in October. His rivals, however, claim that he is not fit to govern the country because his health is deteriorating.
April 25, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Deception | Hugo Chávez |
1 Comment
Improving the Lives of the Poor and the Disadvantaged
If the the international press is to be believed, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela is a dictator, a menace to the region and is driving his country to the ground. If that is so, why do his people vote for him in landslide numbers? Why does he have an enormous following of the women of his country? Are they all deluded? Are they all paid or coerced to vote? It would seem so to the casual reader of headlines because the achievements of the Chávez government are treated like a top secret: Venezuela’s new participatory democracy should not be advertised. A new form of economic and social development that does not pay homage to global capital should be shunned. Nevertheless, a new world is being formed in a Latin America that has refused to be any power’s “back yard”. These developments are not ignored in Latin America where the Venezuela revolution has had a deep impact. The women of Venezuela have especially embraced the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela, not because they are “followers” but because actually, they have become protagonists of a social, economic and, cultural revolution that has transformed Venezuela and the region.
It all started with the Constitution of 2000, written by an elected assembly in clear and inclusive language, which contained legislation that would transform the lives of Venezuelans and particularly, of women. It gave women the right of equal pay for equal work, (Article 91); the right to a life without violence, according to International Convention against Discrimination against Women (Article 21): the right to protection and public assistance during maternity in all its phases (Article 76); and the now world famous Article 88 that recognizes women’s domestic work as productive economic activity entitled to public pensions. The constitution also adheres to the International UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child.
When the Constitution was only two years old and by no means was its mandate entirely implemented in law, in April of 2002, President Chávez was deposed and kidnapped in a coup d’etat orchestrated by the financial elites and abetted by the United States. It lasted 48 hours. The catalyst for its end was the tens of thousands of ordinary people who took to the streets to demand the return of their democratically elected president. They faced sharpshooters who were shooting indiscriminately at the crowds to create chaos. Masses of these people were women – women who realized that this government that they had elected now had been taken from them. The loyal armed forces then chose to side with the people and not the elites, and President Chávez was returned to his rightful position, becoming the first president in modern history to be deposed only to brought back due to widespread popular protest.[i]
There have been many accounts of heroic interventions during this critical time in which women figured prominently. Such as the older women of the slum area of El Valle who assumed leadership of the multitude that surrounded the country’s largest military headquarters, Fuerte Tiuna, and diffused a potentially deadly situation by shaming soldiers to put down their guns. Or the girl who gathered together her friends with motorbikes and actually took back the government’s TV station that had been ransacked and shut down by the coup supporters. President Chávez has often paid tribute to the extraordinary role women assumed in fighting the coup.
Today, 13 years after President Chavez’s first election, the lives of Venezuelan women have dramatically changed. The constitutional promises have been implemented in regulation and policy concerning gender equality and for the prevention violence against women. Laws have outlawed discrimination and have categorized 19 types of violence against women and created the institutions necessary to make the rights of women a reality.[ii] Granted, these issues all call for cultural and attitudinal changes in the relationships between men and women, which take time and education, but a clear legal basis is a strong impulse for such changes.
One of the main factors for the popularity of the Chávez Government is the reduction of poverty. This was largely attained because the government took back control of the national petroleum company PDVSA, and has used the abundant oil revenues, not for benefit of the rich as previous governments had done, but to build needed infrastructure and invest in the social services that Venezuelans so sorely needed. During the last ten years, the government has increased social spending by 60.6%, a total of $772 billion. [iii]
Women tend to be the majority among the poor all over the world due to their economic and social disadvantages and Venezuela has not been an exception. The Chavez government has significantly reduced general poverty from 49% in 1998 to 27% in 2011 and extreme poverty has been reduced from 27.4% (5.5 m) in 1998 to 7.3% (2.5m) today. [iv] The Organization of American States and the UN Development Program have both stated that Venezuela is at the head of the list of countries of the region that have reduced poverty the most.[v]
Economic milestones these last ten years include a reduction in unemployment from 11.3% to 7.7%; doubling the amount of people receiving social insurance benefits, and the public debt has been reduced from 20.7% to 14.3% of GNP. [vi] In general, the Venezuelan economy has grown 47.4% in ten years (4.3% per annum).
Among the many initiatives to promote popular economic enterprises, BAN MUJER was established in 2001, a bank solely for women. A very successful instrument helping women create their own businesses, it has given out 150,000 micro-credits to 2.5 million women, along with technical expertise and support for cooperatives.[vii] The substantive land reform also favours women, as women head of households are given priority when it comes to land redistribution. Furthermore, Venezuela is the country in the region with the least inequality (0.389 Gini index) and best redistribution of wealth between social classes.[viii]
Women in Venezuela have become not only the majority of the users but also the majority of providers of social services and anti-poverty programs[ix]. They are the majority in the election units of the governing party (PSUV) and very impressively, 70% of the members of the approximately 30,000 Communal Councils in the country are women. These Communal Councils play a pivotal role in decision making at the grass roots level to satisfy community social and economic needs and are the basis of participatory democracy.
Women hold some key and powerful positions in the government: as several ministers, President of the Supreme Court, Attorney General, National Ombudsman, National Elections Council, and Vice-presidency of the governing party PSUV are all women. Indeed, Venezuela is the country in the region with the highest inclusion of women in education and professional fields, according to the UN Human Development Program.
Health is an issue very dear to women’s hearts. In the new Venezuela, it is considered a human right, which the government is obliged to promote. Perhaps the most important, anti-poverty program that has galvanized women’s support is the government’s health care services and policies.
In 1998, access to medical care was abysmal and expensive, with only 20 physicians per 100,000 inhabitants. A creative arrangement with Cuba whereby in exchange for 100,000 barrels of petroleum, Cuba sends to Venezuela 45,000 health care workers, mostly physicians, [x]has made possible the health delivery program Barrio Adentro that places experienced physicians throughout urban poor neighborhoods, rural villages, and indigenous settlements. The huge majority of Cuban physicians in Venezuela are women. This program since its inception in 2003 has saved 302,171 lives and reduced maternal mortality as 99.3% of women giving birth attended by the Barrio Adentro physicians survive. [xi]
Today there are 59 physicians per 100,000 inhabitants, new clinics, and renovated and new hospitals throughout the country. There are now hundreds of emergency clinics, primary health clinics, and rehabilitation centres where a decade ago they were scarce. There is a new medical curriculum with the help of Cuban medical professors that emphasizes health as a human right and medical services grounded in the community. And, 70% of the new physicians graduating in the country are women.
One of the most important indicators of the welfare of a nation is the infant mortality rate. In 1998, that rate in Venezuela was 21 baby deaths per 1000 births. In 2011, the rate is 13.7 per 1000 births, the third lowest in Latin America, and an astounding achievement. [xii] Infant malnutrition went from 7.7% in 1998 to 3.2% in 2011, that is a 58.5% reduction, the 5th lowest in the region. [xiii] There are five laws that protect and promote breastfeeding, which is considered the very first act of food sovereignty. Breastfeeding increased from 7% a decade ago to 40% in 2010, and there are breast milk banks for babies at risk. In 70% of public schools, 4 million children are provided with free quality hot breakfast, hot lunch, and a nutritious snack before they leave school. There are 6,000 food dispensaries that feed 900.000 people in dire need– in total, about 5 million Venezuelans are provided with free food. [xiv] Thirteen years ago, there were approximately 8,000 children living on urban streets, and today they are practically negligible due to the programs to support street children.
Malnutrition in general has decreased due to these government food security measures plus others such as a real land reform, investment in agriculture, and promotion of cooperatives among rural workers and fishermen, and breaking up food distribution monopolies with a public food distribution network.
The better health of the population is not entirely due to medical services, but to the combined action on the social determinants of health: better nutrition, clean water and sanitation, more jobs and income per families, greater educational and training facilities, and greater social support and networking at the local levels, a literate and politically active and conscious population. And the government has had environmental initiatives and policies like no other previous administration, including, environmental assessments and protection, tree planting, water protection, energy efficiency and educational campaigns.
The government’s educational policies have rendered sterling results. Backed by UNESCO, Venezuela can claim to have eliminated illiteracy using the Cuban method of adult education with which 2 million people learned to read in less than 2 years. There are programs to help students finish High School, adult education to help people go to university, and a number of new universities in the country. The rate of students in primary school has increased from 85% to 93.6% and students in high school has increased even more, a 14% increase equivalent to 400,000 adolescents who are now continuing their studies.[xv] There are 20% more women than men continuing their studies.[xvi] And in the military field, which was a decade ago an exclusively masculine domain, today the majority of students at the military university UNEFA, are women. It is estimated that about 1/5 to 1/3 of the population of the country is enrolled in some educational program. Venezuela has met its educational Millennium Goals.
The United Nations has rated Venezuela among the countries with high level of human development, ranked #69 in its Human Development Index having advanced six places in ten years. [xvii]This indicator is supported by the Gallup Poll measuring happiness published by the Washington Post this year, that ranks Venezuela as the 5th most happy county tied with Finland.[xviii] This in itself should have made headlines around the world, but unfortunately, the international campaign to discount and denigrate everything related to the present Venezuelan government, denies the public knowledge of its considerable achievements.
While problems inherent to developing countries still persist in Venezuela, the progress that its government has made to satisfy its people’s real needs is impressive, and it is the reason that it has overwhelming support of women because it has improved their lives and those of their families. It is an indictment of the sorry state of the media in the northern developed countries, supposedly “independent” but prisoners of their political biases, that those achievements are not better known. On October 7 of this year, when President Chávez is elected with a handsome majority, those who have been fed by the mainstream media distorted views of the situation in Venezuela will be shaking their heads, not understanding that there are pivotal reasons why people in Venezuela vote for him, especially the women.
Maria Páez Victor, Ph.D., lives in Toronto.
Notes.
[i] Se video: The Revolution will Not be Televised” http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144
[ii] George Gabriel, Gender Advance in Venezuela: a two-pronged affair, 13 March 2009, http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/gender-advance-in-venezuela-a-two-pronged-affair
[iii] National Institute of Statistics, AVN March 4, 2012
[iv] AVN Prensa, 27 March 2012; National Institute of Statistics, AVN November 14, 2011
[v] Adrián Carmona, Algunos datos sobre Venezuela, Rebelión, marzo 2012
[vi] Adrián Carmona, Algunos datos sobre Venezuela, Rebelión, marzo 2012
[vii] Alba Carosio, Banmujer: 10 años impulsando la economía popular con igualdad, Rebelion, Feb. 4, 2011
[viii] National Institute of Statistics, AVN/ November 17/2010
[ix] The Guardian, Women Back Chávez, Feb. 25, 2005,
[x] http://www.aporrea.org/misiones/n199049.html
[xi] AVN Prensa 26 August 2010; YVKE Mundial/AVN/18 April 2011
[xii] Adrián Carmona, Algunos datos sobre Venezuela, Rebelión, marzo 2012
[xiii] YVKE/ 1 April 2011
[xiv] Statement by the Vice-President Elías Jaua, AVN April 23, 2012
[xv] Adrián Carmona, Algunos datos sobre Venezuela, Rebelión, marzo 2012
[xvi] UNESCO report, 2012
[xvii] AVN , January 13, 2009
[xviii] http://www.gallup.com/poll/147167/High-Wellbeing-Eludes-Masses-Countries-Worldwide.aspx#1
April 24, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | Hugo Chávez, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
The President of Venezuela’s National Land Institute (INTI), Luis Motta Dominguez, affirmed that more than 224,000 families have benefited from redistributed farmlands made available through the Chavez administration’s agrarian reform program.
The announcement was made during an interview with state television on Tuesday when Motta gave an update on the progress being made with respect to the country’s land redistribution program.
“It we take an average of 5 people per family, then we’re talking about 1.3 million people who have benefited from the redistribution”, the INTI President said while interviewed on the program Toda Venezuela (All of Venezuela).
Venezuela’s agrarian reform began in November 2001 when President Hugo Chavez signed by decree the Land Law, mandating the break up of fallow landed estates, known in Spanish as latifundios. The law gives the state the legal authority to expropriate any lands underutilized or illegally acquired and redistribute them to farming collectives comprised of wage workers previously without access to their own parcels.
According to Motta, INTI has been able to regularize some 7.7 million hectares (19 million acres) of land over the past 11 years and redistribute some 1.1 million (2.7 million) of those to rural laborers involved in state projects.
“The expropriation of these lands happens when there is a latifundio. We need to act so that these lands that were once concentrated in the hands of a single person and weren’t being used are handed over to the small producer”, the Land Institute President declared.
In addition to providing land and meaningful work to rural laborers, Venezuela’s land redistribution program is also designed to help decrease the country’s reliance on imported food items, a historical problem in the OPEC member state.
This is done, Motta informed, by turning the once underutilized lands into productive tracts in line with the country’s needs.
“All those lands that are not productive are being rescued. They’re being handed over to collectives or to agro-ecological projects in order to consolidate the food security and development. There is a constant monitoring and we’ve seen how production has increased throughout the national territory”, he said on Tuesday.
Recently, the government introduced a new program, Mission AgroVenezuela, with a similar goal – to stimulate agricultural production by providing assistance to any farmer willing to dedicate their land to domestic production.
The assistance comes in the form of low-interest credits through state financing as well as access to technical aid, supplies and farming machinery such as tractors and harvesters.
These initiatives along with continual evaluation and rescue of fallow lands have led, Motta argued, to greater work opportunities and higher living standards for Venezuela’s small farmers.
April 20, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Timeless or most popular | Hugo Chávez, Land Law, Redistribution of wealth, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
It will be released this Friday 30 March and they’re selling it as “the comedy of the moment”. It’s about a house in a zoo, a Cameron Crowe movie starring Matt Damon and Scarlett Johansson, which sounds very attractive for selling well at the box office.
However, despite being a family film with a story full of adventures, it includes a scene out of context (in the first minute of the film), that aims to ridicule the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, as well as branding him as dangerous and a dictator.
The story, produced by 20th Century Fox, begins well when – with voiceover – the main character Benjamin Mee (played by Damon) is introduced as a journalist who has specialised in writing adventures. After this it’s indicated that he has interviewed “dangerous dictators”. Then a strange deviation is taken from the film’s main storyline when a man enters with a mole on his forehead and a red shirt being interview by Mee.
“Look, take this message to that American cowboy [in reference to ex US President George W Bush], that we already gave a ten billion dollar credit to China, in oil!” declares the supposed Hugo Chavez, who then stands, and with an angry expression shouts into the journalist’s microphone “Swallow that, Mr. Danger!”
Next Mee (very calmly) asks him what his favourite film is, to which the actor personifying Chavez responds, coolly, “Toy Story”. The aim of this scene to show a president with sudden and radical mood changes. The 27 second scene ends when Chavez asks his presidential train (also dressed in red shirts and hats) if they can remember if he likes number one or two of the film. “The second,” one of them responds.
The Subliminal Message
This is being sold to the public as a family friendly, adventure, and even comedy film, when with this message at the start it is inducing the world’s hate against the Venezuelan president. However, in addition to this, one of his presidential train (seated just behind Matt Damon) is shown with a visible tattoo on his neck below the beard, which would appear to be a marijuana plant.
This image could allow the world to understand that Venezuela and its government endorse the sale and consumption of drugs, when it is a film to entertain families, including children and adolescents.
What also makes an impression is that the distributors indicate in their publicity that the film is “based on an incredible real life story,” as it’s about a widowed writer and father to a fourteen year old male teenager and a seven year old girl, with whom he undertakes the adventure of moving to a house inside a zoo. That’s fine, but in looking at the life of Benjamin Mee, in a review he said that “he was used to interviewing experts, passing their advice through a sieve and choosing the essential parts of their opinions”. It’s not said anywhere that he interviewed “dangerous dictators”.
In twenty-seven seconds during the first minute of the film the public is manipulated with respect to the issue of the violence of the head of state toward the journalist, about the relation that Venezuela has with China (portraying it as a spending spree), and, of course, for some reason national oil is mentioned, adding to the subliminal image.
Minutes later Mee offers his boss McGinty a piece about the end of the world from the point of view of the generation who is going to save it. For it he would go to a volcanic eruption. His boss makes fun of this and offers Mee a column: “Life is like that now, if the newspaper goes bankrupt or is sold, you’ll still have a job”.
In response, Mee quits, but what they try to show is that the private media boss is compassionate and protective.
You can watch the scene here.
Translated by Ewan Robertson for Venezuelanalysis.com
March 31, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular | Cameron Crowe, Hugo Chávez, Matt Damon, Scarlett Johansson, Venezuela |
1 Comment
During his 13-year-long presidency Hugo Chavez had to deal with five US ambassadors and numerous charge d’affaires. The history of relations between them and the Venezuelan leader shows how successfully one can oppose a policy of blackmail, conspiracy, overturns and ‘orange revolutions’.
The very first ambassador- John Maisto- arrived in Venezuela in 1997. His credentials were accepted by elderly Rafael Caldera, the last president of the corrupt Fourth Republic, which by that time had fully exhausted its potential. Venezuela was then preparing for presidential elections, and the U.S. propaganda was targeting Chavez’s candidacy.
Maisto’s career is worth paying attention to. He assisted the C.I.A in secret operations against Che Guevara in Bolivia. He worked in policy departments of the US embassies in Colombia, Costa Rica, and in the Philippines, which means that he was involved in intelligence operations. Maisto is believed to have stood behind the bloodless revolution that eventually overturned the Marcos government [of the Philippines 1965-1986]. Maisto led the policy department of the US embassy in Panama and took part in preparing the U.S. military intervention, which resulted in the arrest of President Manuel Noriega. Maisto also worked in Nicaragua, where he arrived in the early 1990s to help in ‘dismantling’ the leftist Sandinista regime following the victory of a pro-American candidate.
Maisto was repeatedly heard describing Chavez as an insurgent leader who supported left-wing parties and sympathized with the Castro brothers. On his advice, in the beginning of 1998 the US Department of State denied Chavez a US visa. This was a clear signal that Washington would support Chavez’s rival Henrique Salas Römer, a politician loyal to the traditions of the Fourth Republic. However, Chavez won the elections with more than 56% of the vote, and Maisto had to urgently bridge the gap. Chavez was no longer denied entry to the US. Preparations started for his meeting with Bill Clinton. Although the US State Department insisted that Chavez should first visit Washington, the Venezuelan leader said that before going to the US he would meet Fidel first.
It is worth mentioning that Maisto had to interpret a new political situation in Venezuela as “not radically opposing the US interests”, saying that Chavez was ensuring stability in his country, including stable hydrocarbon supplies, without infringing upon the US property. Maisto added that although Chavez was not very cooperative towards the US, he still could quite be tolerated as Venezuela’s leader. Agents of the CIA, DIA and DEA were embedded in Chavez’s circles, not to mention fifth-column activists in the country’s ministries of defense and of foreign affairs. The ambassador predicted that Chavez wouldn’t stay in office longer than 1.5-2 years. Now we see that he was mistaken.
Maisto left Venezuela in August of 2000, and was replaced by diplomat Donna Hrinak. Before being appointed as ambassador to Caracas, Hrinak had served as a US ambassador to the Dominican Republic and Bolivia (prior to Evo Morales’s presidency), and was used to talking to Latin American presidents in a bossy tone. When Chavez condemned the US bombing of Afghanistan, which led to numerous civilian deaths, Hrinak asked him if she could meet him in person. She came to the meeting, bearing in mind instructions from the State Department, and demanded that Chavez not be as critical towards the US as he had been. Chavez interrupted her: “You are talking to the head of state. Regarding your position, you are not behaving in a proper fashion, please, leave the room now”. Some sources say that Chavez, however, let Hrinak read the message from Washington till the end. In January 2002 Hrinak left Venezuela and was sent to Brazil to prevent Luiz da Silva from establishing too close ties with Chavez. The Brazilian leader turned to be a tough nut to crack: he listened attentively to US instructions but did it his own way.
Until March 2002, the US embassy in Caracas had been run by a charge d’affaires. Meanwhile, the Bush administration sanctioned a coup d’état, relying on three Venezuelan high-ranking army officials, who had been trained in the US. The conspiracy involved many counterintelligence agents (DIM, DISP, and others). Pro-US media launched non-stop propaganda against the ‘Castro-Communist regime’ and its followers. Non-governmental organizations (NGO) that emerged under Maisto, brought many intellectuals, students and oil workers together. Middle-class women also took active part in protests against ‘Cubanization’ of their country. Certainly, old bourgeois parties and the Catholic church did not stay aside.
A month before the coup a new US ambassador, Charles Shapiro, arrived in Venezuela. Known at home for his experience in dealing with coups, Shapiro was praised for his work as a military attaché in Chile while preparing the toppling of Salvador Allende. Shapiro also stood out during a ‘dirty war’ with guerrilla units in Salvador and Nicaragua in 1980s. Washington relied on this highly experienced person in dealing with ‘the Chavez issue’. On April 11, 2002, indeed, Shapiro reported the toppling of Chavez. The ambassador’s moment of glory did not last long as Chavez returned to his presidential palace in the wake of pubic protests, supported by patriotic members of the military. A week later Shapiro asked for a meeting with Chavez. When the two met, Shapiro told the Venezuelan leader about the plot to assassinate him. Chavez asked: “What exactly do you know about the plot? Who stands behind it, tell me the names”. Shapiro shrugged his shoulders: “The instructions I received contain no information of this kind.”
A few years later Chavez told journalists about his talk with Shapiro, describing the latter a ‘real clown but not an ambassador’: “Given the CIA, the FBI and other intelligence services, they say they have no further information on the issue. Meanwhile, we know, and we are not alone in our knowing, that there is a camp in Miami where Venezuelan terrorists are being trained. The US administration has not done anything to arrest them. Moreover, Washington assists them.” Chavez said that Shapiro’s visit was organized to shield US involvement with April protests, and distract attention from the US ambassador’s applause for Pedro Carmona, one of key plotters”. A really devastating failure for the CIA was that its Venezuelan agents did not have the nerve to get rid of the Bolivarian leader. After that Shapiro was no longer a person whom Chavez and his supporters could trust.
The ambassador thus had to pretend that he was just a mediator between the government and the opposition. Behind-the-scenes, Shapiro supported financial assistance to the opposition via the CIA and NGOs. More and more Zionist supporters were engaged in anti-government activities. Shapiro used mass media to send threatening signals to Chavez, trying to persuade him that the situation in Venezuela would be getting even worse unless his (Shapiro’s) recommendations were heeded. Chavez, for his part, more than once said that Shapiro could become persona non grata in Venezuela. In 2004 Shapiro’s term in office expired and he left the country.
The next US ambassador to Venezuela was William Brownfield. He began his diplomatic career in 1979 as a vice consul in Maracaibo, Venezuela’s oil capital. Traditionally, all posts in that consulate were occupied by CIA agents or intelligence officers. Brownfield participated in working out the so-called Plan Colombia, and also supervised the Cuba-related policies in the Department of State. Three months passed before Brownfield was approved as the new US ambassador in Venezuela: tensions between the Bolivarian government and the opposition remained, and Chavez decided to keep the new US diplomat away from Venezuela for a while.
Brownfield’s credentials were accepted by Chavez at Miraflores Palace on October 15. First, the ambassador tried to leave a good impression on him and emphasized the need to improve US-Venezuela relations at least on some levels and lay the basis for further cooperation. Very soon, however, Brownfield’s policy changed, and he spent much time talking to opposition members and NGO activists. He paid several visits to Venezuela’s Zulia state, openly demonstrating his solidarity with local pro-separatism politicians. He criticized practically everything Chavez did: the purchase of Russian arms, oil cooperation with Cuba, expanded partnership with Iran, contribution to Latin American integration and the creation of the mechanism of regional security without the US membership.
In response, official Caracas paid absolutely no attention to the new US envoy. Brownfield’s mission ended in the middle of 2007. This is how one of Venezuela’s analysts commented on Brownfield’s work: “Defeated, he is leaving. He failed to implement Washington’s plans of making the opposition stronger and Chavez weaker. On the contrary, while Brownfield stayed in Venezuela, Chavez saw his approval rating going up to 73%… Brownfield simply turned into a vulgar immoral instigator. His only success was giving dollars to opposition ‘puppets’.
Brownfield wished his successor Patrick Duddy all the best at his post. Describing Duddy as a ”very smart, intellectual man, who knows Latin America very well”, Brownfield said: ”Probably, he will manage to achieve the goals I’ve failed to approach.” Duddy continued his predecessor’s course, though in a more careful way: his intelligence background helped him. There was not a single reason to reproach him for anything, although Venezuelan counterintelligence received reports that the US embassy was preparing a ‘surprise’ for the 2008 presidential elections. In August of 2008, in a gesture of solidarity with Bolivia, Chavez said that Duddy must leave Venezuela within 72 hours. The US ambassador to La Paz Philip Goldberg was a key figure in organizing opposition rallies and instigating separatism. He was implementing US plans to overthrow Evo Morales.
Duddy returned to Caracas nine months later. His further stay in Venezuela was not in any way remarkable, except the WikiLeaks reports dealing with the embassy’s financial ties to pro-opposition mass media. Journalists addressed Duddy asking him for money allegedly to fight the Chavez regime. Duddy was not happy with the situation because the results were very poor despite huge spending.
Larry Palmer was expected to become the next US ambassador to Venezuela. During discussions in Congress, Palmer spoke about ”low morale of the Venezuelan army”, ”links between the Chavez government and FARC rebels”. After Palmer’s statements were leaked to the media, thus bringing a new chill in the relations between the two countries. Chavez did not accept Palmer as the new US envoy to Venezuela.
Currently, the US interests in Caracas are represented by charge d’affaires James Derham. He used to work in Guatemala, Mexico, Brazil, in Kosovo – as part of The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and also in Cuba as part of the US Interests Section in Havana. By the way, Derham was already a retired diplomat, resting in his private house in Williamsburg, Virginia, not far from the CIA headquarters in Langley, when he was appointed to a new post. Perhaps, in Washington they believe that pensioner Derham will be more successful than plotters shielded by the State Department.
February 18, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Corruption, Deception, Timeless or most popular | Charles Shapiro, Chavez, Donna Hrinak, Hugo Chávez, United States, Venezuela, William Brownfield |
3 Comments
Caracas – Member countries of Latin America’s alternative integration bloc, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), met in the Venezuelan capital this weekend in order to discuss the advancement of the organisation at its 11th official summit.
Following a meeting on Friday to draft proposals and set an agenda, the presidents discussed a series of themes relating to ALBA’s role within the regional economy and various foreign policy issues. The body also approved several declarations relating to global political concerns, including pronouncements on Syria and the current diplomatic altercation between the UK and Argentina with relation to the Falkland Islands.
Bank of the ALBA
At the end of the summit’s first day, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced that member countries had agreed to contribute 1% of their international reserves towards the bloc’s main bank in order to create a reserve fund.
The Bank of the Alba was established in 2008 with the intention of providing economic support to people-centred regional projects and to contribute to sustainable social and economic development across the region. The Bank is also cited as acting as a continental alternative to the International Monetary Fund.
At the summit, ALBA member countries agreed that the financial reinforcement of the bank would be pivotal to the development of the bloc. Chavez also reaffirmed Venezuela’s commitment to funding regional development projects by announcing his intention to increase petroleum production in the Orinoco Belt to that end.
“We should increase oil production from 3 to 3.5 million barrels a day, and by 2014 we should be at 4 million barrels. This is going to allow us greater flexibility in all of these projects,” said the head of state.
According to Chavez, Venezuela’s contribution to the bank will amount to around US$300 million.
Regional Currency
The heads of state also discussed the possibility of increasing the commercial use of the sucre, the bloc’s virtual currency. The sucre is currently used for direct trading between the ALBA countries, allowing them to circumvent the U.S dollar and minimise the foreign-exchange risk.
According to Ricardo Menendez, Venezuelan Vice-minister of Production and Economy, 431 financial transactions using the sucre were carried out between ALBA countries last year, amounting to over US$216 million worth of trade. However, Ecuadorean president, Rafael Correa, called for the use of the currency to be increased.
“Those free trade agreements, free markets, [with]…zero indemnity, annihilating the weak, that’s suicide for our countries…We should encourage fair trade; unite our reserves and financial capacity in the Bank of the Alba and avoid using foreign currencies,” he urged.
Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista president of Nicaragua, also expressed his desire to boost the use of the bloc’s currency. In statements, Ortega said that he hoped to begin using the sucre within the next few weeks, subject to approval from Nicaragua’s national assembly.
Anti-imperialist Agenda
As well as condemning what it referred to as the “systemic policies of destabilisation and interventionism” currently being implemented in Syria, the bloc also signed a document in support of Puerto Rico’s right to self-determination and full independence.
Further, ALBA reiterated its support for the Argentinean government in its diplomatic dispute with the UK over the Falkland Islands. In a special communication, the bloc called for a negotiated settlement to the Falkland’s question which does not violate the United Nation’s 31/49 resolution. The ALBA’s statements come as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also expressed his solidarity with the Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner on Saturday, stating that the South American nation would “not be alone” in the event of a conflict.
Correa suggested that the bloc should move to impose sanctions against the UK government due to its unwillingness to engage in dialogue with the Argentinean government to resolve the issue. Last week, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, William Hague, revealed that he had sent a warship to the Falklands as a “routine” measure.
Chavez has confirmed that the ALBA group will now review what sanctions may be taken in response to the “negative dialogue” and “ridiculous military threat” from David Cameron’s coalition government.
The ALBA also struck out against the Organisation of American States for its exclusionary stance with regards to Cuba. In accordance with a proposal from Correa, the bloc said it would consider not attending the Summit of the Americas, due to be held in Colombia this April, if Cuba were not invited.
“We could take this to the host country, which is the Colombian government, with whom we have re-established political and commercial relations… I am in agreement with Rafael Correa, if Cuba isn’t invited, we will consider not attending, it’s a matter of dignity,” concluded Chavez.
Helping Haiti
As part of the summit, the ALBA agreed to step up its humanitarian assistance to Haiti through the formation of an ALBA-Haiti work plan. The project will be aimed at providing emergency relief and facilitating reconstruction efforts in the Caribbean nation, which is still suffering the effects of the earthquake of January 2010.
Member countries also agreed to establish a Haiti fund in order to execute the projects and provide the country’s energy plants with fuel. Details will be finalised at a foreign ministers meeting in Haiti at the beginning of March.
In comments to the Venezuelan press, Haitian President Michel Martelly thanked the ALBA for its continued efforts to help the Caribbean nation in the wake of its humanitarian catastrophe. He added that the new ALBA plan would go towards alleviating extreme poverty in Haiti. Venezuela and Haiti also signed an independent bilateral agreement to increase cooperation between the two countries.
ALBA Expands
In the final act of the summit, the ALBA ratified St. Lucia and Surinam as two new honorary members to the bloc and confirmed that soon both countries would be full members of Venezuela’s energy integration organisation, Petrocaribe.
Other proposals that the group will now pursue include the creation of regional schools for social movements and the establishment of a communications secretary general; as well as the proposal to create a “defence counsel” for the bloc, which was submitted by Bolivian President Evo Morales.
Formed in 2004 by Venezuela and Cuba, the ALBA is an alternative to U.S free trade agreements in the region and seeks to address unjust terms of trade by engaging in commerce on the basis of solidarity and cooperation. ALBA nations currently include; Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia, Dominica, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and Antigua and Barbuda. The governments of Haiti, Surinam and St. Lucia also attended the event as “participant observers”.
February 6, 2012
Posted by aletho |
Economics, Solidarity and Activism, Timeless or most popular | ALBA, Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas, Hugo Chávez, Rafael Correa, Venezuela |
Leave a comment
Aletho News
Aletho News 