tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-283981422024-03-13T10:36:08.789-04:00Stars, Stripes & StainsThe good, the bad and the ugly!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-73768213600769389942014-12-17T23:20:00.000-05:002014-12-17T23:20:51.819-05:00CUBA HAS NO STRATEGIC VALUE FOR THE USA!<b>Eight years ago <i>(</i> <i>June 04, 2006 )</i> I published the following comments about our foreign policy with Cuba. Today, when President Barack Obama has decided to do something about this failed and unwarranted policy, the arguments in both sides continue to be exactly the same.</b><br />
<br />
<b>I though therefore it was relevant to publish again these comments in an attempt to explain why I continue to stand behind my original comments and hence, support President's Obama decision.</b><br />
<br />
<i>Quote </i><br />
<br />
<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>While engaging in the
discussion of comments posted on the very interesting blog from the
Miami Herald columnist Mr. Andres Oppenheimer (find link here), I have
come to realize that sooner rather than later we have to leave the Cuba
issue behind and move on. Latin America is far more strategically
important for our future well being. I am herein quoting some of those
comments and my response to them to illustrate the case at hand.</b><br />
<b>mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
Mini-me:
You are absolutely right. The US foreign policy in Latin America has
been and continues to be Cuban centric and this has been both bad for
Latin America and for our interests in the region. Cuba is a very small
country, with a small population and a very small GDP. If at all it
doesn’t deserve more attention that the one we pay to Jamaica and
Trinidad & Tobago. The problem is that Republicans are
businessmen and therefore they feel comfortable selling out our
interests in Latin America in exchange for the Cuban vote in Florida. A
shame and a pity, but it did get them in the White House.<br />
<br />
<b>proudcubanamerican said:</b><br />
<br />
“Oye
Mosquito, In case you just crawled out from under a rock where you
lived with the rest of the tira-flecha indios, Cuba has been at the
center of a geo-political crisis in the Western Hemisphere since 1959.
That makes it more relevant and important to US foriegn policy than
Jamaica, Trinidad and even Mexico.<br />
<br />
It was out of Cuba
that the world almost got involved in World War III during the Kennedy
Administration. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?<br />
<br />
It
was out of Cuba that approximately 2 million exiles have come to this
country and built a region of this country (South Florida) that is quite
prosperous and very beautiful, thank you.<br />
It is out of Cuba that
President Carter suffered his second greatest political defeat (the
Mariel boat lift). The Iranian hostage crisis was Carter's worst
mistake.<br />
<br />
And it is out of Cuba that the US has the
opportunity to win the final battle of the Cold War when Fidel dies and
the country turns to democracy.<br />
<br />
Also, you make a big
mistake thinking numbers instead of power. There are only 2 million
exiled Cuban Americans in this country. Yet we wield more political
power and clout than perhaps the other 60 million Hispanics put
together.<br />
<br />
Instead of your poorly veiled passive aggressive rip on Cubans, you should try to learn something from us.”<br />
<br />
<b>mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
My
dear proudcubanamerican: Let me start by saying that I do not have any
passively aggressive rip against Cubans. As a matter of fact I have the
utmost respect for the Cuban people and the Cuban culture. This is, for
all the Cuban people and the entire Cuban culture which off course is
not limited to Cubans in the US.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
Having
said this I must say that I am sorry that you feel offended because I
have just stated the undisputed fact that Cuba as a country, including
the Cuban population in Miami, has no strategic value and/or importance
for the US.<br />
<br />
It is not that I am trying to be offensive or nasty, it is just a fact.<br />
<br />
Of
course you are welcomed to give your arguments as to why this assertion
is wrong but you will have to do much better than the emotional and
inaccurate outburst in your comment. Let me explain:<br />
1) You are
wrong and a bit arrogant when you say that Cuba has been at the center
of the geopolitical crisis in the Western hemisphere since 1959.<br />
<br />
It
is us, the United States of America that has been at the center of the
geopolitical crisis in the Western Hemisphere from the day we adopted
the Monroe doctrine and due to our own naïve and inept foreign policy in
the region.<br />
<br />
Cuba has only been an instrument used by
both sides to show their contempt for each other. The United States
punished Cuba to make an example in the region and Latin America
continued to have diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba to express
their contempt at the United States.<br />
<br />
Do you seriously
believe that Cuba is the leader of anything in the region? Wake up for
God’s sake; only in fantasy land you can dream of midgets leading
giants. It would take us only hours, not even days, to take full control
of Cuba. We haven’t done so because it has been in our best interest to
keep things the way they are. Believe me when I say that neither the US
or Latin America is afraid of Cuba and that Cuba is the center of
nothing.<br />
<br />
2) You are right when you say that it was out
of Cuba that the world almost got involved in world war III. What you do
not mention though is that Cuba was just a puppet in that crisis. Cuba
had little or no say in the crisis and the crisis itself was not of
Cuban making. So much so, that the solution to the crisis was negotiated
with the puppeteer (USSR) and not with Cuba.<br />
<br />
For all
purposes, any minute island in the Caribbean could have been used by the
URSS to challenge the US. It just happens that Cuba was for sale at the
time.<br />
<br />
That doesn’t make Cuba strategically important for the US. It just makes it a sorry and opportunistic country.<br />
<br />
3)
The fact that over 2.0 million Cubans have fled to the US doesn’t mean
that the country is of strategic importance to us either. If at all it
only proves that our policy towards Cuba has been and continues to be
wrong.<br />
<br />
Freedom is not a gift that can be handed over by
others. It is a right that you conquer. You have to fight and die for
freedom to deserve it. People in countries through out the world have
fought and continue to fight, even against incredible odds, to conquer
their freedom. This is, people throughout the world except in Cuba. Our
policy toward Cuba instead of encouraging the Cuban people to fight for
their freedom has encouraged them to take the easy way out and come to
Miami. Freedom is not going to come to Cuba because Fidel Castro dies.
Freedom will come to Cuba the day the Cuban people decide to fight for
it.<br />
<br />
4) The fact that Cubans are hard workers doesn’t
mean that Cuba is of strategic importance to the US either. Hard work
makes you decent not strategically important.<br />
<br />
5) You
can make any arrogant and absurd comment about President Carter but that
still doesn’t make Cuba strategically important for the US.<br />
<br />
6)
As for, “the US has the opportunity to win the final battle of the Cold
War”; what planet do you live on? There is no cold war anymore; when
the dog died the rabies went away.<br />
<br />
Further, we are not
at war with Cuba so there is nothing to win. Further more; it serves no
logical purpose to fight for Cuba; there is nothing we need there.<br />
<br />
7)
As for your power trip in the comment about Cubans vs Hispanics; do not
spit to heaven because it might fall in your face. Cuban power is on
its way down not because of other Hispanics but because of us,
Americans, who have endured about enough of this nonsense.<br />
<br />
By the way, having political power in the US still doesn’t make Cuba strategically important.<br />
Last
but not least, do not waste your Mexican bigotry on me because I am not
of Mexican descent though, as with Cuba, I do have the utmost respect
both for the Mexican people and culture.<br />
<br />
P.D. The only
argument that I concede could make me change my opinion about the
strategic importance of Cuba for the US is the possibility that Cuba
finds oil in the Florida straights. If the proven reserves are
significant, that would make a big difference. <br />
<br />
<b>ada b... said:</b><br />
<br />
“I
read the arguments presented by Proud Cuban American and Mosqueton and
have to agree with my compatriot from Cuba. To deny Cuba's mark on
history is to deny the truth.<br />
<br />
This is a fact Mosqueton:
In 1777, with the American revolution not faring so well, the colonies
sent an envoy to Havana, then the oldest and most established city in
the Western Hemisphere, to seek monetary aid for their cause. History
books record that women of the Cuban elite gathered jewelery worth $1.1
million AT THAT TIME and donated it to the fledgling colonies.<br />
<br />
That
money helped your country get born, which seems fairly strategically
important to me. Please feel free to look this up on the internet and
history books -- you'll be a less ignorant person for it.<br />
<br />
Also
to deny the Cuban people's mark on South Florida is to be blind. If you
can prove that South Florida is completely unimportant to the United
STates, then I guess you can argue the Cuban people, and the country
they come from by extension, are strategically unimportant. Otherwise,
you are wrong again.<br />
<br />
One final point: The Cuban people
tried to fight for Cuba's freedom but it was an American president named
Kennedy who didn't have the stomach for it. He promised air cover and
instead delivered only air at the Bay of Pigs. This while he was already
sending troops in the guise of "advisors" to a disaster called Vietnam.<br />
<br />
Sounds
like good old fashioned American hypocrisy to me. Ensuing American
politicians then made it illegal for Cuban nationals to launch offensive
operations from the US against communism on the island. I know because
my father was arrested by the US Coast Guard when he tried to smuggle
weapons into Cuba for a dissident group in 1971. So you are totally
ignorant as to the facts when you speak of Cubans preferring not to
fight and free themselves, mosqueton.<br />
<br />
By the way, I'm
sure you're a brave American man. Why don't you set out on an inner tube
into the gulf stream for a couple of days and then make the argument
that that doesn't test a man's courage.”<br />
<br />
<b>mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
Dear
Ms. Ada B...: Let me start by saying that I do not deny Cuba’s history
nor I have anything against Cubans. I have great Cuban friends with whom
I spend delightful nights zipping rum, smoking cigars and having
enlightening and passionate discussions about politics, music and
literature. My original statement, to which “proudcubanmerican” reacted
emotionally and using terms that were certainly of very bad taste, is
that from a geopolitical standpoint Cuba today is not strategically
important for the United States and therefore we should abandon our
current Cuban centric foreign policy and concentrate our efforts in
building those relations, particularly with Latin America, Central
America and Mexico, that are critical to our future well being.<br />
<br />
That
doesn’t mean that I neglect the historic ties between Cuba and the
United States, especially those between Cuba and the great state of
Alabama. It doesn’t mean either that I am against Cuba. It just means
that we have to look after our own interests and that we have bigger
fish to fry. Let me elaborate in this regard.<br />
<br />
By the
year 2050 China will be a market of 1.4 billion consumers and at the
current growth rate will have a GDP (Gross domestic product) 1.5 times
that of the United States. India will be a market of 1.5 billion
consumers with about the same GDP as the US. Europe will have a market
of 653 million and the US will have a population of 394 million. Our
technological superiority is shrinking by the minute and we need to grow
and acquire a critical mass that allows us to compete in a world of
huge markets otherwise our economy will become totally dependent of
foreign markets. Building an alliance with Latin America will make us a
1.2 billion market, give us access to natural resources that are
critical to sustain our growth and pretty much make us self sufficient
energy wise.<br />
<br />
I am sure you will concede that, in this
picture, our relationship with Cuba has absolutely no relevance and
certainly absolutely no strategic value.<br />
<br />
Having said
this, I do feel compelled to mention that I take your comment about my
ignorance as a compliment because it is of wise people to be aware of
how little they know.<br />
<br />
I also want to take this
opportunity to highlight some gross inaccuracies and erroneous
interpretations in your comment with the only purpose of helping you
become wiser.<br />
<br />
1)In 1777 Cuba was indeed the oldest and
most established “Spanish” city in the Western hemisphere. It was built,
owned and ruled by Spain.<br />
<br />
2) France and Spain, eager to settle old scores with their rival England, joined the Americans in their fight in 1777.<br />
<br />
3)
It was not the women of the Cuban elite that gave away their jewelry to
raise $1.1 million, “at that time” to help the colonies. Prominent
merchants in Havana rose almost “half a million pesos” from patriotic
residents (Spanish patriots) to support the war effort. The money sent
to the Spanish crown proved valuable to the American victory at Yorktown
- the engagement that finally broke the British will and ultimately
ended the war. The Cubans, much like the Americans, were driven by a
mixture of principle and practical materialism though. The merchants who
raised the funds were awarded special trade privileges in exchange,
particularly in the slave trade. I am sure some women must have donated
their jewelry to the cause but certainly it was not an unselfish ladies
initiative.<br />
<br />
4) We were and continue to be grateful to
Cuba for that gesture regardless of the obvious self interest and that
is why we liberated Cuba from Spain in 1898.<br />
<br />
5) I have
never denied the Cuban people mark in South Florida but the fact that
there are 2 million Cubans in South Florida does not make Cuba
strategically important for the US. By the same token, the fact that
there are over 2 million Dominicans in New York does not make the
Dominican Republic strategically important either.<br />
<br />
As
for the cause of freedom in Cuba I believe I should make my position
very clear even though this has absolutely no bearing on my opinion
regarding the lack of strategic importance of Cuba.<br />
<br />
Why
is it that every time someone brings up the fact that there is no fight
for freedom in Cuba the first argument is to blame the United States?
What gives you the right to demand that we fight to liberate Cuba when
Cubans are not fighting for their freedom themselves? Why should you be
allowed to fight Fidel Castro from the US and drag us into a fight that
is not ours?<br />
<br />
It was the Cuban people, not a foreign
power or the US, who brought Fidel Castro to power. He did not start his
fight in Miami with air support from the US. He fled into the
mountains, earned the heart of the Cuban people and fought inside Cuba
against Batista.<br />
<br />
There are over 10 million Cubans in
the island and 2 million in the US. Cubans from Miami are not going back
to the island to fight and certainly no one in the island is doing it
either.<br />
<br />
As for the Bay of Pigs fighters I join you in
expressing my utmost admiration and respect for those few brave Cubans
(1,400) that are truly an example of bravery and unfledged commitment
with the cause of freedom and love for their country.<br />
<br />
I
must say though that I am appalled at the fact that there were about
70,000 Cubans in the US in 1961 and only 1,400 were willing to die
fighting for freedom and country.<br />
<br />
History has taught us
that wherever there is a will there is a way. People all over the
world, and certainly in Latin America, have fought and continue to fight
and die inside their countries for their beliefs (right or wrong
beliefs).<br />
<br />
That is not happening in Cuba and it is a
strong indicator that maybe the Cuban people, particularly inside the
island, do not want to change the status quo and/or do not want it bad
enough.<br />
<br />
As for us, you have no right to question our
commitment to freedom or even raise the argument that we are to blame
for Cuba’s misgivings because no other country in the world has shed
more blood for freedom in foreign lands than us.<br />
<br />
I dare you to stand at the Normandy Cemetery and Memorial in France and question our resolve and commitment to freedom.<br />
<br />
We are not perfect and we make many mistakes, but no one has the right to question us because we do not fight their battles.<br />
<br />
Finally,
I do not know if I am a brave man but you can be absolutely sure that
if I was Cuban I would be testing my bravery with a rifle in my hand in
the hills of Santiago and not in the straights of Florida.<br />
<br />
<i>Unquote</i></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1551445678450833702012-02-25T02:14:00.001-05:002012-02-25T02:16:39.330-05:00IRAN(Q): A BAD FEELING OF DEJA VU<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Arial;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073711037 9 0 511 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-font-charset:78;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Arial;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:Arial;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-fareast-font-family:"MS 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>I Know; Long Time, No See! ..... Coming back, slowly
but surely!</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>The following is a very interesting article from Reuters on the so called "covert" war in Iran as well as the
comments I left in that publication.</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Article: </b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="color: blue;">
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/18/us-iran-methods-idUSTRE80H0NX20120118" target="_blank"><i><span style="text-decoration: none;">Analysis:Not-so-covert Iran war buys West time, raises tension</span></i></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>Mousqueton Comment:</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I sure hope they have it right this time! ... we have a very
poor track record (victory parades after the invasion of Iraq) when it comes to
interpreting the information and feedback as well as understanding the reality
of the people and countries in this region. Not to mention that we are not
humble enough to recognize that this area, as foreign and strange as it appears
to us, was once the center of world knowledge.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It also seems like a good idea to sit back and meditate over
the fact, supported by its perfect historic track record, that when it comes to
“force” and “violence”, the "dialectic" principle of action and
reaction in a never ending and ever growing spiral is indeed an absolute truth.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am not a bright person and I certainly have no experience
on international affairs and/or strategic issues. I do have though some good
old common sense that tells me … when against the wall, even the weakest
enemy becomes a “Titan” not because he might win but because he could choose
the self-destructing path of going out causing far more devastation than we are
willing to endure.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hate to think that I might wake up in the near future to a
headline that reads something like this …</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<b>“Iran tested its first atomic bomb in the Strait of Hormuz
.... Deaths: None; Casualties: The World”. </b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Do I have a perfect and bright solution? NO; but, I
certainly hope that those in charge do!</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-54321899315155563222008-09-10T02:09:00.012-04:002011-12-31T02:50:11.345-05:00TOO MUCH NOISE; NO ISSUES!<div style="color: #666666; text-align: justify;">
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">As I have mentioned before I like visiting and commenting in a most interesting and, I must add, very popular blog called <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/">“Venezuela News & Views”</a>.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">While I do read many interesting blogs every day, VN&V is kind of exceptional when it comes to attracting a very challenging and intellectually rich crowd that for the most part is concerned with the pervasive influence of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, in the Latin American region as well as the social and political destruction he is causing inside Venezuela.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">One of the regular visitors of VN&V is a gentleman called <a href="http://www.venezuela-europa.blogspot.com/">Kepler</a>. He is a bright Venezuelan professional that lives overseas for whom I have the utmost respect. He is a true liberal with a strong European influence and I still have to find a topic of discussion that he is not well versed on.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Kepler is not a man who will run away from a good intellectual skirmish and I have to say that I treasure dearly all of our online encounters. Recently I found myself discussing with him over a comment I made to a posting on VN&V about the nomination and election of <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2008/09/palin-factor.html">Sarah Palin</a> to the Republican Party ticket.</span></div>
<br />
I have written here a number of posts, perhaps too many, about Mr. Chavez and Venezuela but not a single word on the US presidential election. The reason for this is that even though I have been following closely and even avidly the US presidential election I still have not decided who I will vote for coming November.<br />
<br />
I am one of those voters that have traditionally supported Democratic candidates but whose vote is not a “gimme”. Call me old fashion, slow or whatever you want but the fact is that I am a voter whose vote can not be taken for granted. I expect the candidates to make the putt; meaning, I expect them to earn my vote.<br />
<br />
This has not happen yet and therefore I could not write about the election because I had nothing to write about. That is, nothing to write about until Kepler challenged me into answering his comments on VN&V.<br />
<br />
Kepler has triggered in me a need to start putting my ideas and concerns in perspective and to come up with a short list of particular issues that may not be important for most voters but that are pretty important to me. Issues and concerns over and above the ones I share with most voters and that both candidates, hopefully, will start addressing now that they have been officially nominated by their parties.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue ...<br />
<br />
I am therefore herein including the comments written both by Kepler and myself on the VN&V blog which gives an insight as to what is one of those issues and concerns. Issue, that I am hoping and waiting both candidates will address before I decide who I will vote for.<br />
<br />
On behalf of Kepler and myself please excuse any involuntary orthographic and/or linguistic mistakes. I am quoting from the comment thread of the VN&V blog and as most of you know, these kind of comments are written in a hurry and in the moment, not subject to proof reading and hence, prone to many typos.<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Original comment by Mousqueton:</span></div>
<br />
What can I say Daniel <span style="font-style: italic;">(Editor of VN&V)</span>; the option of a McCain/Palin formula for President/Vice President and the Democrats for both the House of Representatives and Congress is starting to get more and more attractive by the minute.<br />
<br />
If at all, it will mean that in 2012 we will have Palin and Hillary running for President.<br />
<br />
I have to say that from a Venezuelan point of view, I certainly trust McCain far more than Obama to deal with Chavez and his pervasive influence throughout the region.<br />
<br />
May we all live in interesting times. (Confucius)<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Follow up comment by Mousqueton:</span></div>
<br />
By the way, though I am basically a liberal I have to agree with you Daniel; the lady looked very poised inside the ropes and proved to be a good politician. While I am not cozy about her ideology, she does come across as pragmatic.<br />
<br />
Further, I am willing to go out on a limb and say that, given his track record and the fact that he has never been a favorite son of the Republican Party - heck, without Palin he would be struggling to get the Republican Party behind his candidacy - the only thing McCain needs to be a great President is a Democratic Congress and House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
This guy has proven he can work in and with both sides of the aisle. Something Obama claims, but in fact, based on his track record, is just wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Reply by Kepler:</span></div>
<br />
How do you think McCain can be more pervasive in dealing with Thugo?<br />
<br />
I think this is about gaining the hearts of people in Latin America...no, not the hearts of those who live in upper class areas of Caracas and have always had a visa for going to the States...but the average citizen of Latin America. Can McCain do it better than Obama? I do not know but I doubt it.<br />
<br />
Chavez has to be dealt with by Venezuelans. What US citizens can do is something like disclosing illegal things Chavistas do and stuff like that. The US won't achieve anything by having a president hit his chest with his fists like a gorilla.<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Reply by Mousqueton:</span></div>
<br />
Daniel, this is going to be a long one and will put your editorial policy to the test. Sorry before hand.<br />
<br />
@ Kepler:<br />
<br />
Before I start I have to say that I was missing our intellectual skirmishes and I have the feeling that what I am about to say will bring upon one.<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">1) Chavez is not a Venezuelan problem anymore.-</span></div>
<br />
Chavez domestic brand of lunacy stop being a Venezuelan problem the moment he started to export his pervasive believes and policy to other countries in the region, the moment he started to finance the “Coordinadora Continental Bolivariana” and to use it as an instrument to disrupt democracy and create upheaval in other Latin American countries, the moment he align himself with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Armed_Forces_of_Colombia">FARC</a> and the ideology of using violence, crime, drugs and kidnappings as a valid mean to export and impose his dementia to other countries, the moment he started financing the FARC, the moment he align himself with those who, rightfully or not, we regard as our enemies, the moment when his relationship with our enemies has the potential to escalate into sharing and/or trafficking with lethal technologies that put our well being in danger, etc.<br />
<br />
I am willing to concede that the United States foreign policy track record in the region has been dismal at best. I am even willing to concede that perhaps the best time in our foreign policy with Latin America has been during the Bush administration because we were so caught up in Afghanistan and Iraq that we virtually had no foreign policy in Latin America and we left the region alone.<br />
<br />
You are a very acute and pragmatic observer of the Latin American reality and geopolitical implications of the Chavez government and I am sure you will concede that there is no such thing as the “good guy” in international relations. Everyone, including us, may portray themselves as good guys but at the end of the day it all boils down to selfish national interests.<br />
<br />
I am also sure you will concede that only “naïve” observers and fanatic “ideologists” would expect the United States, being the powerful country it is, not to act accordingly when its interests are in jeopardy or at stake. Further, it is Chavez who has picked up this fight and him alone who has been steering it. No one should be surprised if the United States decides to indulge.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with good will or looking good in the eyes of Latin America.<br />
<br />
Even at the expense of risking an outcry from Latin America we have the duty to take care of this problem. It should be clear that we will not allow another Cuba and/or Cuban brand of ideological adventure in Latin America. I am not saying that this is fair. I am just saying it as it is.<br />
<br />
I believe we should approach the region and drop the problem in their laps with the clear message that if they do not stop the political posturing and take care of the problem we will. Hugo Chavez has to go; there is no in between. It is up to him to decide how he goes but there is no possibility of compromise. He has to go and he has to go now.<br />
<br />
Either Latin America comes off age and exercises the leadership it is expected of them, which means that some times they will have to take dreadful decisions for the good of the region, or, given what would certainly be an obvious lack of commitment to stability, democracy and peaceful coexistence in the continent, we will have to do it ourselves and, if we do, it is not going to be pretty.<br />
<br />
Loud and clear Kep; maybe not fair, but certainly real.<br />
<br />
Do not read me wrong though; I do dream with an international order that is fair, based on humanistic principles, respect and the ever enduring pursuit of consensus, but, I am also aware that we can not avoid the here and now (reality) and that like it or not we have to deal with it. I also believe that we will not wake up to a better world overnight; that we will have to struggle through conflicts, political skirmishes and even confrontations in order to evolve into a better order; that the ideas brought up by liberal thinkers to challenge the current reality will be a key factor to that evolution and that the promotion of free thinking and basic stability in the region are absolutely vital in order for this to happen.<br />
<br />
As for the region; I am also an advocate of a major overhaul in the US foreign policy with regard to Latin America. Further, if I did not know better I would say that the Obama camp based his Latin American speech on what I had written in my blog <a href="http://starstripestains.blogspot.com/2007/03/shame-on-you-mr-andres-oppenheimer-part.html">here</a> and <a href="http://starstripestains.blogspot.com/2007/05/immigration-or-ethnic-cleansing-debate.html">here</a> many months before.<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">2) The probabilities of Venezuelans getting rid of Chavez are very slim.</span></div>
<br />
In a perfect world, your statement to the contrary would be correct. But, we do not live in a perfect world.<br />
<br />
Even you, who have well known democratic credentials, will concede that, given the current conditions, the above statement is pretty much accurate. Off course there is always the outside chance that Chavez will leave through democratic means but that is a very low probability scenario.<br />
<br />
Based on the Chavez track record we can say with absolute certainty that he is not a Democrat. He may use democracy to further his ludicrous ideas and interests but he certainly is not a Democrat.<br />
<br />
Based on his track record as well, and let me remind you that he has been 10 years in power, we can also say with absolute certainty that he will do whatever he needs to do to remain in power. Even if that means coming out of the closet and showing himself as the power thirsty and totalitarian autocrat he is. If at all, he will cling to power because he is well aware that without the presidency he and his cronies as well as the loot they have amassed will be the subject of an unprecedented international hunt. Sooner or later, everyone will be brought to justice and most of the money will get back.<br />
<br />
Chavez may dream of finding refuge in Cuba but he will soon learn that Cuba does not give refuge for free and faced with the possibility of Venezuela shutting down the oil flow, believe me, Cuba will negotiate putting their national interest first.<br />
<br />
As for conditions inside Venezuela deteriorating to the point that people become weary of Chavez and hence he starts loosing support, let me just say that throughout history overwhelming repression has been the course of action (Dictatorship 101) of every totalitarian government faced with that kind of situation.<br />
<br />
So, bottom line we are left with basically four alternatives to end the nefarious Chavez era:<br />
<br />
a) A “coup de etat” by the armed forces. Possible but not likely because indeed most of the high officials are Chavez accomplices and the people will want to bring them to justice as well.<br />
<br />
b) A civil armed insurgence. A very long shot since at this point any insurgent movement would, at best, only aspire to maintain a confrontational status quo with no chance of success. Not to mention the limited availability of resources and the well financed and trained Chavez militias they would have to face. Further, this would certainly be the worst alternative since it would be a very bloody endeavor and would deepen even more the polarization of the country.<br />
<br />
c) A Latin American diplomatic negotiation to pressure him out of power. Possible and certainly a most welcomed alternative that would set an example to other regions in the world. It will take determination, tremendous lobbying, hard core negotiations on the side of the US and on top, the US will have to pay a significant price for it to happen. All and all though, it would be the least traumatic and most cost effective alternative.<br />
<br />
d) A unilateral determination by the United States that Chavez and the Venezuelan government are sponsors of terrorism, drug traffickers, money launderers and financiers of international terrorist and violent activities.<br />
<br />
A total commitment by the US to the relentless pursuit of Hugo Chavez, every Venezuelan government official as well as every person with known ties to the Venezuelan government in order to bring them to justice in the US. An equally relentless pursuit of all assets and money under the name of those involved. This includes the interception and capture of any presumed felon in international air space and waters as well as the execution of targeted commando operations inside Venezuela to take custody of anyone under arrest warrant, including Hugo Chavez. This is a slow coming but most likely scenario.<br />
<br />
Kep; I understand your reluctance to any US intervention in Venezuela and I have to say that I certainly did not expect anything less from you. Further, I believe that it is the duty of every Latin American to avoid and certainly oppose this kind of precedent.<br />
<br />
Having said this, I also believe that the US has the right to protect its own interests by any mean it deems necessary and that Hugo Chavez has become a clear and present danger to those interests.<br />
<br />
While trying to build consensus with other Latin American countries to solve this problem seems as the first and best course of action I believe the US has the right to move unilaterally should these efforts fail and/or take too long. People like Insulza, Secretary General of the OAS, and other leaders in the region need to get the clear message that we have reached crunching time and that there is no more leeway for posturing and to play politics.<br />
<br />
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">3) Why McCain could show more resolve in dealing with Chavez?</span></div>
<br />
It really has very little to do with principle and/or ideology but interest.<br />
<br />
a) McCain is running on a platform that promises to solve the energy problem. Should he be elected he will need to show some short term leadership. He knows that the energy problem requires long term solutions and therefore there is not much he can do in the short term.<br />
<br />
He can show that he is pro-active in solving the problem though if he takes some short term actions.<br />
<ul>
<li><span class="fullpost"> Off shore drilling.- I do not mean drilling off the shores of Palm Beach and Ft. Lauderdale but in the Florida straits where Cuba prospections show promising potential. Both countries would be pumping the same oil reserves except they would do it on their own side of the fence. The US does have the upper hand though since it has the ability to dedicate massive resources and technology to drilling in the area and beat Cuba at it.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span class="fullpost">Increase production in Mexico and Venezuela.- This is a relatively short term solution and it provides the added benefit that you could pass on the transportation cost savings to the consumers. It will take though some fine negotiations with Mexico and perhaps even some immigration concessions but it is attainable. As for Venezuela, the strategy is obvious; get the US oil companies back in. Last but not least, shifting the US oil dependency from the Middle East to the Americas would shield the US from the unpredictable consequences of a conflict with Iran and its repercussions on the free flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.</span></li>
</ul>
<span class="fullpost">b) McCain is far more versed on Latin America than Obama. He has visited Latin America many times; he understands the strategic implications of the region and last but not least he feels comfortable dealing with Latin America, especially with Brazil, whom he regards as a potential ally and a country with whom the US could share the responsibility of bringing Democracy and prosperity to Latin America.<br /><br />Given that Obama has absolutely no track record on Latin America, his speech can be construed either as brilliant or as a speech to lure the Hispanic vote in the US.<br /><br />While I share most if not all the political concepts and ideas of Obama, perhaps I am too old or maybe it is just that I have been exposed for too long to the Latin American political rhetoric but the fact is that I am weary of any politician, black, white, brown or yellow, that promises too much. At this point in my life I value far more the politician that promises to change one or two things than the one who promises to change everything.<br /><br />I may be wrong and that is why I have not decided who I will vote for coming next November. I can say for sure that I will vote for the Democratic candidates to the House of Representatives and Congress but I still do not know who I will vote for President.<br /><br />Off course I am a sophisticated voter concerned about issues that most voters in the US do not care much about; Foreign Policy in Latin America, facing the Chavez threat, legalizing immigrants, bringing prosperity to the Americas, etc.<br /><br />As for Palin, I see in her a good politician with conservative roots. As a Governor she must have already learned that to govern you need to reach consensus or you end up like Bush. I am a little uneasy with her religious advocacy but I understand that this is what McCain needs to win.<br /><br />As for her position on abortion it really does no bother me. I am pro-life anyway even though for strictly secular reasons that have nothing to do with religion.<br /><br />Last but not least; the girl is hot and she can certainly bat a ball out of the park.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">And that is all I have to say about that!</span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-21730753669243941612007-11-27T20:31:00.000-05:002011-12-31T02:49:24.225-05:00VENEZUELA: TO VOTE OR NOT TO VOTE? THAT IS THE QUESTION!<div style="color: #666666; text-align: justify;">
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">In the comment thread of the popular <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/">Venezuela News & Views</a> blog I engaged in a discussion with a fellow blogger (<a href="http://feathersblog.blogspot.com/">Citizen Feathers</a>) about the current political situation in Venezuela. After posting comments back and forth we were able to iron out our discrepancies and agree on everything except for one issue. I promised Feathers that I would address this issue in a separate comment but due to unforeseen circumstances I was not able to keep my word.</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Even though late, I am herewith posting my comments on that issue not only because I gave Feathers my word but because I believe the issue is today more relevant than ever. </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I believe that to answer the vote/not vote question we need to take into account two different considerations. One is the constitutional and legal implications of the decision and the other is the personal implications of that decision.</div>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br /></div>
<div>
<br />
Let me start with the constitutional and legal implications.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">Bolivarian Constitution</a> grants every citizen the right to vote. This right is also a prerogative because voting is not mandatory and, except for “referendums” (<a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">articles 72, 73 and 74</a>) where a minimum number of voters is required, a majority vote is enough to approve the election of any government official. This means that, under the constitution, the lack of voter participation in a general election does not make an election less valid and/or illegal in any way.<br />
<br />
The right to vote can be exercised by Venezuelans in basically two situations.</div>
<ol>
<li>To elect government officials in general elections</li>
<li>In “Referendums”</li>
<ul>
<li>To revoke the mandate of an elected government official <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">(Article 72)</a> (Requires participation of a minimum of 25% of voters)</li>
<li>To approve or repeal laws, measures and /or amendments and reforms to the Constitution <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">(Article 73)</a> (Requires participation of a minimum of 25% of voters)</li>
<li>To revoke laws passed by the National Assembly and/or the President (Article 74) (Requires the participation of a minimum of 40% of voters)</li>
</ul>
</ol>
<a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">Articles 341 (4) and 344</a> mandate that constitutional amendments and reforms are subject to referendum and therefore the rules of article 73 apply in both cases meaning that the participation of 25% of the voters is required to approve the referendum.<br />
<br />
General elections are partisan political processes were citizens are requested by politicians and/or political parties to endorse their candidacy as well as their political programs and/or ideology.<br />
<br />
Referendums though are not intended to be partisan but instead are electoral processes were citizens are asked to vote based on their conscience and/or believe. Indeed, the votes on a referendum are basically votes on principles. They might have political, social and even economic implications but they are not partisan by nature.<br />
<br />
I am not going to stress how important it is to vote for representatives in general elections even if they end up accounting for only a minority representation because that is milk that has already been spilled.<br />
<br />
I will concentrate on analyzing the current “referendum” electoral process and separate what is legal, constitutional or not within this process.<br />
<br />
In the current process the President, as per <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">article 342</a> of the constitution, submitted an “initiative” of constitutional reform to the National Assembly for its discussion and approval.<br />
<br />
The National Assembly, according to <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">article 343</a> of the constitution, had two years to discuss and approve or not the Presidential constitutional reform “initiative”. In order to do so, the National Assembly had to comply with discussing the proposed articles in three separate sessions.<br />
<br />
To understand why article 343 of the Bolivarian Constitution calls for three separate discussions of the constitutional reform “initiative” in three separate sessions of the National Assembly we need to understand first, what is the role of the National Assembly in the constitutional reform process?<br />
<br />
The National Assembly has no power to change or add anything to a constitutional reform “initiative”. Once the “initiative” has been filed by either the President, 15% of the voters and even by the National Assembly itself every constitutional reform “initiative” has to follow the same process and it can not be altered in any way or form by the National Assembly.<br />
<br />
The Bolivarian Constitution grants the right to the President, the people and the National Assembly to file constitutional reform “initiatives”. These “initiatives” are documents that have to be voted “as is” on a referendum with no changes whatsoever. Otherwise, the National Assembly would be the only one with the power to make a constitutional reform and that is not what the Bolivarian Constitution mandates.<br />
<br />
So, why then the National Assembly has to discuss the constitutional reform “initiative” in three sessions?<br />
<br />
Well, the first discussion is intended as a general and procedural discussion to establish if the constitutional reform “initiative” falls within the limited scope of what constitutes a reform under the constitution and if such has complied with the requirements set forth in the constitution. For example, the President by himself can not file a constitutional reform “initiative” unless it has been approved by the “council of ministers”. By the same token, any citizen and/or party can not file a constitutional reform “initiative” unless it is supported by at least 15% of the registered voters.<br />
<br />
In the first discussion, the National Assembly would verify all the procedural aspects of the reform and to do so it might need to ask the executive branch to submit a copy of the minutes of the council of ministers where the “initiative” was approved or ask the CNE to verify the signatures of the voters filing the “initiative” and certify that they account for a minimum of 15% of all registered voters. The National Assembly would also need to certify that the “initiative” is not being submitted to “referendum” twice during the same constitutional period. After the procedural aspects have been verified and cleared by the National Assembly the constitutional reform “initiative” would be ready for a second discussion.<br />
<br />
According to article 343 of the constitution the second discussion should be by Titles and Chapters as it may be the case. There is a reason for this as well. The Bolivarian Constitution is organized in Titles, Chapters, Sections, Articles, Items and Transitory Provisions.<br />
<br />
Each Title sets the general scope of the matter that is to be legislated under that title and each of the Chapters and Sections provide more specific definitions within the scope set forth by title and thereon by each division and subdivision.<br />
<br />
For example, Title V of the constitution legislates what is the scope, powers and responsibilities of the National Public Power. Title V has five Chapters, one for each branch of the National Public Power (Legislative, Executive, Judicial, Citizen and Electoral). Each Chapter in turn has a number of Sections that deal with specific matters concerning each branch of power.<br />
<br />
The powers or attributions of the President are set forth in <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">Title V, Chapter II Section II articles 236 and 237</a> of the constitution. All and any powers of the President are included <span style="font-weight: bold;">exclusively</span> in this section and can not be included anywhere else in the constitution. This provides a conceptual unity to every Title, Chapter and Section in the constitution and avoids the powers of the President to be scattered in multiple articles through out the constitutional text. Every single matter in the constitution is legislated in the same way and this is what constitutes the “structure of the constitution”.<br />
<br />
The intent of the second discussion is therefore to make sure that the constitutional reform “initiative” does not modify, corrupt and/or change in any way the structure of the constitution.<br />
<br />
Many and perhaps even most articles of the constitutional reform “initiative” submitted by the President to the National Assembly modify the structure of the constitution. For example, in the modified text of article 11 the President is granted the power to create “Special Military Regions anywhere in the territory and to appoint Special Authorities” by decree.<br />
<br />
The problem is that <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">article 11 is part of Title II</a>, of the constitution that deals with the Geographical Space and Political Division and more specifically part of Chapter I of that title that deals exclusively with the Geographical Space. Granting new powers to the President in this article is an open violation and modification of the structure of the constitution since such powers can only be included in Title V, Chapter II, Section II of the constitution that deals with the attributions or powers of the President.<br />
<br />
The National Assembly should have identified this and other violations and/or modifications to the structure of the constitution in the second discussion of the President’s constitutional reform “initiative”.<br />
<br />
The Constitution mandates that the third discussion of the constitutional reform should be article by article. This discussion is intended to weed out any violations to the “Fundamental Principles” of the constitution.<br />
<br />
For example, the modified text of <a href="http://constitutional-reform-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/09/article-230-brunilde-sans.html">article 230</a> provides for the unlimited re-election of the President. This modification is in open violation of <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">Title I – Fundamental Principles - article 6</a> of the constitution and therefore such modification is in fact unconstitutional. There are many more articles in the President’s constitutional reform “initiative” that are unconstitutional and they should have been identified by the National Assembly during the mandated third discussion of the initiative.<br />
<br />
After the three discussions the National Assembly has to either approve or reject the constitutional reform “initiative”. The National Assembly though has only the power to reject the reform under procedural grounds because under the constitution it has no power to decide over constitutional issues.<br />
<br />
In order for the National Assembly to reject a constitutional reform “initiative” on constitutional grounds it would first have to submit its findings as well as the “initiative” to the Supreme Court on consultation and ask the court to issue an interpretation ruling - <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">article 266 (6)</a>. If the ruling of the Supreme Court supports their findings then the National Assembly can reject the “initiative” on constitutional grounds.<br />
<br />
The Supreme Court on the other hand can not nullify the constitutional reform “initiative” even if it finds that indeed it is unconstitutional because under the constitution the power to nullify can only be exercised “after the fact”. The Supreme Court can issue though an interpretation ruling that bounds every court of the judicial system should the decision of the National Assembly to reject the constitutional reform “initiative” be challenged in a court of law.<br />
<br />
A reform of the constitution is a very delicate matter and that is why the constitutional reform process is a long and mostly legal endeavor. It was not intended to be taken lightly and in a rush. The framers of the constitution foresaw these conditions and therefore decided to give the National Assembly up to two years to approve or reject a constitutional reform “initiative”.<br />
<br />
Some people, including my fellow blogger <a href="http://feathersblog.blogspot.com/">Citizen Feathers</a>, argue that they do not believe they should vote because if the constitutional reform “initiative” is unconstitutional then the approval of the reform by the National Assembly would also be unconstitutional and their vote would only validate such unconstitutionality. This argument is not accurate though.<br />
<br />
Given the fact that the National Assembly does not have the power to decide on constitutional matters and/or change or alter in anyway a constitutional reform “initiative” and, lacking an interpretation ruling from the Supreme Court for whatever reason, including a majority decision not to ask for a Supreme Court ruling, the National Assembly has no other alternative but to approve any constitutional reform “initiative” that has complied with the procedural process mandated by the constitution. This would be a valid, constitutional and legal decision even if the findings during the discussion process support the argument that the “initiative” is unconstitutional. In essence, the National Assembly has the power to approve a constitutional reform “initiative” that is clearly unconstitutional and subject it to a referendum.<br />
<br />
The CNE on the other hand has no other choice but to comply with the decision of the National Assembly and organize a referendum. As for the Supreme Court, there is nothing the court can do until the “initiative” is approved by the voters and it is sanctioned by the President. Only when the unconstitutional reform is sanctioned by the President the reform becomes illegal and the Supreme Court has the power to move and nullify the reform.<br />
<br />
This is what the Bolivarian Constitution mandates and though in the current circumstances it would seem unfair the fact is that these provisions were included by the framers of the constitution to protect the rights of the people and the democratic system of government.<br />
<br />
In constitutional matters it is important to understand - What is unconstitutional? - What is illegal? - and, when an unconstitutional provision becomes illegal?<br />
<br />
Having said this, it should be noted that in the current constitutional reform process the National Assembly has not followed the above mention procedures as mandated by the constitution and, by not doing so, has rendered the whole process both unconstitutional and illegal.<br />
<br />
In the current process the National Assembly has not complied with discussing the President’s constitutional reform “initiative” in three separate sessions as mandated in <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">article 343</a> of the constitution. The approval of the “initiative” is therefore unconstitutional and illegal.<br />
<br />
Further, the National Assembly has illegally and unconstitutionally modified the Presidential constitutional reform “initiative” by introducing additional articles to such initiative without having the power to do so. The constitutional reform therefore is not anymore a Presidential “initiative” and it is not a National Assembly “initiative” either since it has not been properly filed and/or discussed as such. By doing so the National Assembly has arrogated on themselves powers that are only granted by the constitution to the members of a National Constituent Assembly.<br />
<br />
Last but not least, the National assembly has made a mockery of the constitutional reform process by sponsoring a national debate that was a useless and futile travesty because under the constitution no change could be made to the President’s constitutional reform “initiative” once it was filed with the National Assembly. As a matter of fact, it is the President who should have encouraged that debate before sending his constitutional reform “initiative” to the National Assembly when changes could have been introduced.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the first constitutional and legal conclusions that we can reach about the current constitutional reform process are the following:<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>The President has complied with the constitution by submitting to the National Assembly a constitutional reform “initiative” approved in the council of ministers.</li>
<li>The National Assembly undertook a legal but futile and useless national debate of that “initiative” making a mockery of the constitutional reform process.</li>
<li>The National Assembly has illegally approved the President’s constitutional reform “initiative” without complying with the discussion of such in three separate sessions. This lack of due process makes the approval of the Presidential “initiative” not only unconstitutional but illegal as well.</li>
<li>The National Assembly has illegally modified the original Presidential constitutional reform “initiative” by adding to it new provisions. By arrogating upon themselves powers that the constitution does not grant to the National Assembly representatives, they have rendered the approved constitutional reform both illegal and unconstitutional.</li>
<li>Many of the modifications to the constitution included in the Presidential constitutional reform “initiative” are unconstitutional and hence the “initiative” should have been rejected by the National Assembly after requesting and obtaining an interpretation ruling from the Supreme Court.</li>
<li>The Supreme Court and for that matter every other judge in the country have abrogated on their duty to comply with the constitution by not challenging the illegal and unconstitutional approval of the so called constitutional reform by the National Assembly.</li>
<li>Even though under the constitution (<a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">articles 26 and 27</a>) every citizen has the right to file a “recurso de amparo constitucional” (Habeas Corpus) in any Venezuelan court against the unconstitutional and illegal approval of the constitutional reform “initiative” by the National Assembly, not a single citizen and/or political party, to my knowledge, has filed a complaint.</li>
</ol>
I hate to say it but while Feathers was wrong in believing that the National Assembly could not legally approve a constitutional reform “initiative” that is clearly unconstitutional, she is certainly right when she says that this specific constitutional reform “initiative” approved by the National Assembly is illegal and unconstitutional. Therefore, her argument about validating the illegal reform with her vote does have merit and indeed makes sense. Not that I agree with her point of view but, in all fairness, it is a valid argument.<br />
<br />
The ineptitude and ignorance with which the constitutional reform has been handled by the National Assembly is nothing short of mind boggling. All they had to do was discuss the initiative in three sessions, avoid consulting the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the initiative, something they had the power to do, and approve the initiative with no modifications. That was it!<br />
<br />
The reform “initiative” would still have been unconstitutional but the discussion and approval process as well as the referendum would have been legal and constitutional. From there on, it would have been up to the Supreme Court to challenge the reform on constitutional grounds once it had been sanctioned by the President but, given the composition of the court, the government certainly had the upper hand in avoiding that challenge.<br />
<br />
Instead of this simple and clean violation of the constitution the National Assembly decided to mess up the process and now the government is tangled up with an illegal and unconstitutional reform “initiative”, an illegal and unconstitutional approval of the reform “initiative” by the National Assembly and, hence, an illegal and unconstitutional referendum.<br />
<br />
By doing so, under <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">article 139</a> of the Bolivarian Constitution, every single member of the National Assembly that participated in the illegal approval of the constitutional reform is personally liable under the law for abuse of power, deviation of power and violation of the constitution. In this case, not even <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1999.html">article 199</a> will shield them from that responsibility.<br />
<br />
By any account what has happened with this constitutional reform is absolutely amazing. So much so, that if I was the government I would be desperately supporting the NO vote to get me out of this gigantic constitutional and legal nightmare.<br />
<br />
One thing is sure though, if the referendum takes place and the reform is approved, the government of Venezuela will not be able to call itself democratic anymore and will certainly loose whatever credibility it has left within the international community.<br />
<br />
So, we are left only with the personal implications of the decision to vote or not to vote in the referendum.<br />
<br />
As I mentioned before, the votes on referendums are votes of conscience and belief; they are not partisan. In this case though, the constitutional reform is set out to endanger individual freedoms and democracy in Venezuela and therefore voting in the referendum has also become a matter of principle.<br />
<br />
In matters of principle the righteous have no other alternative but to take a stance. Not because they can change a given abusive condition or because they may be able to score a victory but because that is the essence of righteousness.<br />
<br />
The righteous can not walk away or avoid raising their voice if a child is abused; if a person is tortured; if someone is denied of his rights because of race and/or gender; if a woman is abused; if someone is denied the right to worship his God and certainly, if someone’s right to freedom is taken away by force.<br />
<br />
In all and every single case when matters of principle are at stake the righteous have the duty to take a stance because not doing so validates the abuse and/or the perception that abusing others is warranted or not worth denouncing depending on the circumstances.<br />
<br />
The burden of the righteous is very heavy but their power is also immense. That power has been evident through out history when in some cases the righteous stance of one single individual has triggered events that have changed the course of history itself. That same inspiring power is what we identify in the righteous stance of the students in Venezuela.<br />
<br />
In this ageless and on going confrontation between freedom and oppression tyrants and dictators have the upper hand because they do not have to follow rules. The righteous though have the inspiring power of their principles and that is what despots fear the most.<br />
<br />
Those of us who, as me, happen to be religious have twice that burden since we are compelled as well to take a stance when matters of faith are at stake.<br />
<br />
I sincerely believe that, on December 2, all Venezuelans who believe in freedom and democracy have no choice but to take a stance and vote regardless of what the outcome of the election is and even though there are strong indications that the election will be fraudulent. As I said before, in matters of principle you can not stand on the sidelines and avoid taking a stance if at all, to let the tyrant know that the will and determination of those who believe in freedom is not and will never be broken.<br />
<br />
I wish all Venezuelans the best in these times of trial and hope that better times lie ahead for themselves, their families and their country.<br />
<br />
I also want to thank my fellow blogger Feathers for being so stubborn, passionate and uncompromising when it comes to defending her points of view and beliefs. By doing so she encouraged me to write this post and made me realize that I also needed to be reminded of the above concepts.<br />
<br />
I leave you with a quote that is credited to Edmund Burke; a quote I think is indeed self explanatory:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-68242911256037683772007-10-25T01:50:00.000-04:002011-12-31T02:53:34.566-05:00VENEZUELA: VOTES WILL NOT MAKE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM LEGAL<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Democracy is not a one size fits all kind of concept. There are many kinds of democracy. There are Monarchical Democracies, Parliamentary Democracies and even Imperial Democracies such as the Japanese. Since 1999 we also have a Bolivarian Democracy. All of these democracies though share one same characteristic; they are all Republican Constitutional Democracies.</span></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">In a lighter note you could say that they are different kinds of “Arepas” (Reina Pepiada, Carne Mechada, Queso de Mano, etc.) but they are all “Arepas”.</span></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
There are also Popular Democracies (Cuba) and I would even venture and say that we now have what could be considered Religious Democracies such as Iran. They also hold elections but they are completely different systems of government.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
These democracies are not “Arepas”; they are “Tortillas”; and, while both are made of corn flour, millions of Mexicans and Venezuelans can attest to the fact that they are absolutely different.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br /></div>
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">A Republican Constitutional Democracy is a system in which the people elect representatives to legislate for them but who are bound by restrictions and limitations as expressed in a written constitution which is enforceable in a court of law.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">This is not the case of popular democracies where voters legislate by majority vote. They vote for what these democracies like to call “initiatives”; an innocuous name given to a poison which has destroyed countless societies in the past and why Venezuelans decided to have a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">It is fair to say that the first question that arises from this explanation is; why should we have representatives legislating and not the people themselves?</span><br />
<span style="color: #666666;">To help answer this question I would like to quote a text from the archives of the United States Constitutional debate (Federalist Paper No. 63) that gives an emphatic answer to this question.</span><br />
<br />
<b><span style="color: #666600; font-style: italic;">"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind..."</span></b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">People tend to believe that democracy is only elections and that voting things out makes them right. This is not correct.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">In layman terms, holding elections, which is the most identifying characteristic of democracy, does not guarantee a free, fair and just society. In fact elections alone can perpetuate an abusive, tyrannical, dictatorial and totalitarian system of government without justice and respect for individual rights.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">In Venezuela, for example, the majority of the voters could decide that the “Indigenas” (natives) have no rights; that they can not have their own culture, language and land. This preposterous decision, even if approved in an election by the majority of the people, would still be abusive, wrong and unacceptable.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Therefore to protect freedom from freedom itself, Republican Constitutional Democracies are bound by Constitutions that set the basic principles and rights of the people and that therefore can not be voted against. They also include provisions so that no one, either by force and/or election, can pose a threat to and/or abolish those principles and rights.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">These principles and rights are what is known as the “Spirit of the Constitution” and though they may be expanded and enhanced through constitutional modifications they can not be abolished and/or curtailed.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">When Venezuelans voted for the </span><a href="http://misionvenezuela.org/espanol/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf" style="color: #666666;">Bolivarian Constitution of 1999</a><span style="color: #666666;"> they went a step further in protecting their Republican Constitutional Democracy. They voted to include article 340 and 342 to protect the Constitution from any assault and to make any such attempts, be them forceful or elective, absolutely illegal.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">They introduced what is known as a “poison pill”. This is, a provision that makes it unconstitutional to introduce modifications to the Constitution, through amendments and/or reforms, that alter in any way the fundamental principles and structure of the text of the Constitution.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Most of the modifications being proposed today are a clear attempt to transform the Venezuelan republican and constitutional democracy into a popular democracy which happens to be the democratic system of choice of all dictatorships and totalitarian governments. We say, the system of choice, because, as paradoxical as it may be, the system uses freedom, the right to vote, to kill freedom, the right to be a free individual. In essence, it is democracy committing suicide.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Further, the modifications try to introduce a competing and separate government structure that is centralized and subject to the executive power in order to compete with and eventually destroy the federal system of government mandated by the constitution.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">The problem is that there is no path to do this within the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999. It doesn’t matter how many elections you hold and/or how many people vote in favor of a modification, if the proposal violates, abolishes and/or changes any fundamental principle or the structure of the Constitution of 1999, it is unconstitutional, illegal and null.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">It could be argued that the framers of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 intended for articles 340 and 342 to forbid any modification, either through amendments or reform, that would challenge only the “Fundamental Principles” that are outlined (articles 1 though 9) under such title in the text of the constitution.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">This would be an outrageous argument though since not a single article under the title “Fundamental Principles” (articles 1 though 9) mentions the rights of the people. Without the people the Constitution is just an empty and useless document. The people’s rights are broadly explained in Title III of the Constitution and therefore it is obvious that the “Fundamental Principles” mentioned in articles 340 and 342 are those that are set throughout the constitutional text and not only the ones outlined in the first nine articles.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">But even if we concede for a moment that the above negated argument is valid, still the modifications being introduced to the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 are unconstitutional.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">That is why </span><a href="http://cuentosintrascendentes.blogspot.com/" style="color: #666666;">Brunilde Sanso’s</a><span style="color: #666666;"> comments to </span><a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/09/chavez-new-constitution-article-230.html" style="color: #666666;">Article 230</a><span style="color: #666666;"> in “</span><a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/" style="color: #666666;">Venezuela News and Views</a><span style="color: #666666;">” are so important. In her comment she explains how the modifications being introduced to article 230 violate directly article 4 of the “Fundamental Principles” of the constitution.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">This is also why, the comments to the modifications of </span><a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/10/chavez-new-constitution-article-16.html" style="color: #666666;">article 16</a><span style="color: #666666;"> are so important. Here as well, the proposed text violates directly article 4 and article 6 of the “Fundamental Principles” outlined in the constitution.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">The clear intention of the government to change the political structure of Venezuela through a constitutional reform and substitute it with a centralized system of government is not possible and any attempt to do so becomes “de juris” and “de facto” unconstitutional, illegal and null regardless of how many elections are held and how many people vote for it.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">You can not be both in the procession and church at the same time. The government’s attempt to justify this constitutional suicide is like trying to explain the “squareness” of a circle.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">If the government wants a different kind of political system and government for Venezuela the only way they can do that is by electing a National Constituent Assembly and have them write a new Constitution.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Should the modifications be voted and approved the way they are, the rule of law will have been broken in Venezuela (article 7) and all acting authorities would be personally liable for it (article 25). Also, the government would be legally liable under international law and hence open to lawsuits by citizens and foreigners who deem their legal rights as violated by the spurious government.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Further, the original text of Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 would continue to be in full force regardless of what the government does or wants (article 333).</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-69559481263218845912007-10-22T00:05:00.000-04:002011-12-31T02:56:50.738-05:00VENEZUELA: COUP D' ÉTAT TO THE FEDERAL SYSTEM<div style="color: #666666; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">In the last couple months I have been collaborating with the blog <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/">"Venezuela News & Views"</a>. The editor of this blog, Daniel Duquenal, had the idea to invite his readers to write comments on the modifications to each and every article of the ill conceived constitutional reform being proposed by the government.<br /><br />Venezuela is at the brink of becoming a totalitarian country under the Presidency of a tyrant who wants to stay in power for life. I can not think of any other issue in Latin America that is more important than this one and therefore I offered Daniel to write comments to the modifications being proposed to Articles 11, 16 and 18.<br /><br />The following are the comments I wrote and the dramatic conclusions I have reached.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: 100%;">Article 18</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Preamble:</span> While reading the text of the proposed amendment to article 18 I remembered a conversation once held with the elected President of a Latin American country who is now deceased. We talked about the sad role of some armed forces in Latin America and how they have become the nemesis of democracy and individual freedoms and in many cases the “jail keepers” of their people. He said that while the armed forces have a congenital tendency to misread the social and political expectations of the people and therefore, most of the time, end up in the wrong side of history, the good thing is that they are slow.<br />
<br />
He liked to say that most people believe that bullets kill people when in fact they don’t. If I put a bunch of bullets in your hand they will not kill you. It is the combination of factors and “speed” what makes a bullet lethal.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
This president was a retired General and what he basically wanted me to understand is that, at one time or another, every political force has knocked on the doors of the armed forces to buy their support. Throughout history some of those forces have succeeded, though temporarily, in getting that support but it could have been far worst if the armed forces were fast at deliberating instead of slow and had supported every political adventurer who came looking for them.<br />
<br />
You can argue with the Generals’ reasoning and certainly with his sense of style. I, for one, never cease to be amazed by the crude use the military make of that elegant language artifice called “metaphors”.<br />
<br />
He is definitely right in one sense though; in politics, “speed” is certainly a critical element and when combined with the wrong leaders and policies it can become, if not lethal, certainly extremely dangerous.<br />
<br />
While the modifications to article 11 provides a way for the government to have absolute power over the people and the territory of Venezuela in case things go wrong, article 16 lays out a parallel and overlapping centralized and un-elective political structure to drive the Venezuelan Federal Government into political oblivion and replace it with a centralized national power. Accomplishing this, with or without constitution, will take time though and therefore the modifications to article 18 introduces that missing critical element, “speed”, which will most certainly make the policies in these three articles “lethal” for the Venezuelan federal democracy.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Original text:</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> The city of Caracas is the capital of the Republic and the seat of the organs of National Power. The provisions of this article shall not prevent the exercise of National Power elsewhere in the Republic. A special law shall establish the territorial and political unit of the city of Caracas,</span> incorporating into a two-tier system of municipal government the Municipalities of the Capital District and those of the State of Miranda. Such law shall provide for the organization, government, administration, competency as well as resources of the city, with a view to its harmonious overall development. In any case the law shall guarantee the democratic and participative character of its government.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Modified text:</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> The city of Caracas is the capital of the Republic and the seat of the organs of National Power. The provisions of this article shall not prevent the said National Power from being exercise elsewhere in the Republic.</span><br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">The Venezuelan State will develop an integral policy to articulate a national system of cities, structuring logically and reasonably the relationship between the city and its associated territories and unifying and supporting the local and regional scales in the systematic vision of the country. For that purpose, the State will confront every speculative action in regard to the economic return of the land, the economic unbalances, the asymmetries in the provision of services and infrastructure as well as the conditions of accessibility, physical and economic, of each and every one of the components of the national system of cities. Every citizen, without discrimination of gender, age, ethnicity, political and religious orientation or social condition, will enjoy and will be holders of the Right to the City, and that right should be understood as the equal benefit received by each one of the citizens as per the strategic role articulated by the city both at the regional urban context and the National System of Cities. A special law shall establish the territorial and political unit of the city of Caracas, which shall be called the “Crib of Bolivar” and “Queen of the Guaraira Repano.”</span><br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">The National Power, through the Executive Power and with the collaboration and participation of all the entities of the National, State and Municipal Public Power as well as the Popular Power, its Communities, Communes and Communal Councils and other social organizations, will take all necessary actions for the urban reorganization, road restructuring, recuperation of the environment, attainment of optimal personal and public security levels, integral reinforcement of the neighborhoods, urbanizations, health, education, sport, entertainment and cultural systems, total recuperation of their center and historical sites, construction of small and medium size Satellite Cities along their territorial axis of expansion and, in general, to accomplish the most humanizing sum possible in the “Crib of Bolivar” and “Queen of the Guaraira Repano.</span><br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">These dispositions will be applicable to the whole National System of Cities and their regional components.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Modifications and Comments:</span> I am herein quoting both the text of the original article 18 and the text of the modifications being proposed by the government. The highlighted part of the text is all that has survived from the original article 18. The rest has either been deleted from the original text or added in the new text of article 18.<br />
<br />
From the reading of the original article 18 it is clear that the intention of the framers of the Bolivarian Constitution was to give Caracas a special status since it is home to the Federal (national) government. It is also clear that the framers of the Bolivarian Constitution were adamant in their intention of making sure that this special status would not jeopardize the right of the citizens to a democratic representation and/or the autonomy of the State of Miranda. So much so, that the city of Caracas was defined as a “Capital District” in article 16 of the Bolivarian Constitution as opposed to “Federal District” which was the status it had under the Constitution of 1961 (article 9).<br />
<br />
The modified text of article 18 though moves away from what was originally intended by the framers of the Bolivarian Constitution and introduces new concepts that substantially modify the structure of the constitutional text. Modifications, that are in line and expand further those shady and unconstitutional amendments introduced to article 16.<br />
<br />
Let’s start with what has been deleted from the original text of article 18. The paragraph that has been deleted basically indicated that Caracas was to have a two tier municipal structure of government that would protect both the city and the State municipal representation. It also indicated that a special law <span style="font-style: italic;">…”shall provide for the organization, government, administration, competency as well as resources of the city”…</span> Finally, it stated that the <span style="font-style: italic;">…”law shall guarantee the democratic and participative character of its government.” </span><br />
<br />
The first question that comes to mind when you look at the deleted text is, why has this paragraph been deleted?<br />
<br />
It is clear that Caracas needs a special law to outline its organization and government since there is no reference as to the political structure of the “Capital District” anywhere else in the constitution. As for the democratic and participative character of the “Capital District” government, it is clear that this sentence is basically guaranteeing that such authorities would necessarily have to be elected.<br />
<br />
So; the question stands; why has this text been deleted?<br />
<br />
The only answer I can think of is the following. The modified text of article 16 introduces a new political division called “Federal City”. Federal cities are created by Presidential decree and their authorities are designated by the “National Power” (sic). Therefore, Caracas would not need a special law if it is going to be appointed a Federal City subject to the executive power. Its government does not need to be <span style="font-style: italic;">…””democratic and participative”…</span> either, because, according to the modifications of article 16, all the authorities of Federal Cities and Federal Municipalities will be appointed by the National Power.<br />
<br />
The modification to article 18 goes further and creates what it calls a “National System of Cities” that unifies and supports the <span style="font-style: italic;">…”local and regional scales in the systematic vision of the country.”…</span><br />
<br />
The “systematic vision” of the country has been outlined in article 16 which creates a parallel and centralized political structure to compete and eventually destroy the federal structure mandated by the constitution.<br />
<br />
In essence, every major city in Venezuela could be appointed a “Federal City” by decree. Further, all municipalities in the city, as well as in their <span style="font-style: italic;">...” associated territories”….</span> can be appointed “Federal Municipalities” and hence, all their authorities would be appointed by the National Power.<br />
<br />
To have an idea as to how in a very short period of time (speed) the whole landscape of the Venezuelan federal division of government could be destroyed and the right of the people to elect their local authorities eliminated, we are herewith including a table of the potential cities that could become “Federal Cities” within the “National System of Cities”. We are including in this table all the capital cities of each State as well as a group of large cities with populations over 100,000 inhabitants.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://bp1.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry1UL7VbvEI/AAAAAAAAAD8/oJ_ttMC84eg/s1600-h/Cities+GIF.png"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128848114527747138" src="http://bp1.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry1UL7VbvEI/AAAAAAAAAD8/oJ_ttMC84eg/s320/Cities+GIF.png" style="cursor: hand; cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><br />
Bringing 45 cities into the so called “National System of Cities” would allow the National government to exercise direct political power without elections and/or elected officials over 47% of the Venezuelan population. As a matter of fact, starting with only 7 cities would give the national government that same power over 25% of the population. Of course it will also allow the national government to control any public gathering and/or legal demonstration against their policies since the federal municipalities would be the ones in charge of granting those permits.<br />
<br />
The two last paragraphs of the modified article 18 basically give the National Power a blank check to take over, through the Federal Cities and Federal Municipalities, almost all the functions of the Municipalities and even some from the States. Of course, it also states that the National Power will exercise all these functions through the Executive Power and that this is applicable to all the cities that are included in the so called “National System of Cities”.<br />
<br />
Overall, most of the modifications to the text of article 18 basically expand further what has already been mentioned in article 16.<br />
<br />
There is though some intriguing text that has been included in this article. This text basically creates a new right called the “Right to the City”; a right that, by itself, seems to be a first in a constitutional text. What makes this concept so intriguing is the fact that this right is being defined as an “equitable benefit” that every habitant has the right to enjoy and further, hold title to.<br />
<br />
Granted that the text is as confusing as they come, there are some concepts though that could give some light as to what this text means.<br />
<br />
One concept that I believe particularly relevant is what should be understood by the term “city”.<br />
<br />
In essence a city is basically a gathering of private homes, private businesses, public roads, public parks, public government buildings, private empty lots, public empty lots, private social, cultural and sport facilities, public facilities such as public transportation, bus/train/sub terminals and airports, public cultural and sport facilities and the power, communication, water and sewer infrastructure. There is really nothing else in a city.<br />
<br />
Now, most of these elements are already public and everyone has the right to enjoy them. So, why is there a need to create a special new “Right to the City” when the people already have that right? It makes no sense, unless, the intention is to make public what is not public today. That is, private homes, private businesses, private empty lots and private social, cultural and sport facilities.<br />
<br />
Could it be that this is what the phrase “equitable access” is referring to?<br />
<br />
I can not answer that question but I can certainly say that the modification of this article is written in such a confusing and shady way that the possibility of an outrageous violation of private property using this article as an excuse is indeed a clear and present danger.<br />
<br />
I can also say that giving the National Power and/or Executive Power the right to exercise their power at the State and Municipal level is unconstitutional because:<br />
<ol>
<li><span class="fullpost">It violates article # 164, Title IV, Chapter III of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: <span style="font-style: italic;">…”Is of the States exclusive competence: … (2) Organization of their Municipalities and other local organs and the territorial and political divisions between them”…</span></span></li>
<span class="fullpost"><br />
<li>It violates Title IX, Chapter II, article # 342 of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: <span style="font-style: italic;">…” The purpose of the constitutional reform is to effect a partial revision of this Constitution and replacement of one or more of the provisions hereof, without modifying the fundamental principles and structure of the text of the Constitution.”…</span> Giving power to the National Government to act at the Municipal and State level attempts against the autonomy of the States and the nature of the Federal Government and therefore violates the fundamental principles (Title I, article # 4 of the “Fundamental Principles” - <span style="font-style: italic;">…"The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a …Federal State”…</span>) and introduces a significant modification to the structure of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999.</li>
</span></ol>
<span class="fullpost"><br /><br />Spanish version of this post <a href="http://reforma-constitucional-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/10/artculo-18.html">here</a><br />Post originally published <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/10/chavez-new-constitution-article-18.html">here</a></span></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-17392774670554706632007-10-05T20:18:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:04:22.249-05:00VENEZUELA: A POLITICAL "CHIMERA" TO KILL DEMOCRACY<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">In the last couple months I have been collaborating with the blog <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/">"Venezuela News & Views"</a>. The editor of this blog, Daniel Duquenal, had the idea to invite his readers to write comments on the modifications to each and every article of the ill conceived constitutional reform being proposed by the government.<br /><br />Venezuela is at the brink of becoming a totalitarian country under the Presidency of a tyrant who wants to stay in power for life. I can not think of any other issue in Latin America that is more important than this one and therefore I offered Daniel to write comments to the modifications being proposed to Articles 11, 16 and 18.<br /><br />The following are the comments I wrote and the dramatic conclusions I have reached.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: 100%;">Article 16</span></span></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Preamble:</span> When I first asked the editor of "Venezuela News & Views" to allow me to comment on the constitutional modifications of articles 11, 16 and 18, I was totally aware, from the first reading, of the dangers that the modifications to article 11 posed to the Venezuelan democracy.<br />
<br />
At that time, I also thought that commenting article 16 was a waste of time because the text of this modification is the closest I have ever seen a constitutional text come to the legendary dyslectic speech of that beloved character called “Cantinflas” brilliantly portrayed by the Mexican actor Mario Moreno throughout his life.<br />
<br />
I decided to write comments on all three articles though because they are part of Title II of the <a href="http://misionvenezuela.org/espanol/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf">Bolivarian Constitution of 1999</a> that deals with the territory and the political division of that territory.<br />
<br />
Far was I then from realizing that, as much as the implications of the modified text to article 11 where frightening, the implications of the modifications to the text of article 16 are by far, and I mean far, worse than those of article 11. Further, I was wrong and presumptuous by dismissing and labeling the text of the modifications to article 16 as “Cantinflesco”.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Modifications:</span> Both the text of the original article 16 and the text of the modifications being proposed are long and they are better explained with the help of graphic outlines. I am therefore not going to quote these texts and instead I am herein including a link you can follow should you be interested in reading them ( <a href="http://constitutional-reform-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/09/original-and-modified-text-of.html">Original Text/Modified Text</a> ).<br />
<br />
The political division of Federal Republics is a logical structure that divides the country in geographical areas for administration, political and citizen representation purposes. It basically resembles a pyramid with different levels of organization and citizen representation.<br />
<br />
The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 divides Venezuela in three basic political and representation levels of government: 1) The Federal (National) level, 2) The State level and 3) the Municipal Level. It also includes provisions for the incorporation of two optional additional levels: 1) Metropolitan Districts - <a href="http://misionvenezuela.org/espanol/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf">Articles 170 and 171</a> - and 2) Parishes - <a href="http://misionvenezuela.org/espanol/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf">Article 173</a>.<br />
<br />
Figure # 1 below provides a graphic representation of the political division of the Venezuelan Republic as per the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999.</div>
<div style="color: #666666; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry0nxbVbvBI/AAAAAAAAADk/e0yAwTC_nng/s1600-h/Figura+1E.gif"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128799280749591570" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry0nxbVbvBI/AAAAAAAAADk/e0yAwTC_nng/s320/Figura+1E.gif" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">Figure # 1</span></div>
<span style="color: #666666;"><br />The logic behind the option of creating Metropolitan Districts is that, in time, independent Municipalities may develop up to a point where a group of them could become a major metropolitan area. At that time these municipalities might want to incorporate as a “Metropolitan District” that encompasses the territory of all them. This way, they would be able to streamline rules and regulations as well as the political and representation relationship between Municipalities throughout the metropolitan area.<br /><br />Following the same logic, Municipalities with large rural territories that have scattered communities might want to consider creating smaller entities of political and citizen representation. Hence, the creation of Parishes is a constitutional option that Municipalities can use to decentralize government at the municipal level in order to better serve the population in those communities.<br /><br />In every case, all the political divisions or levels must comply with the constitutional mandate of allowing a republican representation of the citizens at each level. This is, the branches of power (Executive and Legislative) must be the same in every division or level and the representatives of the people (authorities) must be elected in general elections.<br /><br />The current political division of the Venezuelan territory complies with these conditions as mandated in the “Fundamental Principles” of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 outlined in Title I, Articles 1 though 9, which are mandatory and “non amendable and/or revisable” (<a href="http://misionvenezuela.org/espanol/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf">articles 340 and 342</a>), and more specifically with the mandate on articles 4 and 6 that read:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Article 4: The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a decentralized Federal State on the terms set forth in this Constitution, governed by the principles of territorial integrity, cooperation, solidarity, attendance and shared responsibility.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Article 6: The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and of the political organs that comprise the same, is and shall always be democratic, participatory, elective, decentralized, alternative, responsible and pluralist, with revocable mandates.</span><br /><br />It should be noted that the political division and the mandate to organize the country under a federal republican government constitutes the backbone of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999. So much so, that out of the total 350 articles included in the constitution, 153 articles, that is 43% of all articles, are dedicated to explaining and regulating the term, scope, attributions, responsibilities and the rights of the citizens in the different levels and/or political divisions of this government structure.<br /><br />The modifications being proposed to article 16 though, introduces a completely different political division (structure) for the Venezuelan Republic which, at first sight, seems to have absolutely no organizational, administrative, political and certainly, no constitutional logic. Further more, it introduces changes that are not explained and/or regulated anywhere in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 and for that matter, not even vaguely referenced anywhere in the whole text of the constitution.<br /><br />To illustrate the major differences being introduced in the modified text of article 16 we are including a table (Figure # 2) that provides a visual reference as to the political division of the Venezuelan Republic in three different documents. These are; 1) <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1961.html">The Venezuelan Constitution of 1961</a>, 2) <a href="http://misionvenezuela.org/espanol/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf">The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999</a> and 3) <a href="http://constitutional-reform-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/09/original-and-modified-text-of.html">The proposed text for article 16</a>. The different political divisions and/or levels of organization are being outlined in the same order as they appear in the text of each document.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #666666;"><a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry0oZbVbvCI/AAAAAAAAADs/CrEuD4SnAtY/s1600-h/Figura+2E.gif"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128799967944358946" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry0oZbVbvCI/AAAAAAAAADs/CrEuD4SnAtY/s320/Figura+2E.gif" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">Figure # 2</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #666666;">
<br />Since the proposed political division in the modified text of article 16 is so confusing and given the fact that there is no precedence for this type of political division either in the Constitution of 1961 or the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 it seemed logical to research the constitutional text of other “federal republican constitutions” to try and find similar political divisions. None of the constitutions that were researched though (<a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Argentina/argen94_e.html">Argentina</a>, <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Brazil/brazil05.html">Brazil</a>, <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Mexico/mexico2004.html">Mexico</a>, and the <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/USA/usa1992.html">United States</a>) shed any light as to where this political division concept could have come from. Further, though Cuba is not a federal republic, we also could not find in the <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Cuba/cuba2002.html">Cuban Constitution</a> anything that vaguely resembles the above mentioned political division.<br /><br />Frustrated with the inability to find any logic to the proposed political division we were about to focus only on the confusing and in some instances somewhat pompous language of the proposed text when suddenly it strike us.<br /><br />The reason why we could not find any logic and/or sense to the proposed political division was because the text was not describing one political division but indeed two different, separate and overlapping political divisions written into the same text.<br /><br />Just like the notes of two different songs played together do not make sense unless played separately, the modified text of article 16 describes two separate political divisions that only make sense when outlined separately.<br /><br />In the following table (Figure # 3) we are outlining the two now perfectly logical and overlapping political divisions being introduced by the modified text of article 16.<br /></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #666666;"><a href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry0oybVbvDI/AAAAAAAAAD0/xDaWWnEYBUM/s1600-h/Figura+3E.gif"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5128800397441088562" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_0ykYP1i7_AM/Ry0oybVbvDI/AAAAAAAAAD0/xDaWWnEYBUM/s320/Figura+3E.gif" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center;" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">Figure # 3</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #666666;">
<br />As amazing as it may be, the modified text of article 16 introduces two separate, opposite, parallel, overlapping and most probably competing government structures to govern the same country.<br /><br />It also re-arranges the territory introducing political divisions that are made up from parts or all of the current territories assigned by the constitution to one or more States and Municipalities. These territorial assignments are very broadly described in the proposed amended text to article 16 and certainly they are not regulated in any way, shape or form.<br /><ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Federal Provinces:</span> Which are basically a political equivalent to the States, will be formed by <span style="font-style: italic;">…“aggregating either States or Municipalities”…</span> The concept of Provinces is not alien to Venezuelan history since, originally, the political division of Venezuela included six provinces: Venezuela or Caracas, Maracaibo, Cumana, Guayana, Margarita and Trinidad.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Functional Districts:</span> Which are basically political equivalents to the Metropolitan Districts will be formed <span style="font-style: italic;">…“by one or more Municipalities or Territorial Lots on them, without regard to the State they belong to.”…</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Insular Districts:</span> The original text of article 16 included Federal Dependencies. These have been dropped and replaced by Oceanic Regions. Federal Dependencies included all those islands that were not part of a State. Oceanic Regions do not make that distinction so territories such as Margarita could become Insular Districts subject to the executive branch of power.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Federal Cities:</span> Will allow the government to take direct control over any major metropolitan city, regardless of which State they are in and/or their Municipalities (<span style="font-style: italic;">…”The President of the Republic, in the Council of Ministers, after an agreement approved by a simple majority of Representatives of the National Assembly, will be able to create by decree, Federal Provinces, Federal Cities and Functional Districts”…</span>), (<span style="font-style: italic;">…”In the Federal Territory, the Federal Municipality and the Federal City, the national Power will designate the respective authorities”…</span>).</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Federal Municipalities:</span> Municipalities in Federal Territories and/or Federal Cities would be under government control and their authorities will be appointed by the national government.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cities / Communal Cities:</span> This is the new <span style="font-style: italic;">…”primary political unit in the national territory organization”…</span> and hence the political equivalent of the “Municipalities”. “Cities” and “Communal Cities” are the same thing since all cities will become “Communal Cities” when <span style="font-style: italic;">…”organized Communities, Communes and self communal governments are established in the totality of its perimeter.”…</span> without any regard for the Municipalities.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Communes:</span> Are the political equivalent of the Parishes except that they are mandatory; Parishes were optional. Also, Communes are political entities with their own <span style="font-style: italic;">…”forms of self government and any other expression of direct Democracy.”…</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span style="font-weight: bold;">Communities:</span> This is a new micro political division that is being introduced by article 16 which can only be explained as an obsession to micro manage the lives of the people. After communities the only thing left are “homes”.</li>
</ul>
From a constitutional standpoint, the two overlapping political divisions being introduced by the modified text of article 16 are dramatically different.<br /><br />As per the constitutional mandate in the “Fundamental Principles” of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 (articles 4 & 6), Political Division “A” is Federal, Elective and Decentralized. “Political Division “B” though is quite the opposite; it is not Federal because none of the divisions created comply with the autonomous nature of a Federal Republic; it is non-elective because most of the authorities are appointed by the national government and, it is not decentralized because they are all subject to the national government.<br /><br />Finally, the undetermined and absurd nature of this dual political division is pretty much covered up with the all inclusive, all uncertain and all powerful political alibi measure of choice: …”The political-territorial organization of the Republic will be legislated by an Organic Law.”<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Comment 1: </span>Let me start by commenting what, without doubt, is the most important conclusion you arrive at after reading the above factual analysis.<br /><br />The modified text of article 16 being introduced by the government is absolutely <span style="font-weight: bold;">UNCONSTITUTIONAL</span> for the following reasons:<br /><ol>
<li>It violates Title I, article # 4 of the “Fundamental Principles” in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: <span style="font-style: italic;">…"The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a …federal State”…</span> The new political division introduces new political divisions that are not subject to the States and hence they are not federal. Further, it introduces political divisions that include territories from more than one State and authorities that are not accountable to either of such destroying this way the integrity of the federal system.</li>
<br />
<li>It violates Title I, article # 4 and 6 of the “Fundamental Principles” in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: …<span style="font-style: italic;">”The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is a decentralized… State”...</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">..."The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and of the political organs comprising the same, is and shall always be...decentralized”...</span> The new political division introduces authorities that are appointed and/or removed by the national government and hence, they are dependant from such. This constitutes a centralized system of government and further, allows the executive branch to exercise authority at the State and Municipal level which is a power that neither the President nor the National Assembly has under the constitution.</li>
<br />
<li>It violates Title I, article # 6 of the “Fundamental Principles” in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: <span style="font-style: italic;">…”The government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and of the political organs comprising the same, is and shall always be… elective”..</span> The new political division introduces authorities that are appointed and not elected.</li>
<br />
<li>It violates Title IX, Chapter II, article # 342 of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: <span style="font-style: italic;">…” The purpose of the constitutional reform is to effect a partial revision of this Constitution and replacement of one or more of the provisions hereof, without modifying the fundamental principles and structure of the text of the Constitution.”…</span> The new political division introduces a significant modification to the fundamental principles and particularly to the structure of the text of the Constitution. It curtails the power and territory of the States and Municipalities. It introduces political divisions and entities that are not legislated under the Constitution. It creates a new primary political unit that modifies the responsibilities and the political relationship of the Municipalities with other political entities. It modifies the representation of the people at the Municipal and State level. It subjects people to different authorities without the legislation to guarantee their rights. In sum; it introduces a major modification to the structure of the text of the Constitution.</li>
<br />
<li>It violates Title IV, Chapter III, article # 164 of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that mandates: <span style="font-style: italic;">…”Is of the States exclusive competence: … (2) Organization of their Municipalities and other local organs and the territorial and political divisions between them”…</span></li>
</ol>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Comment 2:</span> From a political standpoint, the introduction of two overlapping political divisions is a clear attempt to destroy the power base of the States and their municipalities. The centralized political structure under the national government control will have more economic resources and no constitutional restrictions. Eventually, it will be perceived as more efficient than the federal structure and therefore such will loose political power and representation.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Comment 3:</span> The modifications introduced to article # 16 are a clear attempt by the government to introduce a centralize, non elective and dependent political structure that will change the nature of the Venezuelan government which by constitutional mandate is republican, federal and constitutional. The problem is that this can not be done through constitutional amendments and/or reforms because the constitution does not allow it. The only way to make those changes is to elect a National Constituent Assembly to write a new Constitution.<br /><br />Spanish language version of this post <a href="http://reforma-constitucional-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/09/artculo-11.html">here</a>.<br />Published originally <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/10/chavez-new-constitution-article-16.html">here</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-50146000552562375902007-09-20T18:28:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:22:09.307-05:00VENEZUELA: ABSOLUTE POWER FOR AN ABSOLUTE TYRANT<div style="background-color: white; color: #666666; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-weight: bold;">In the last couple months I have been collaborating with the blog <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/">"Venezuela News & Views"</a>. The editor of this blog, Daniel Duquenal, had the idea to invite his readers to write comments on the modifications to each and every article of the ill conceived constitutional reform being proposed by the government.<br /><br />Venezuela is at the brink of becoming a totalitarian country under the Presidency of a tyrant who wants to stay in power for life. I can not think of any other issue in Latin America that is more important than this one and therefore I offered Daniel to write comments to the modifications being proposed to Articles 11, 16 and 18.<br /><br />The following are the comments I wrote and the dramatic conclusions I have reached.</span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-weight: bold;">Continue....</span><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /><span style="font-size: 100%;">Article 11</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Preamble:</span> Most constitutions include two basic sets of articles that define what and who are the subjects of the Constitution. This is; what is the country? and, who are the nationals of that country?<br />
<br />
In the <a href="http://misionvenezuela.org/espanol/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf">Bolivarian Constitution of 1999</a> the definition of - What is Venezuela? - Is done in Title II, Chapter 1, Articles 10 through 15.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">Article 11: “The full sovereignty of the Republic is exercised on the continental and insular spaces,”..... -Click link above to read full text of article 11- ....... “public international agreements and by the national legislation”...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Comment 1:</span> The first part of the text of the newly proposed article 11 is exactly the same as the one in the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999. The description of the Venezuelan territory in both texts though is extremely thorough by international standards and certainly far more specific than the description in the <a href="http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Venezuela/ven1961.html">Constitution of 1961 and its reforms of 1983</a>.<br />
<br />
There is a reason for this though, since 1961 substantial changes and legal definitions have been introduced to international laws and more specifically in whole bodies of law such as the <a href="http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf">Law of the Sea.</a><br />
<br />
While Venezuela was one of the countries that spearheaded the revolutionary United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and a signatory of the final document approved in Montego Bay (1982), Venezuela has not ratified the Convention because it has observations to the articles that deal with the delimitation of territories and more specifically with articles 15, 74, 83 and 121(3).<br />
<br />
The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 though has incorporated all of the legal concepts and benefits of the Convention of the Law of the Sea to the Venezuelan Constitution without agreeing or being bound by the articles that it deems are not in the best interest of Venezuela.<br />
<br />
In this article, the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 also incorporated references to the rights of Venezuela over the extraterrestrial space. At this point in time the only practical application of these rights would be the allocation of the orbital slots in what is known as the Clarke geostationary orbit where most communication satellites are located. These slots are allocated by the ITU (International Telecommunications Union) of which Venezuela is a member. By including these references though Venezuela has become a pioneer in the pursuit for a United Nations body of legislation that deals with the increasingly controversial use of space.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic;">“The President of the Republic may decree Special Military Regions for strategic and defense ends, anywhere in the territory and other geographical spaces of the Republic. He may as well decree Special Authorities in situations of contingency, natural disasters, etc.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Comment 2:</span> The above mentioned two sentences have been added to the original article 11 of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 and is one of the modifications Venezuelans are being asked to vote on. These two sentences though are dangerous, wrong and preposterous in so many ways that I will try my best to be as didactic as possible to explain them.<br />
<br />
The last sentence of this paragraph allows the President to decree Special Authorities in “situations of contingency” (“situaciones de contingencia”). The RAE (Royal Spanish Academy) definition of the word <a href="http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=contingencia">“contingencia”</a> (contingency) is: “Posibilidad de que algo suceda o no suceda” (Possibility that something happens or not happens), “Cosa que puede suceder o no suceder” (Thing that might or might not happen).<br />
<br />
This sentence therefore allows the President to decree Special Authorities for basically any and all reasons; be them real or imagined. The only condition is that they may or may not happen.<br />
<br />
Just in case there is any doubt about the unlimited power to appoint Special Authorities in any situation whatsoever the sentence goes on and reinforces this concept by indicating that these authorities can also be appointed for “etc” reasons.<br />
<br />
The RAE definition of the word <a href="http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=etcetera">“etc”</a> is: “expr. ES U. para sustituir el resto de una exposición o enumeración que se sobreentiende o que no interesa expresar. Se emplea generalmente en la abreviatura etc.” (to substitute the rest of an exposition or enumeration that is assumed to be understood or that there is no interest in expressing. Generally It is used in the abbreviation etc.)<br />
<br />
While Constitutions are expected to be precise and specific it is a fact that even the best written constitutions are sometimes general and even vague. A constitution though can not be “undetermined” and give powers to a President to be used in “undetermined” situations and in “undetermined” ways.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that the intention of this sentence is not to provide the President with special powers in case of civil unrest, natural disaster or other emergency situations. The Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 in Title VIII, Chapter 2 articles 337, 338 and 339 already provides special powers to the President to act in these kinds of circumstances and regulates the term and scope of those powers.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Comment 3:</span> The dangers this sentence poses to the Venezuelan democracy though go far beyond the semantic implications herein mentioned.<br />
<br />
Nowhere, either in the text of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 or the modifications being proposed today, is there any reference whatsoever to the term “Autoridades Especiales”. There is therefore no reference as to the power that could be granted to these Special Authorities. It could be inferred though that since they are appointed in “situations of contingency” (whatever that means) they would have more power than the elected officials and/or constitutionally appointed authorities who would be deemed as incapable of handling such situations. Power, that would emanate directly from the President and that is not limited and/or even regulated by the Constitution.<br />
<br />
There is also absolutely no reference anywhere as to the term for which these Special Authorities would be appointed, their salary, where their budget will come from, who they are accountable to, what is their responsibility, what is the scope of their powers and/or what qualifications would be needed to be appointed as such.<br />
<br />
Under the proposed text anyone could be appointed a Special Authority with absolute power even if the person has a police and/or judicial record and, what is most intriguing, even if they are foreigners.<br />
<br />
For all intents and purposes, this last sentence of the proposed modification to article 11 renders the rest of the Constitution useless. It matters little what the Constitution says, because the President can appoint Special Authorities with powers over and above the power of any elected authority and/or constitutionally appointed government official. The President could appoint Special Legal, Economic, Constitutional, Social, Health, Education and even Religious Authorities to oversee and even decide over all aspects of government and/or the branches of power.<br />
<br />
Just in case there is any doubt though, the first sentence of the paragraph being proposed in the amendment of article 11 provides an air tight alibi for the President to overcome any legal, jurisprudent and/or constitutional arguments against the use of this power.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Comment 4:</span> In the first sentence of this paragraph the President is granted the power to decree Special Military Regions for “strategic” and defense purposes. Here again language is used loosely to provide the President with an overwhelming power that goes far beyond the Constitution and certainly common sense.<br />
<br />
According to the RAE, the definition of <a href="http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=estrategico">“estrategico”</a> (strategic) is the following: “De importancia decisiva para el desarrollo de algo” (Of decisive importance for the development of something). This sentence therefore allows the President to decree a Special Military Region for the only purpose of accomplishing something; whatever that might be.<br />
<br />
Special security areas or buffer zones in and around military and valuable infrastructure installations are perfectly normal in every country except for the fact that in this case the intended purpose of the text is not to allow the President to create such security zones but instead to allow the President to be able to create Special Military Regions over vast parts and even the whole Venezuelan territory.<br />
<br />
The word “regions” is only mentioned 4 times in the text of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 and, except for the text proposed to modify article 11 and a reference to sea regions in the text of article 67, none whatsoever in the text of the other proposed amendments. In every case, except in one, the term is used as an adjective and in a general way. This should not come as a surprise since “regions” are not part of the political division of Venezuela.<br />
<br />
In one case though, the word “region” is used to identify and describe specific territories. By doing so, the Constitution creates precedence as to what a “region” is understood to be and what a Special Military Region would or could encompass.<br />
<br />
Article seven in the Temporary Provisions of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 creates three regions that encompass all of the Venezuelan territory. Each region includes two or more States and they are created for the purpose of electing native representatives to the National Assembly.<br />
<br />
The definition of “regions” is therefore set by the same Constitution in these articles and by precedence they do apply to the definition of Special Military Regions.<br />
<br />
As for the administration of these regions, there isn’t a single reference in the Constitution or the modifications being proposed as to how or who would administer these Special Military Regions or, for that matter, what are the rights of the people who live in these regions.<br />
<br />
In Title V, Chapter II, Articles 236 (5) of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 though, the President is granted absolute authority over the National Armed Forces and appointed Commander in Chief. He therefore is the supreme authority of the armed forces and hence the supreme authority over the territories under military control.<br />
<br />
Having absolute power over “Special Military Regions” and the Constitutional unlimited power to appoint “Special Authorities” for whatever reason, gives the President absolute power over the Venezuelan territory and the Venezuelan people.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that under the proposed modification to the Constitution Special Military Regions do not need to be occupied by the military. Further, the elected authorities and officials within the Special Military Regions may continue to act as such but subject to the decisions of their respective “Special Authority”.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Conclusion:</span> It matters little what the other proposed modifications to the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 may be; it also matters little what the rest of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 may say because, with these two sentences, the President is granted absolute power over everything and everyone in Venezuela while rendering the rest of the Constitution mute.<br />
<br />
The implications of the modifications introduced to article 11 are not a matter of ideology or even political, economic or social beliefs. For all intents and purposes you can be a socialist, communist or extreme capitalist and still these modifications would be absolutely wrong.<br />
<br />
All the other modifications to the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 that are being proposed have to do with the business and structure of government. In article 11 though Venezuelans are being asked to surrender all their rights to the Venezuelan land and their own freedom by giving absolute power over them to the President; whomever that might be.<br />
<br />
While writing these comments I can not help but remember the words of a song, “Solamente Una Vez” (Only one time), composed by Agustin Lara while working in Buenos Aires with some close friends. Most youngsters will not know who Agustin Lara was but they will most likely remember the song since it was part of a Luis Miguel CD (“Segundo Romance”).<br />
<br />
The third verse of that song reads; “Una vez nada más se entrega el alma, con la dulce y total renunciación.” (Only once you surrender your soul with the sweetness of total resignation).<br />
<br />
Most people believe this song was composed by Agustin Lara to a woman he met in Buenos Aires. The truth though is that this song was composed to a man; his old and dear friend Jose Mojica, when Agustin Lara learned that he had decided to become a Catholic priest even though he was over 40 years old.<br />
<br />
This song is not about the love of a man for a woman but about the ultimate sweet sacrifice you can do for God; to surrender your soul.<br />
<br />
By asking to vote yes for the amendment of article 11 of the Bolivarian Constitution of 1999 Venezuelans are not being asked to choose a political system and/or model of government but indeed they are being asked to surrender their soul and with it, their dignity, their history, their territory and their expectations; a sacrifice reserved only for God.<br />
<br />
Spanish language version of this post <a href="http://reforma-constitucional-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/09/artculo-11.html">here</a>.<br />
Published originally <a href="http://daniel-venezuela.blogspot.com/2007/09/chavez-new-constitution-article-11.html">here</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-33952719776579176992007-06-09T16:31:00.000-04:002012-12-11T02:05:07.550-05:00THE POWER AND LEGACY OF OUR CULTURE IS OUR CONCEPT OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>The following is my answer to a comment posted by "Bauta" in the blog of Andres Oppenheimer from The Miami Herald. It touches some of the points of my previous two postings but here again, it does provide further insights as to my thoughts on the immigration issue. Enjoy!</b><br />
<br />
<b>Bauta said...</b><br />
<br />
When you have millions of people coming from the same region, the result is that they don't feel the need to assimilate to the new society and they don't learn the language. Hispanics in America and Muslims in Europe don't want to assimilate, they want to impose their culture. Now the US is going to bring 7,000 more Muslims from Irak. Wonderful ah? Bauta<br />
<br />
<b>Mousqueton said....</b><br />
<br />
Dear Bauta:<br />
<br />
That is not quite true. Let me explain.<br />
<br />
1) At a certain point in our history over 74% of the New York population was foreign and they eventually assimilated. Further, in the 1900’s the foreign born population of the United States was higher than in the year 2000 and they have assimilated as well.<br />
<br />
In the process we also assimilated some of their customs and traditions. A token of that is the Saint Patrick's Ball held in the White House and certainly the bagpipes that are today an American tradition at the funeral of any policeman and/or firefighter who dies in the line of duty.<br />
<br />
2) While numbers do have an impact on the assimilation process, it is the endurance and fortitude of the principles that eventually determine which culture prevails.<br />
<br />
If you make a list of everything you believe to be American and do some research you will find that none of it, except as I mentioned before arguably Baseball and certainly Rock and Roll, is indeed American.<br />
<br />
The logical question then is; how can there be an American culture if everything we regard as American is indeed foreign?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
Well, the answer is simple; the only true and absolutely authentic American value and believe is our concept of "individual freedom". This concept is so strong and powerful that it has survived the test of time and protected our democracy to the point of making it a beacon for the world.<br />
<br />
Our concept of freedom is so powerful that it even negates the need of a given culture and/or language to exist. In fact, it is the power of our concept of freedom that allows us to assimilate as much or as little as we want from any culture in the world and still remain uniquely American. In the process, our freedom compels us to use our imagination and reshape, transform, refine, etc. everything we assimilate and end up with a uniquely American version of the original; talk about hot dogs, Taco Bell and Brooklyn style pizza.<br />
<br />
You should have more faith on the power of our concept of freedom. Immigrants certainly do and eventually are compelled to make it their own regardless of what believes they might have brought with them when they first arrived to the US.<br />
<br />
That is the true America; "E pluribus Unum" by the uniqueness and immensely creative as well as galvanizing power of our concept of freedom.<br />
<br />
I sincerely believe that our Forefathers and certainly Thomas Jefferson as well as George Mason, from whom Jefferson borrowed much of the preamble in our Declaration of Independence, initially did not realize the magnitude of their contribution both to America and to human kind.<br />
<br />
I am positive though that the power of this concept overwhelmed them later. It certainly overwhelmed John Adams whose letter to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813 is absolutely eloquent.<br />
<br />
<i>“The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite…. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.<br /><br />Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Christianity, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believe they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles.”</i><br />
<br />
The overwhelming power of our concept of freedom was also evident for John Quincy Adams in his argument before the Supreme Court to make the black slaves of the “Amistad” free.<br />
<br />
<i>"The moment you come to the Declaration of Independence, that every man has a right to life and liberty, an inalienable right, this case is decided. I ask nothing more in behalf of these unfortunate men than this Declaration."</i><br />
<br />
This is indeed what America is all about and what we, the people, should treasure and protect.<br />
<br />
3) Learning a language is also a process. It is easier to learn a language when you are young than it is when you are a mature person. It is easier to learn a language when you do not have to work two and three low paying jobs to barely survive.<br />
<br />
The idea that Latino immigrants do not want to learn the language is a fabrication. If you could buy a pill that taught you English you would see a line of Latinos in front of Walgreens as far as your sight can reach.<br />
<br />
Though everything is stacked against them, current statistics show that Latinos are indeed learning English, want to learn English and as a matter of fact, the rate and degree of assimilation in second and third generation of Latinos is nothing short of amazing.<br />
<br />
Do not fall for the easy concepts and slogans of the anti-immigration zealots. Try to picture yourself without a visa, in a low income neighborhood in Paris, subject to discrimination and working two or three low paying jobs and then tell me how long you think it will take you to learn French.<br />
<br />
We have an immigration problem, but we need to look at it seriously, creatively, under the light of our basic principles and come up with an intelligent and long lasting solution.<br />
<br />
4) I must concede that I still do not have an answer to your concerns about the Muslim immigration. I am currently reading voraciously to learn about the Muslim religion but I am still an ignorant and therefore unable to give an opinion. I can share with you some of my doubts though.<br />
<br />
While I hold Muslims to the same standards as any other human being in the world and further, I believe them to have exactly the same rights to freedom and the pursuit of happiness as every other human being, I am not sure that Muslims are allowed to embrace the concept of individual freedom that is the corner stone and essence of both our identity and legal system. As far as I know, for Muslims, there is no freedom outside religion; religion is life itself and there is nothing and no one allowed beyond that.<br />
<br />
In contrast, our concept of freedom allows us to even deny God himself and be agnostics. While this is a very strong statement it still measures up to the test of Christian religions because they believe in “free will” and the individual pursuit of salvation or damnation.<br />
<br />
Having said this, I should mention that Turkey is in fact a Muslim country with a secular government that seems to be working well. Also, there is a large community of Muslims in the United States that seem to be in agreement and at peace with our concept of freedom.<br />
<br />
As I said, I am still an ignorant and therefore I would appreciate if you give me a rain check on this issue. I am not going to avoid the issue though and will write about it as soon as I feel comfortable with my knowledge of the religion and convinced that its teachings are indeed compatible with our concept of freedom and justice.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-13093115535354071982007-05-30T03:40:00.002-04:002012-12-11T02:12:47.587-05:00IT IS HARD TO BE AN AMERICAN<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>The following is a comment posted in the blog of Andres Oppenheimer from The Miami Herald. It is in a way a little redundant with my last posting but it does add some additional concepts to the immigration debate. Enjoy!</b><br />
<b>Mousqueton said ...</b><br />
<br />
It is pretty clear, from the reading of some comments in this blog, that many of you do not understand what America is all about.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
It was the French Revolution (1789 - 1799) that gave the world the concept of social freedom. While the French Revolution originally adopted the American concept of freedom from our Declaration of Independence and was included by Robespierre in his "Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen", eventually this concept was influenced by the socialists of the time and became a trilogy epitomized by the motto "Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité". The motto and the concept was officially adopted in 1848 and later included in the constitutions of 1946 and 1958. For the French there is no freedom without equality (Equalité) and fraternity (Fraternité). Their concept of freedom is pretty much from its inception a social concept; there is no freedom outside of society. This concept has endured the test of time and even today, every Frenchman, regardless of their political ideology, will live and die by this principle.<br />
<br />
We Americans in turn, gave the world a more simple but certainly audacious concept of freedom. A concept that was proclaimed to the world in a simple and straight forward document with very few but, certainly, most poetical words.<br />
<br />
<i><b>… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” …</b></i><br />
<br />
This is our legacy to the world and to human kind. We gave the world the concept of “individual freedom”. A concept of freedom that stands alone on its own merits because it is not a creation of our intellect or society but indeed the will of our creator; whomever you may deem that to be.<br />
<br />
A concept of freedom that is all inclusive and, further, has no boundaries; a concept of freedom with no social, political, religious, economic, educational and/or racial conditions and/or limitations.<br />
<br />
Everything else in America, except arguably for baseball and certainly rock and roll, has been assimilated by us from other cultures and societies. Even our language is foreign; English is a Germanic language an as a matter of fact the name of the language itself derives from “Englisc” which is the name of the language that the Angles tribes, originally from Engel, spoke during the fifth century.<br />
<br />
Our concept of freedom though is absolutely unique and our commitment to live by this concept is guarded by the souls of our soldiers in Arlington as well as the Normandy Cemetery and Memorial in France.<br />
<br />
This is who we are and it is under the shining light of this principle that we should seek the solution to the very real but over simplified and certainly intentionally manipulated immigration problem.<br />
<br />
The immigration problem is a human, economic, security and cultural problem. We have to look at each side of the problem individually and come up with solutions that address each part of the problem without corrupting the essence of who we are and what we believe.<br />
<br />
The high standard of our freedom concept is what makes America special and the vital force that has built the most prosperous land on earth. It is not easy to live by that standard though and at times we tend to drift away.<br />
<br />
In the last couple years we have drifted away from our principles further than any time before in our entire history. As a matter of fact, we have endured a vicious and deliberate campaign by feverish conservative and self serving forces to make us believe that empty slogans, misleading information, lies, a culture of secrecy, assassinations, kidnappings, tortures and the violation of civil rights are righteous tools of our democracy because they are for the good and protection of the people.<br />
<br />
Indeed we have been led to believe that the language and excuse of every single totalitarian government and dictatorship in the history of mankind is an adequate language and guideline for our democracy.<br />
<br />
We have also endured and continue to endure a relentless campaign against the so called “illegal immigrants” that promotes shameful and openly discriminatory “know nothings” arguments of the past as well as solutions that negate our concept of freedom as an adequate conceptual framework for the immigration debate.<br />
<br />
We have come very close to becoming what we despise and in doing so we have neglected the basic principles of freedom and democracy in which we believe and for which so many Americans have died.<br />
<br />
Today, as always before, the American people, who are the real custodians of our identity, are raising their voices against this massive propaganda scheme and our politicians have started to realize that, “we, the people” want to go back to the safe harbor of our freedoms and beliefs.<br />
<br />
In this context, the farewell words of Cindy Sheehan today - the soldier's mother who galvanized an anti-war movement with her month long protest outside President Bush's ranch - are indeed eloquent.<br />
<br />
<i>…“Good-bye America ... you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can't make you be that country unless you want it. "It's up to you now."…</i><br />
She also said that the most devastating conclusion she has reached ….<br />
<br />
<i>"was that Casey did indeed die for nothing ... killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think." …</i><br />
<br />
It is pity that even though educated and fluent in English some of your readers do not have the least idea of what we are and what we stand for. Further it is amazing that they pride themselves of believing in principles that are alien to America.<br />
<br />
We do not believe in different shades and grades of freedom. We believe that the single concept of freedom that has allowed your Cuban American reader to enjoy the good life in the US applies to everyone. How to reconcile this principle with the necessary measures we need to take in order to solve the multiple problems generated by immigration is the challenge we need to face.<br />
<br />
It makes me think though; maybe we are better off with the ignorant immigrants. At least they do not seem to pose the kind of threat to our principles, beliefs and values that the educated migrants do.<br />
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-33076963007249493922007-05-30T03:19:00.000-04:002012-12-11T02:24:05.566-05:00IMMIGRATION OR ETHNIC CLEANSING DEBATE? THAT IS THE QUESTION<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>The immigration debate in the US is so biased that there is little chance that any intelligent discussion can take place.<br /><br />To some neo-conservatives immigration is the mother of all evils and blamed for everything that is wrong except, at least for the time being, the war in Iraq. On the other side of the spectrum we have those who believe that immigration is good for the US and that since we are a nation of immigrants everyone should be welcomed.</b><br />
<br />
Behind the slogans, self serving names, the posturing and of course the profiteering by some dubious and certainly biased media personalities, the truth is that everyone in both sides of the argument are simply human beings; human beings that react as such when confronted with real and/or perceived threats.<br />
<br />
In the end, everyone in this epic confrontation shares the same primal calling and motivation; survival!<br />
<br />
In the US, the anti-immigration zealots are not really concerned with jobs, welfare and the economy. Why should they? If there is something that the US has proven through out its history is that we are the best there is when it comes to assimilating and adapting. We are extremely good at thriving in adverse conditions and certainly a couple million immigrants are not going to change that.<br />
<br />
Further, immigrants are both producers and consumers and that is what our economic system is based on. We might need to tweak a little thing here and there to help immigrants adapt and produce more than they consume, but that is not a problem for a strong and creative economy such as the US economy.<br />
<br />
The real concern that conservative zealots and other xenophobic fanatics have is that they perceive Hispanic immigration as a threat to the survival of their particular brand of American culture. Further, most of them are really advocates of a policy of ethnic cleansing disguised as an immigration policy.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
The irony of all this is that most of what conservative zealots and other fanatics regard as part of our culture is not even American. It was assimilated by us from foreign cultures and people; even our language is foreign; English is a Germanic language an as a matter of fact the name of the language itself derives from “Englisc” which is the name of the language that the Angles tribes, originally from Engel, spoke during the fifth century.<br />
<br />
There is one thing though that is uniquely American and that constitutes the essence of our culture and our legacy to the world.<br />
<br />
That unique thing is our concept of freedom. A concept that was proclaimed to the world in a simple and straight forward document with very few but, certainly, most poetical words.<br />
<br />
<i><b>… “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” …</b></i><br />
<br />
Believing and living by that single truth is what makes us Americans. We are not Americans because of the language we speak, the food we eat or what we drink. We are Americans because regardless of race, religion and/or gender we live and die by and for that truth. That is what makes us the same even though we are different; “E Pluribus, Unum”.<br />
<br />
That truth is what fuels our creativity and makes us believe we can accomplish anything. That truth is what gives us character; what makes us feel righteous, proud and capable of overcoming any test. That truth is what makes us compassionate and at the same time what gives us the strength to endure and overcome incredible odds. That truth is the corner stone of our culture.<br />
<br />
We are a country that has always seen the glass half full and depicted those who see otherwise as losers.<br />
<br />
In the last couple years though we have been led to believe that the glass is half empty; that we are weak and can not endure terrorist attacks; that if we want to be safe we have to sacrifice our freedoms; that we need to build fences to defend ourselves from immigrants; that foreign countries are stealing our jobs; that our fate is to be dependent from foreign energy sources and that therefore destroying a country and acting as pilferers is perfectly moral; that our leaders know better and therefore they can abuse their powers, lie and deceive because it is for our own good; that it is not wrong to torture; that it is not wrong to sequester people; that it is not wrong to violate individual rights; that government secrecy should be the rule instead of the exception.<br />
<br />
We have been led to believe that the standard for righteousness in our government should be set by creative interpretations of the law and the use of loopholes. The same loopholes and arguments that criminals use in the courts of law to try to beat the system.<br />
<br />
We have become a fearful, corrupt and abusive nation and we have allowed our leaders to taint the fundamental truth that makes us Americans.<br />
<br />
There is nothing that immigrants can do to our culture that is worse than what we have done ourselves by allowing our leaders to introduce into our government and democracy the above mentioned alien and un-American concepts. By doing so we have become what we despise.<br />
<br />
As a matter of fact, Hispanic immigrants may very well be what we need to reclaim the true family values that we have lost, the faith in our freedom, the righteousness in our endeavors.<br />
<br />
After all, immigrants are only doing what every species does when their survival is at risk; they migrate to better lands.<br />
<br />
We can build all the fences we want but we will not stop their call for survival.<br />
<br />
They will go under, above or around our fences and six out of 10 might be caught or perish in the attempt but four will survive and move on.<br />
<br />
We may pass all the laws we want penalizing those who provide them with jobs only to find out that before long they will start generating their own jobs and underground economy.<br />
<br />
We can persecute them as much as we want and eventually we will realize that the cost of that persecution is unbearable.<br />
<br />
The primal force of survival is far more powerful than anything we can throw at them short of extermination.<br />
<br />
If there is something that history has taught us is that nothing can stop the invincible hope of those who have nothing to loose. We should know better because it is that same invincible hope that fueled our relentless march to the West.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, we should expect that the misery generated by our draconian immigration laws in the poorest and weaker segments of the migrant population, both inside and outside of the US, will bite us back with constant and ever increasing health and social threats that will put our well being, morals and sense of social order to the test.<br />
<br />
For years Hollywood has been portraying this reality in every futuristic picture they have released. It is therefore ironic that instead of looking for intelligent solutions we keep coming up with absurd and even moronic measures and laws that, on the contrary, will guarantee that the Hollywood doom predictions will become a reality.<br />
<br />
We ought to change our ways and look realistically after our own interests. When it comes to immigration the following thought is right on the Dollar; “There is no better self serving business than the business of serving others”.<br />
<br />
We need to help Latin America overcome endemic poverty and embrace economic development because it is in our own best interest and benefit to do so. We need to move massive resources into building those economies in pretty much the same way we did with Japan and Germany after WWII. We need to put aside the ideological debate and work with Latin American leaders, rightwing and leftwing, to make those societies fair, prosperous and successful.<br />
<br />
We need to rescue the spirit of JF Kennedy’s “Alliance for Progress”, set practical and far reaching goals and implement, together with American businessmen, a massive investment strategy that will benefit both the US and Latin America; a fair business and investment strategy that benefits everyone and where no one has the upper hand.<br />
<br />
If we need to, we ought to cross-subsidize Latin American trade quotas with reductions on Chinese imports. Making our backyard prosperous and secure is far more important to our national interest and security than helping China become a competing world power at our expense. On the other hand, securing a market of over one billion wealthy consumers’ here in the Americas is also a smart strategy to guarantee the future health of our economy.<br />
<br />
As for the immigrants that are currently in the US, we should provide them with an “easy” path to a legal status and citizenship because that is the right thing to do and because it is in our best interest to do so.<br />
<br />
We need to know who and where they are, we need them to pay social security and income taxes, we need them to buy homes and cars, we need them to serve in our military, we need them to create small businesses and generate jobs, we need them to register and pay their dues in our unions, we need them to share the benefits as well as the responsibilities of being Americans.<br />
<br />
We do not need migrant ghettos nurturing disease and crime, we do not need an underground economy, we do not need the lawlessness of desperation and we certainly do not need the un-American aberration of second class citizens.<br />
<br />
We do not need to be concern with loosing jobs either, because an “Alliance for Progress” initiative in Latin America would reduce immigration dramatically and generate more new jobs in the US than any other trade or policy measure.<br />
<br />
We should also stop playing the card of “illegality” when dealing with immigrants because it makes us look hypocritical. Suddenly we are concerned about illegal immigrants but we are permissive and even condescending when it comes to the millions and millions of illegal drug users who, if they happen to be arrested, are sent home with a pad on the back if they promise to seek rehabilitation.<br />
<br />
Where is the indignation of those who feel so strongly about legality when it comes to illegal consumption of drugs? How come I haven’t heard those law enforcing citizens say anything about the fact that marijuana has become the largest cash crop in the United States; at 35.8 billion Dollars the domestic marijuana crop in the US is more valuable than corn and wheat combined.<br />
<br />
Finally, we should stop blaming immigrants for our weakness when it comes to drugs. We look like a pedophile explaining his perversion by blaming society for parading kids in schools and streets.<br />
<br />
We have always been a fearless country that takes challenges head on and we are certainly at our best when we build instead of destroy. We have to stop playing defense and set up the kind of far reaching goals that make us excel and outperform.<br />
<br />
We have to stop thinking like losers and reclaim our rightful role as leaders of the free world. More important, we have to wake up and realize that <b>the days of the “little house in the prairie” are gone forever.</b></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-66669012646076562762007-03-15T22:16:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:34:39.462-05:00SHAME ON YOU!! MR ANDRES OPPEMHEIMER - Part 3<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>The following is my last comment to the concepts and proposals expressed by Mr. Oppenheimer in his <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/421/story/30878.html">“Memo to Bush”</a> published by the Miami Herald on March 04.</b><br />
Gentleman:<br />
<br />
Following on my second comment to your imaginary memo addressed to Mr. Bush let me further expand my thoughts about the proposals you include in that document.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Proposal # 1: …”The ''Hemispheric Bio-fuels Initiative'' that you are scheduled to announce in Brazil, under which the United States and Brazil will jointly develop ethanol production in Central America and the Caribbean, is a good start. It should help Caribbean Basin countries reduce their oil import bills and start exporting ethanol to the United States”….</i></b><br />
The following questions are the first thing that came to my mind when I first read this proposal in your “Memo to Bush”.<br />
<br />
Can you seriously believe that a person with long and ever increasing family ties to the oil industry would honestly advocate a policy to substitute oil for bio-fuels?<br />
<br />
Do you really expect that the President’s close collaborators, all of whom come from high positions in the oil industry and most likely will return to work for the oil industry at the end of their tenure (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc.) would support such a policy?<br />
<br />
You really have to be naïve or an accomplice in a well thought scheme to undermine bio-fuels to believe that the above is even possible and, having said this, I can not help but to wonder which of the two better describes your position Mr. Oppenheimer.<br />
<br />
While I will concede that the above mentioned questions raise doubts about Mr. Bush’s bio-fuels initiative based on a biased pre-judgment of his real intentions, the answer to the following question provides an un-avoidable and most objective conclusion.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue.....<br />
<br />
<b>Will the pompous “Bio-fuels Initiative” announced by Mr. Bush allow the United States to accomplish the national security imperative of becoming independent from foreign oil by advocating a strategy that makes it dependant from Latin American bio-fuels?</b><br />
The answer is simple; <b><span style="font-size: 130%;">NO!</span></b> Latin Americans should therefore be weary of Mr. Bush and Mr. Oppenheimer intentions when they say otherwise.<br />
<br />
Our interest indeed is quite the opposite. As eloquently put in a letter sent to president Bush by Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowan Republican and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance, <i>…"I appreciate that increased consumption of ethanol in such countries might eventually benefit the U.S. ethanol industry and U.S. farmers; I fail to understand, however, why the United States would consider spending U.S. taxpayer dollars to encourage new ethanol production in other countries; production that could directly compete with U.S. produced ethanol."</i><br />
In light of the above you do not need to be a genius to understand why we tax the import of Brazilian ethanol and are not willing to even discuss the option of eliminating those duties.<br />
<br />
It makes more sense for us to spend our money subsidizing the development of our own technology for bio-fuels from crops and other sources that are available in the US.<br />
<br />
Our land is not suited for sugar cane and therefore the Brazilian technology does not help us. Importing Brazilian bio-fuels could slow our own development in this field and potentially make us dependent from foreign bio-fuels.<br />
<br />
We can not ignore though that Brazil is a major competitor in the ethanol production business and that the weather in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean does favor the production of ethanol from sugar cane. Transforming sugar cane into ethanol is a more efficient and less expensive process than doing it from corn, which is what we do.<br />
<br />
It would seem logical then to work together with Brazil to set the international specifications and standards for ethanol so that it can become a tradable commodity. Further, it is also logical for us to partner with the only other efficient technology available to produce ethanol before it starts spreading throughout the region. After all, in the next ten years South and Central America together with the Caribbean could very well be producing as much ethanol as Brazil and make the region the largest producer of ethanol in the world.<br />
<br />
Stepping in early is the key to winning the ethanol game. In Wall Street, we call this “compassionate” strategy “cornering the market” and no one is better than us at it.<br />
<br />
<b>Will this benefit Latin America?</b><br />
<br />
I do not know, but if I was a Latin American country I would certainly be with my eyes wide open. There are major issues that need to be addressed before you can answer this question. Issues, Mr. Bush is not addressing.<br />
<br />
What land will be used for ethanol? Will it be current land being used for the production of food and/or value added food products? Will it be new land put into production at the expense of natural forests?<br />
<br />
What water will be used? Will the use of water favor the inefficient irrigation of sugar cane over the efficient irrigation of vegetables, fruits and beans?<br />
<br />
How much land should be dedicated to ethanol crops? Should the land used for ethanol crops be proportionate to the land used for the production of food?<br />
<br />
Is the financing going to be available to local investors in each country? Will American companies be the owners of the land? Are Brazilians going to be the owners of the mills?<br />
<br />
Will ethanol be used to reduce and if possible eliminate the oil dependency of the Latin American countries or will it be used to generate foreign currency?<br />
<br />
Should it be currency, I am not sure it is in the best interest of Latin America to become an important supplier of bio-fuels to the US. We just destroyed a far away country and are looking to pick up a fight with another only because they have oil. Imagine what we would do in Latin America if we ever become dependant from their bio-fuels.<br />
<br />
Further, I am not sure that the elitist model of the Brazilian ethanol revolution, which Mr. Bush and even Mr. Oppenheimer seem to feel comfortable with, is good for Latin America. Brazil is one of the largest producers of ethanol in the world but 70% of that production is controlled by 18 families and a few independent consortiums. Not exactly a model for wealth distribution.<br />
<br />
Financing companies under professional management that eventually are forced to go public would seem like a much better alternative and would certainly allow for a better distribution of the ethanol wealth. Publicly traded companies would also provide Latin American pension funds with valuable titles to invest on through their local stock markets.<br />
<br />
I believe there is a need for a comprehensive “energy initiative” in Latin America that makes the region self sufficient and guarantees them adequate conditions for long term economic development. I also believe that this initiative should be far reaching and include clear policies that deal with the questions herein mentioned. Further, I believe we should participate and support this “energy initiative” because it is in our best interest for Latin America to develop.<br />
<br />
The question is though; Is this what president Bush has in mind? <b>I don’t think so!</b></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-78006084954575681532007-03-13T15:54:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:38:04.009-05:00SHAME ON YOU! MR ANDRES OPPENHEIMER - Part 2<div align="justify">
<div style="color: #666666;">
<b>For quite some time I have been following the articles of Mr. Andres Oppenheimer who writes about Latin American politics at the Miami Herald.<br /><br />While I disagree with many of his concepts and certainly never expected him to be absolutely objective it was a surprise for me to see him come out of the closet in his last article, <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/421/story/30878.html">Memo to Bush</a>, and align himself with the feverish and most conservative forces of our political establishment; The same forces that represent and promote everything that has been wrong with our foreign policy in the region.<br /><br />I feel compelled therefore to comment and expose the manipulative concepts and proposals expressed in this ill conceived imaginary letter.<br /><br />The following is my second, out of three, comment to the concepts and proposals expressed in that letter.</b></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
Gentleman:</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
Following on my first comment to your imaginary memo addressed to Mr. Bush and published in the Miami Herald on March 04 let me further expand my thoughts on the proposals you include in that document.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
The main problem with all your proposals, over and above the fact that they are not well thought, is the underlying implicit policy in which they are based on.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
From the reading of your letter it is clear that you advocate for the continuation of a foreign policy in Latin America based on slogans, false speeches and welfare but no realistic long term solutions to the problems of the region. This, even though it is clear that those problems have already started to affect us and have the potential, God forbid, of causing very real national emergencies in the US.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
This, without even considering the Geo-economic challenges in the uncertain years to come that most likely will force us to raise Latin America to the category of vital ally.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
You seem to believe that the old speech, “People of this country; I bring a message for you” is good enough for a foreign policy as long as you give away some cash to back it up.</div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="color: #666666;">Continue....</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Well, I have news for you, it is not enough. Latin Americans are not stupid and we can not afford to play games anymore because too much is at stake.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Further, the US is not alone anymore in using cute slogans like “I bring a message for you” wrapped on dollar bills for a foreign policy. We are facing real competition from what Moises Naim, Editor in Chief of Foreign Policy calls “</span><a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3732" style="color: #666666;">rogue aid providers</a><span style="color: #666666;">” the likes of Venezuela, China and even Iran. While I am not sure that our aid to Latin America doesn’t fall within Mr. Naim’s definition, I am absolutely certain that our past aid to all kind of despots and tyrants as well as our current aid to Pakistan certainly does.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">What Latin America expects from a US foreign policy Mr. Oppenheimer is </span><b style="color: #666666;">respect</b><span style="color: #666666;">. This means eliminating the upper hand and paternalistic definition of Latin America as a welfare region, which obviously you favor, and in turn treating Latin American countries as partners.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Straight forward partners that make their intentions and expectations clear. Partners that work together not out of love or compassion but indeed out of pure, cold and unmistakable interest.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Partners that decide to work together because they will both benefit from the relationship. Partners that realize and accept that they are not equals - only a stupid would believe that the US would even consider renouncing to its superpower status - but, partners that can certainly treat each other with equal respect.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Latin American countries may be poor but they have dignity. They are not a charity case; they do not need us to keep meddling in their internal affairs; they do not need compassion and they certainly deserve much more than a US president traveling throughout the region, like a Conquistador, giving away small mirrors and confetti.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Having laid down the basic problem with your ill thought proposals for Latin America I will continue posting comments on your blog addressing each one of those proposals.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-24260642357323819302007-03-08T17:33:00.000-05:002011-12-31T03:40:25.547-05:00SHAME ON YOU! MR ANDRES OPPEMHEIMER - Part 1<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>For quite some time I have been following the articles of Mr. Andres Oppenheimer who writes about Latin American politics in the Miami Herald.<br /><br />While I disagree with many of his concepts and certainly never expected him to be absolutely objective it was a surprise for me to see him come out of the closet in his last article, <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/421/story/30878.html">Memo to Bush</a>, and align himself with the feverish and most conservative forces of our political establishment; The same forces that represent and promote everything that has been wrong with our foreign policy in the region.<br /><br />I feel compelled therefore to comment and expose the manipulative concepts and proposals expressed in this ill conceived imaginary letter.<br /><br />The following is my first comment to the concepts and proposals expressed in that letter.</b><br />
Gentleman:<br />
<br />
I am glad that you are not an advisor or even someone who Bush listens to; if he indeed listens to anyone. </div>
<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<br />
I am sad though to find out the limited scope of your strategic vision towards Latin America and certainly in awe at the stereotypes you portray and the ridiculous, to say the least, concepts expressed in your letter.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue.....<br />
<br />
Let me start by saying that your choice of words to address the president (”Dear Mr. President”) in itself denotes a certain weakness for servitude. By using the word “Dear” you come across as a groupie instead of a corporate leader. Believe me when I say that no corporate leader in Mr. Bush’s inner circle would show that kind of attitude.<br />
<br />
“Mr. President” alone would have been not only proper but certainly more suitable and smart since, as a corporate leader, you would want to make sure that eventually you don’t have to regret calling “Dear” someone who most likely will be regarded as the worst president in the history of the United States.<br />
<br />
While the above is merely a cosmetic critic to that imaginary Bush “wannabe groupie” you so warmly portray in your letter, it does show your lack of understanding of the relationship between US politics and corporate America.<br />
<br />
Of a bigger concern to me though are the following comments in your letter because they are not only wrong and to a certain extent offensive but indeed because they epitomize and promote the contradictions between opposite positions of political stereotypes that do not represent the main stream thinking either in the US or Latin America. In that sense you and Chavez do come across as very much alike.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Comment # 1: …”the Democratic Party will accuse you in the 2008 election campaign of having ''lost'' Latin America.”</i></b><br />
<br />
You can not loose what you never had, never pursued and most certainly will never have; As in the letter of the song “Prohibido Olvidar” by Ruben Blades, ... “cada nacion depende del corazon de su gente y un pais que no se vende, nadie lo podra comprar” ... (each nation relies on the heart of its people and a country that is not for sale will never be bought).<br />
<br />
I am deeply sorry that you have such a poor opinion of Latin America and hate to be the one who breaks the news to you but the fact is that Latin America is not for sale Mr. Oppenheimer and we certainly are not out on a shopping spree.<br />
<br />
Therefore, your inaccurate portrayal of the United States looking upon Latin America as a possession as well as your wrong, over simplistic and malicious, to say the least, portrayal of corporate America even in an imaginary letter such as the one you have published in the Miami Herald is offensive both to Latin Americans and to us, Americans.<br />
<br />
While I will concede that there are some corporate leaders as well as conservative politicians in the United States that have a feudalistic vision of international relations, both political and economic, by far the majority of corporate leaders, politicians and the people of the United States favor and believe on international relations that are based on mutual benefit and respect.<br />
<br />
If at all, your “Dear Mr. President” and some of his closest collaborators may very well be the only ones left that believe otherwise.<br />
<br />
Further, we are people who learn from our mistakes, we are not afraid to change and we are very good at adapting to new conditions. We are aware of the risks and challenges that the US and the world will have to face in the near future; the potential impact of global warming in the productivity of the land; the potential impact of diminishing energy resources on the world economy; the potential impact of pandemics etc.<br />
<br />
We are also aware of the ever increasing inter-dependency between the US and its neighbors in the Americas. Of the risks that an antibiotic resistant strain of TBC, nurtured by misery and inadequate health standards, can pose to everyone in the continent; of the corrosive influence that drug trafficking has on institutions throughout the Americas; of the pervasive impact that endemic poverty has on the stability of all the Americas, etc.<br />
<br />
We are aware of all this, we acknowledge that some of these problems have been exacerbated by our wrong policies in the region and we are working on creative solutions to solve those problems as well as on new policies that are fair and adequate for the times we live.<br />
<br />
We may be greedy but we are not a bunch of stupid and voracious pilferers. Even when we abuse our power we do have a sense of purpose and while protecting our best interest is certainly the prevailing motivation behind our policies and actions we always have the common good at heart; however short-sighted or biased our perception of such might be.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Comment # 2: …”The Republican Party will need some big time damage control in the region”…</i></b><br />
There is no need for damage control because nothing has been damaged. On the contrary, perhaps the only success story of the Bush presidency is his policy or, I should say, his lack of policy towards Latin America.<br />
<br />
By doing nothing and leaving Latin America alone the region has been able to come off age, grow up and develop a sense of pride and self respect that is not only positive but indeed in the best interest of the US.<br />
<br />
Portraying Latin American countries and presidents as good and bad based on a manipulative linear distribution of left and right is not only absurd but has absolutely no meaning for the US.<br />
<br />
Though we are openly critical of autocratic and totalitarian leaders such as Castro and Chavez, this is certainly not the case of other Socialist presidents throughout the region. All the other socialist presidents are working to better the life and well being of their people. They are doing it within democratic governments, preserving democratic institutions and without curtailing the basic freedoms of their people.<br />
<br />
We respect that and while we may disagree with their political options there is no reason whatsoever why we should not support and work with them in areas of mutual interest. After all, while from an ideological standpoint we could not be farther apart from China, they are still our main trade partner.<br />
<br />
Promoting the senseless and self serving concept that right is good and left is bad is not on the best interest of Latin America or the United States. It is though in the best interest of extremists of all kinds both in the US and Latin America with whom, I am sorry to say, you seem to feel very cozy.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Comment # 3: “To reverse this trend and restore the U.S. image as an engine of social progress”….</i></b><br />
Don’t say what is not true. We may be an engine of technological and even economic advancement but we are well behind when it comes to social progress. We know what we are and we know what we lack. We do not need people to tell us that we are something we are not.<br />
<br />
Stop trying to be more American than Americans. It makes you look bad and it certainly will not make you earn our respect. We only respect those who respect themselves.<br />
<br />
As for your proposals, some of which I find just ludicrous, I will also be posting comments on your blog and exposing them while you are traveling through out Latin America.<br />
<br />
As a token of those comments I will leave you with the following thought.<br />
<br />
Your proposal of colonizing Latin America with our elders while luring the young working force and professionals from Latin America to the US seems like a policy inspired by the “Parricide” beliefs of the Eskimo tribes and a gullible definition for economic slavery.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-69482528040993361872007-02-13T18:12:00.000-05:002011-12-31T03:42:06.943-05:00HATE TO SAY IT! - HILLARY CLINTON IS RIGHT!<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>In the following article " <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201062.html">The Explanation Hillary Clinton Owes</a></b><b><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201062.html"> </a>", published by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post the author uses a very clever rationale to question Mrs. Clinton position on the Iraq war.</b><br />
<br />
I am not a supporter of Mrs. Clinton and I do not know who I will vote for in 2008. I do know though, that I will definitely not vote for her if she makes the claim that her vote on the Iraq war was a mistake.<br />
<br />
With his question Mr. Cohen is playing a game of catch 22 because a senator that acknowledges that his/her vote was a mistake and ends up being President will have to live up to his /her words in the likely eventuality that compensation and/or human rights lawsuits are brought up against the US in international courts.<br />
<br />
Acknowledging that you were wrong when you voted for the war amounts to saying you did something you were not supposed to do and therefore you agree that the US should be liable for that mistake.<br />
<br />
That would be absolutely irresponsible (shame on you John Edwards) and, in my book, it automatically disqualifies you for the position of President of the United States.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
We were caught with our hands in the cookie jar and therefore Mrs. Clinton is saying exactly what a responsible presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat, should say; …” if I had known then what I know today I would have voted against the war”.<br />
<br />
In politics this is called “plausible denial ability” and, in this case, it is the smart thing to say.<br />
<br />
Going to war for any other reason than "a clear and present danger" is by definition immoral but not necessarily wrong.<br />
<br />
Everyone in this country, including Mr. Cohen, myself and all our politicians, always knew, in the bottom of their hearts, that the Iraq war was about oil and that it was immoral.<br />
<br />
Further, I believe that the majority of the American people chose to go along with the slogans, the doctored intelligence and the rosy pictures portrayed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the understanding that this was going to be a fast, swift and effective operation and because of the underlying believe that sometimes you just have to do, what you have to do.<br />
<br />
Ted Kennedy was right on the money when he said ..."the Iraq war is a war Made in Texas".<br />
<br />
What the American people and certainly both Republicans and Democrats never expected was that our president would be so inept and incompetent at handling the war.<br />
<br />
That he was going to be so greedy and arrogant in sharing the spoils of war that traditional allies had no other choice but to oppose us.<br />
<br />
That the WMD excuse was an absolute fiction and that therefore it was obvious that our success in the ground was going to expose us and challenge the credibility and righteousness of our endeavor.<br />
<br />
That instead of powerful partners we were going to do this with a “confetti” alliance.<br />
<br />
That the lack of planning and vision was going to tangle up our troops in the region for years to come in a mission that can only be described as a disgrace and certainly unfair to our soldiers.<br />
<br />
All these unbelievable and even moronic mistakes are the dreadful legacy of the Bush presidency and we, the people, are going to have to swallow the “frog alive” and cope with it.<br />
<br />
There is no possibility at all that we can come out “victorious” from Iraq anymore, whatever that may mean, and therefore the only intelligent move is to move out and protect our soldiers.<br />
<br />
Let’s get the countries in the region, all the countries, together and drop the problem on their laps. They certainly have more at stake than we do in bringing stability to Iraq. We will support their efforts with money but not with troops.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1152726059030839612006-08-15T15:18:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:42:33.506-05:00A NEW FOREIGN POLICY FOR LATIN AMERICA<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>It has been a while since I had the chance to read an article on Latin America that advocates the need for a new foreign policy in the region. It has certainly been extremely long since I have read an article that offers fresh and viable alternatives to the outdated and strategically moronic Cuban centric policy we have today.<br /><br />The time has come though and I am delighted to encourage you to follow the link ahead and read this very insightful article; “</b><a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211564,00.html"><b>The Good Neighbor Strategy</b></a><b>” by Moises Naim published in the July 17, 2006 issue of Time Magazine.</b></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br />Mr. Moises Naim is Editor in Chief of Foreign Policy Magazine which I find to be a most interesting publication and therefore I am including a link to the magazine in this blog as well.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-74152502525990751432006-08-13T21:38:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:42:56.317-05:00TEAM USA; WHAT A RUSH!<div align="justify">
<div style="color: #666666;">
<b>I went to Germany with the excitement and the jitters of not knowing what to expect from the US soccer team. I must say though that I was full of anticipation, eager to watch them play and, as in the past, did not expected to see many American fans in the stadiums.</b></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
I come back though, absolutely thrilled with the performance of Team USA and, further, amazed at the number of American fans that cheered our team in every game.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<span class="fullpost"><span style="color: #666666;">Yes, we did not classify and we certainly did not play well against Ukraine and Ghana but, that really matters very little after watching Team USA play Italy.</span><br style="color: #666666;" /><br style="color: #666666;" /><span style="color: #666666;">Contrary to common believe, soccer is not an easy game. It is not enough to know how to play, have good players, know the rules and follow a well rehearsed game plan. To be a great team you need something that runs much deeper and that can’t be bought. Something each national team has to create by themselves; something that eventually becomes a permanent feature and the fabric itself of soccer history and tradition. That magic is called personality and it is what makes a team unique.</span><br style="color: #666666;" /><br style="color: #666666;" /><span style="color: #666666;">Every great team has it and diehard soccer fans can tell which national team they are watching just by the way they play. At the end of the day, soccer is all about personality.</span><br style="color: #666666;" /><br style="color: #666666;" /><span style="color: #666666;">For years I have been watching Team USA play and though it was clear that they could play the game, they were lacking that magic ingredient that gives a national team a unique personality.</span><br style="color: #666666;" /><br style="color: #666666;" /><span style="color: #666666;">Team USA had shown some sparks of personality in the 2002 World Cup but it wasn’t until the game with Italy in Germany this year that everything came together and for the first time we could see the birth of a new soccer style and personality that from now on will make Team USA absolutely unique.</span><br style="color: #666666;" /><br style="color: #666666;" /><span style="color: #666666;">A team with a beautiful personality that was certainly a pleasure to watch unfold. A personality made up of a little country, a little salsa and a little blues. A personality brought out by the passion and talent of a great player called Landon Donovan.</span><br style="color: #666666;" /><br style="color: #666666;" /><b><span style="color: #666600;"><span style="color: #666666;">I can’t wait to watch Team USA play in the next world cup!</span></span></b></span> </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-14028813697275398932006-06-11T01:27:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:45:07.228-05:00THE CHAVEZ SAGA II - "leftside"<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>The Chavez saga continues. I am herewith including additional excerpts of comments in this regard written by bloggers who visit the interesting Miami Herald blog of Andres Oppenheimer (link in this page).</b><br />
<br />
<b>leftside said:</b><br />
<br />
Mousqueton: I don't quite get ya. You quote a wonderful T. Roosevelt paragraph about the need to get rid of our country's divisions but justify the "biggest house" in the barrio being able to control the others.<br />
<br />
You urge Americans to "understand socialism as a civilized political alternative for many of our neighbors," but treat Chavez as the antichrist.<br />
<br />
I have to ask which specific Chavez position do you disagree with? Beyond style, what exactly has he done that you thought was a mortal sin, worthy of "rubbing" our friends like Chile and Ecuador with some of our heaviest sandpaper possible?<br />
<br />
You, like even the LA Times, seem to take for granted that Chavez is an enemy of democracy. But Chavez's real enemy is clear = neo-liberalism and capitalism. His democratic credentials are actually stellar in many ways (today's Venezuelans rate their democracy highest in Latin America). He's been elected more, by higher margins than about anyone. Participation is through the roof and the press and NGOs are as developed and oppositional (and free) as anywhere. And local participatory democracy is blossoming.<br />
<br />
Is it just young idealism to want to eradicate illiteracy from your country (like Venezuela and now Bolivia)? Is it just irresponsible to want to earn the maximum value on your country's natural resources?<br />
<br />
<b>mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
Off course you don’t get me!<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
While traveling to Mexico, I met a fascinating Peruvian gentleman in the plane and had the chance, later on, to have dinner with him. His name was Mr. Hector Delgado Parker and he was the owner of a major television station in Peru.<br />
<br />
He was indeed an exceptional communicator, highly educated, had a deep knowledge of both American and Latin American politics and, to my surprise, certainly very liberal by US standards. I say surprise, because I would have expected the owner of a media company in Peru to be rather conservative.<br />
<br />
He also had this special ability to break down a complex issue into its basic elements and then explain it in very simple terms.<br />
<br />
Though we talked about Latin American literature and music, most of our conversation was political. I am not going to bore you with all the details but I will certainly quote something he told me that was indeed an epiphany.<br />
<br />
He said that, in the world, there were basically two major antagonistic forces and that as absurd and amazing as it may seem both wanted to accomplish exactly the same thing; the elimination of poverty.<br />
<br />
On one side you have the radical political and business conservatives that advocate eliminating poverty by eliminating the poor and, on the opposite side, you have the radical liberal and communist interests advocating the elimination of poverty by eliminating the rich.<br />
<br />
He, like most responsible liberals both in Latin America and the US, was in the middle, advocating for a society based on solidarity; a society in which the strong take care of the week. A society where priorities and policy are decided by negotiation and compromise; meaning by this, that no one gets all that they want but everyone can live with what they do.<br />
<br />
He believed that the same principles were valid and should be the foundations over which to build a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship between Latin America and the United States. The only realistic approach possible if we were to have a long lasting relationship between so many countries with different interests and priorities<br />
<br />
He was right. That is the only answer if we are to expect progress and better standards of living for everyone in our continent, particularly for those who have so little and/or nothing at all. He was right if we are to expect Democracy to set routes and flourish in the Continent; a democracy based on individual freedom and rights; a democracy that promotes independent thinking and encourages everyone to pursue their dreams and happiness.<br />
<br />
He was right, and curiously enough, he advocated exactly what Theodore Roosevelt, though a conservative, advocates in the passage of his memoirs cited in my last comment.<br />
<br />
That is why you do not “get me” Mr. leftside.<br />
<br />
Because it is obvious that you have chosen to align yourself with one of the conflicting forces that advocate the elimination of each other for the good of the poor; an irrational and unrealistic force that will end up making the poor and the ignorant pay for your egotistical and chauvinistic ambitions.<br />
<br />
A force that will meet its match since radical conservatives in the US, who share the same purpose and motivations, will indeed be glad to oblige.<br />
<br />
A confrontation though, with an outcome that resembles the title of the novel from the Colombian writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez; “Cronica de una Muerte Anunciada” (Chronicle of an Announced Death”).<br />
<br />
Read the posting on Mr. Chavez, <a href="http://stars-stripes-stains.blogspot.com/2006/06/nothing-is-more-dangerous-than-thick.html"><b>“Nothing is more dangerous than a thick who thinks”</b>, </a>where I describe a possible scenario for that outcome which, off course, will hurt Latin America.<br />
<br />
As for your comment indicating that I despise Mr. Chavez, I am sorry to inform you that it is wrong. I could not despise Mr. Chavez because he is not that important.<br />
<br />
I do despise though, what he represents and I will explain this further, down to every small detail, in a future post.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-47250573469317952452006-06-09T01:59:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:47:10.383-05:00THE CHAVEZ SAGA I - "leftside"<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>The Chavez saga in Venezuela is becoming more and more interesting. I am herewith including excerpts of some comments in this regard written by bloggers who visit the interesting Miami Herald blog of Andres Oppenheimer (link in this page).<br /><br />By the way, we need to get those arrogant Washington idiots out of office and bring in people that think and are capable of designing a sensible, realistic and intelligent Latin American foreign policy. Enjoy!</b><br />
<b>leftside said:</b><br />
<br />
It's laughable to hear some of you rant about the irrelevancy and anti-US bias of the OAS. It shows your contempt for democracy and regional diplomacy. The OAS' history as a US dominated institution is not debatable. </div>
<div align="justify">
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
Because the region preferred a moderate Chilean over a Washington stooge is no reason to "cut them dead”. That type of bullying will get the US nowhere even faster.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
Mora, you're proposal to boycott the OAS until they replace its leadership to suit your radical Cuban friends is revealing. And your shock at the "back scratching" that goes on in international foray is hypocritical and naive. Or are you unaware of the much more crude arm-twisting the US utilizes behind doors?</div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="color: #666666;">Continue....</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">I think the most interesting story out of the OAS meeting is the US' blocking of a resolution to "prevent anyone who has participated in the planning, preparation, financing or commission of terrorist acts from obtaining safe haven, protection or naturalization in their territories for the purpose of preventing extradition." The US actually pushed a nearly identical provision on the other countries of the world, but in our backyard there are different rules (think Posada Carriles.)</span><br />
<br />
<b style="color: #666666;">mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">International forums such as the OAS and certainly the UN are political markets. Everyone deals and tries to get a good bargain for their country and/or group. These markets are no temples and you would have to be very naïve to believe that morals and principles guide the trading. It is all about business. Off course sometimes the dealing gets a little loud and even rough. That is the nature of the market. Think about a NASCAR race were bumping between cars is called “rubbing” and is just part of the race.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">We live in the same “barrio” and the US has the biggest house in the neighborhood. It is absolutely understandable therefore for quite some rubbing to go on. We put pressure on you and, once in a while, you get together and slap us in the face.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">I have to concede that we have a bully and clumsy personality. Maybe it is because we are “nouveau” rich or perhaps it has to do with the cowboy stereotype. We tend to shoot from the hip and pick up fights pretty easy. That is why we end up paying so much every time we make mistakes. What can I say, we are a work in progress and we certainly were not born in a gold crib so we do not have either the education or sophistication of the European countries. The good thing about us though, is that what you see, is what you get.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Latin America could be worse. You could have England as a neighbor and while they are very educated and sophisticated there is no doubt in my mind that living in the “barrio” would be a real nightmare. Read some history, especially the chapter about the opium wars in China were England’s inhumane doings, while very “proper”, were only comparable to those of the third Reich.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">It is also true that we have neglected Latin America for a long time. You see, we were kind of tied up overseas trying to get us the whole world. At first we had a competitor but now that we are alone, it seems that we have bargained for more than we can chew. So, we will be coming home soon and expect us to spend much more time in the “barrio”.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">I realize we will have to a lot of mending to do and certainly work on our cowboy manners as well as lack of respect for our neighbors. But, deep down, we are pretty sensible people so I think we will be able to succeed. You must concede that you are not a walk in the park either.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">What we are not, is weak. We do not allow arms in the streets of the “barrio” we share and the last time someone tried to sneak them in we were ready to go to World War III in order to stop them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">We are also very keen about people trying to start fights in the “barrio” and pitting up everyone against us. Though futile, these attitudes are a waist of time, a waist of money as well as energy and more importantly, they end up creating more misery and poverty. Something there is far too much in the “barrio” already and that we are in a good measure responsible because of our neglect. I believe that solving that main problem will be our first priority when we get back.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">The only way to build a good relationship between everyone in the “barrio” though, will be if such is based on reason. We can handle standouts like the one of Chile with the UN security appointment and even open criticism like the ones expressed by Argentina and Brazil. We might not like them, but we can handle them. That is rubbing.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">What we will not stand for is an antagonistic relationship the likes of what Chavez is promoting in the “barrio” and/or experiments with idealistic and pervasive ideologies that are based on pitting up one against the other and/or exploiting the needs of the poor for chauvinistic purposes.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">You have to be realistic and understand that this is not going to happen and should the need arise; we will do whatever it takes to stop it; at whatever cost. Rational people only fight the causes they are sure they can win, avoid those that they are sure to loose and negotiate those that are questionable.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Who knows, we may even come around and understand socialism as a civilized political alternative for many of our neighbors, especially given the fact that it would take a zombie not to feel repulsed at the poverty and misery in some of our countries. It will not be easy, but it is possible.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">For some reason, maybe ignorance or just because we are too spoiled by our riches, we have always been afraid of the word socialism. Nevertheless, we are sensible people and you find examples of that in the words of even some of our most conservative leaders. Such is the case of the following quote from the memoirs of Theodore Roosevelt.</span><br />
<br />
<b style="color: #666666;"><i>“FELLOW-FEELING, sympathy in the broadest sense, is the most important factor in producing a healthy political and social life. Neither our national nor our local civic life can be what it should be unless it is marked by the fellow-feeling, the mutual kindness, the mutual respect, the sense of common duties and common interests, which arise when men take the trouble to understand one another, and to associate together for a common object. A very large share of the rancor of political and social strife arises either from sheer misunderstanding by one section, or by one class, of another, or else from the fact that the two sections, or two classes, are so cut off from each other that neither appreciates the other's passions, prejudices, and, indeed, point of view, while they are both entirely ignorant of their community of feeling as regards the essentials of manhood and humanity."</i></b><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">It doesn’t get more socialistic than that.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">I will concede though, that in the present time, those sentiments are not evident because we have elected inept and ignorant leaders who are very similar to, and, share the same personality traits with, the likes of Chavez. What can I say; we also make mistakes and we are paying dearly for them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">This will come to pass though and it certainly is no excuse for people like “leftside” to support and promote feverish positions such as the ones being promoted by Chavez.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #666666;">Idealism is a trait of youngsters; realism is a trait of mature people and Latin America certainly has some growing up to do. That, or, in the words of Ruben Blades from the song “Conmemorando”, will end up dreaming about …”la esperanza invincible del que ha sido un perdedor”… (The invincible hope of the looser).</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1149496562211124032006-06-06T04:30:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:50:06.058-05:00NOTHING IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN A THICK WHO THINKS!<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>I believe it was Mario Vargas Llosa, the famous Peruvian writer, who, while attending a literary gathering in Madrid, said; “In literature, reality is a lie and fiction is the truth”.<br /><br />This quote came to my mind while writing a comment on a very interesting Venezuelan blog (link on this page) and before I knew it, I had written a full and very long article.<br /><br />I have indicated before that the future of America will not be found in far away lands. The future of America is here and now, and it is called Latin America. A region that we have neglected for far too long and that we have treated with very little respect<br /><br />Regardless of what we do today (Immigration laws, fences, etc.), the United States of our children will be a little country, a little salsa and a little blues.<br /><br />Therefore, it is time to wake up, drop the "Know nothings" attitude and start working to make the best out of it.<br /><br />The following article belongs to the realm of fiction and, since literature and politics are twin brothers, I will leave up to you to decide how truthful it might be. Enjoy! </b></div>
<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<br />
After reading many comments about Chavez I have concluded that people give him far too much credit. Maybe we should try to explain Chavez from a new and different angle.<br />
<br />
It is most likely that in the coming years the world will reach what has been called the <a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/">"Peak Oil"</a> breaking point. This is, the point were the growth rate of oil consumption outpaces the growth rate of oil reserves. In economics this point is also known as the point of inflection.<br />
<br />
The most conservative annalists, including Dick Cheney, Vice-President of the United States, have acknowledged that this will create a 3% annual demand/supply gap in the oil trade.<br />
<br />
We should remember that the oil crisis in the 70’s was generated by a temporary and speculative demand/supply gap of 5% and that this was enough to send oil prices up 400% and the world economy into a tail spin.<br />
<br />
Moderate and liberal annalists believe that this gap will be more like 7% the first and 10% the latter though there are some that have utter the figure of 13%. This is, 7%, 10% or 13% every year from “Peak oil” forward.<br />
<br />
Of course you do not have to be a brain surgeon to realize that, when, rather if, this happens, the consequences of even the moderate predictions to the world economy are going to be mind boggling. This also begins to give us an insight as to why is the United States spending over 300 billion Dollars in Iraq.<br />
<br />
Fidel Castro, whom I do not know and therefore can not objectively give an opinion about how intelligent he might be, seems to be at least pretty street wise and very politically savvy. He certainly is aware of the catastrophic consequences that “Peak Oil” could bring to the Cuban economy.<br />
<br />
I am sure Fidel Castro has also realized that Chavez fits perfectly into that very spicy Latin American say, full of popular wisdom, that reads; “nada es mas peligroso que un bruto que piensa” (nothing is more dangerous that a thick who thinks).<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
In his recent visit to England, Chavez was quoted by the British press as saying that while flying to London he decided to give Fidel Castro a surprise call from his presidential plane and that Castro reacted to the call by saying; “only you and Bush can do that”.<br />
<br />
This would be nothing else than a typical Latin American private joke between Presidents if Chavez had not mentioned it to the press. Indeed, this was not a joke. It was an intentional comment by Fidel Castro to prep up Chavez who, amazingly enough, believes this comment to be true and therefore, feels compelled to share it with the press.<br />
<br />
Fidel Castro’s comment to Chavez is the psychological equivalent of the treat we give pets to make them happy when we want them to learn tricks. With this kind of comment Castro preps up Chavez and makes him feel good while giving him pointers to perform political tricks.<br />
<br />
Fidel Castro may not be bright but he certainly is not stupid. He knows that, at this point in his life, all he can look forward to is watching powerless “el ocaso de una utopia” (the sunset of a utopia). He also knows that there is an eager puppy president with major intellectual, ideological and educational limitations sitting in millions of barrels of oil that he needs.<br />
<br />
“Peak oil” is not a threat of the future. “Peak oil” is upon us already and it will happen in a matter of very few years.<br />
<br />
Castro has been left with no other option but to go about making this puppy believe he can be a Latin American leader, the likes of Bolivar, so he can secure a steady flow of cheap oil for Cuba. Meanwhile, he is negotiating a long term solution to Cuba’s energy problem by signing agreements with China to drill in the Florida straights. Not an drilling agreement with PDVSA but with China.<br />
<br />
Castro knows that Chavez is a political mutt that stands no chance against pure breeds the likes of Lula, Uribe, Bachelet, Kirchner, Garcia and Calderon, but, he needs to buy time. He therefore has agreed, most likely reluctantly, to play a last Geopolitical game. A game he knows is a lost cause but a game that might give Cuba enough time to escape the effects of ‘Peak oil”.<br />
<br />
From there on, every move is strictly “Geopolitics 101”.<br />
<br />
<b>First step:</b> Make sure Chavez gets a firm grip on Venezuela to guarantee the steady flow of cheap oil. The problem is that Chavez is a man of limited skills and intellect; that is why he talks so much and writes so little. Castro knows Chavez can’t be trusted to be successful even with this simple task and that is why there are so many Cuban doctors, communication experts, teachers, advisors, etc. in Venezuela today<br />
<br />
I think though, that Castro and Chavez have underestimated the Venezuelan people and I will write a comment in this regard next time.<br />
<br />
<b>Second step:</b> Build the puppet. To do this you need a cause and either a friend or foe to provide stature. Chavez fixation with Bolivar was perfect for this purpose and that is how the Bolivarian revolution cause was born. It matters little that from an ideological stand point this cause has absolutely no substance. As long as the slogans are good, who cares if it is “un arroz con mango” (a rice and mango dish).<br />
<br />
As for stature, Chavez has no friend (political, intellectual or economic) that could provide him with stature and therefore the logical choice was to pick the biggest foe possible. The importance of a leader is measured by both who are his friends and enemies.<br />
<br />
The President of the United States was the absolute logical choice for this, though, I must say, the added benefit of an alienated world due to the George Bush policies was not in their plans.<br />
<br />
<b>Third step:</b> Plausible denial-ability. Cover the tracks so Cuba is not perceived as the ultimate beneficiary of this inevitable political blunder and especially of the oil give away. Chavez egomaniac personality and his lust for showmanship made it easy to sell him the idea that he should launch a cheap oil initiative in the Caribbean to make him look good and build a following within the region. And so, the “oil for love” initiative was born.<br />
<br />
The smart way to disguise outrageous bilateral benefits is to make them multilateral and therefore available to others.<br />
<br />
<b>Fourth step:</b> Build a critical mass. You can't be a leader if you have no followers and Chavez doesn’t have the political skills and/or ideological pedigree to lure any major Latin American country to his Bolivarian revolution.<br />
<br />
He will have to buy some key small countries to help him exercise pressure in order to bring the big dogs to the negotiation table.<br />
<br />
Mexico is a very important piece in this game but oil alone is not going to cut it with this country. This is why the “oil for love” initiative has been expanded to Central America. Also, this is why Chavez has announced that he is pulling out of the G3 group (Mexico, Colombia and Venezuela).<br />
<br />
In geopolitical terms, Central America is Mexico’s area of influence and Venezuela has made a move to step into that area. On the other hand Central America is trapped between a sword and a hard surface because they are highly dependant on oil imports.<br />
<br />
It is not likely that any of the Mexico presidential candidates would eventually agree to walk under Chavez shade and it is even less likely, given the strong ties of Mexico and the United States, that Mexico would agree to join the so called Bolivarian revolution. Nevertheless, in face of Mexico’s immigration problems in the South border, Mexico might be willing to let go the region if Venezuela stirs up conflicts in those countries.<br />
<br />
If Calderon is elected president of Mexico though, things will get rough, because he is not likely to give up any of Mexico’s influence in the region.<br />
<br />
Panama is a different story. Panama is in Colombia’s area of influence and, though a small country, it is a very important piece in the game. Pulling out of the Andean Pact was a move to put pressure on Colombia as opposed to the other members (Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia). Colombia’s trade with Venezuela is very strong and certainly most important to the Colombian economy. Uribe, on the other hand, is a very pragmatic politician and though there is no chance he would join the Bolivarian revolution, he might be willing to let go Panama to secure his trading rights with Venezuela. Uribe’s statesmanship will be tested during his second term. Colombia is also dependent on foreign oil and I would not be surprised if he starts to build closer ties both with Mexico and Ecuador as a contingency plan.<br />
<br />
With all these moves, Chavez has done the ground work to make a group of reluctant but highly pressured Ivy League countries join him in his so called Bolivarian revolution. This doesn’t make any difference from a political and even Geopolitical stand point but the puppy president is now going to have a cheering crowd to make him feel happy (another psychological treat).<br />
<br />
As for Ecuador, I have to say that I am amazed at how masterfully they are playing the game. Ecuador knows the US is in Colombia for the long run and that Ecuador stands to gain from that relationship.<br />
<br />
Recently they signed a number of oil trade agreements with Venezuela but indicated that this is as far as they are willing to go.<br />
<br />
Quietly and very business like they have reclaimed ownership of the oil industry and are negotiating better terms with the oil companies. Most likely, the outcome of these negotiations will provide Ecuador with much needed additional revenue and more important, badly needed additional US investment in their oil industry. After all, Colombia is an ally and when “Peak oil” hits, Ecuador will be entrusted with covering Colombia’s back.<br />
<br />
While the Bolivarian revolution has now managed to have some cheerleaders and even a groupie in Bolivia, it needs the big dogs if it wants to have any credibility.<br />
<br />
Evo Morales land slide election in Bolivia was a lucky punch. While he was a strong contender in the Bolivia election, no one though he could win by such a large margin. Chavez could not have asked for a more naïve and clueless president though.<br />
<br />
He has moved fast and used Bolivia to put pressure on Argentina and Brazil who, in a joint venture with Spain, were the largest investors and operators in the Bolivian oil/gas industry. Bolivia is rich in natural gas and this resource is both critical and vital for Brazil, Argentina and Chile.<br />
<br />
Both Lula from Brazil and Kirchner from Argentina had shown some interest in Chavez before. Their interest though was to use him themselves to put pressure on the United States and not to follow him. After the Bolivia fiasco, I am sure they now realize that Castro has a tight grip on the mutt and that he is not ready to share his puppy.<br />
<br />
There is an old say in Peru that reads; “God is Peruvian” and that might very well be true. It was not until recently that Peru found substantial reserves of natural gas in Cuzco to make the country self sufficient from an energy stand point and to allow them to sail through “Peak oil” unharmed. The reserves are not big enough to tempt Brazil, Argentina and Chile but they are certainly good enough for Peru.<br />
<br />
This was an election year in Peru and Chavez had his sight placed on a retired army lieutenant called Humala who has the same limitations he has. A “wannabe” politician (“Ignorance is certainly daring”) who happens to be as naïve and clueless as Morales in Bolivia. The front runner in that election was a conservative lady, Lourdes Flores, who provided an excellent platform to pit up the poor against the rich and get Humala elected.<br />
<br />
Latin American politics are unpredictable and at a wink of an eye conditions can change dramatically. In the Peruvian race, a candidate considered “un golpe” ( a long shot) suddenly started to grow in the polls and knocked out the front runner to take second place in the general election and the right to go up against Humala, who came in first, in a run-off election.<br />
<br />
Chavez went bananas and rightly so. He had openly supported Humala and poured significant money into his campaign and now was facing the possibility that the next president of Peru could be, none else, than Alan Garcia.<br />
<br />
Alan Garcia is a very smart politician and he is also very good at training pets. During the campaign, he made some comments about Chavez to the press, that he was certain would bring the feisty Venezuelan into the race. Chavez took the bait and started attacking and insulting both the current president of Peru and Alan Garcia without realizing that by doing so he was undermining Humala’s chances to get elected.<br />
<br />
Peruvians, though grateful to Bolivar, like to say that the last “Aventurero llanero” (Adventurer from the low lands of Venezuela) who passed through that country ended up splitting the country in two; Peru and Bolivia. Before that, Bolivia was known as “Alto Peru” and was part of the Peruvian territory; hence, the stronger the attacks from Chavez against Alan Garcia the higher the support from the people for this candidate.<br />
<br />
Things got so bad for Humala due to Chavez attacks, that he had to come out and publicly ask Chavez to shut up. By then the damage had already been done and Humala was history.<br />
<br />
Chavez has declared that if Alan Garcia is elected president of Peru he will cut diplomatic ties with that country and I believe he will do exactly that. The problem is that this desperate move is just too little and certainly too late.<br />
<br />
I am not going to mention any of the accusations that have been raised against Alan Garcia because I learned long ago that, in politics, both in the US and Latin America, it is very easy to use the press to make accusations and very difficult to prove a negative (I did not do it). So, unless convicted, which also rarely happens to a politician both in the US and Latin America, I will limit myself to be critical about his political decisions and the consequences.<br />
<br />
Further, for all intent and purposes, it matters little what Alan Garcia might have done in the past. What matters is what he is going to do now.<br />
<br />
Alan Garcia knows now that the geopolitical game is not a soccer game were everyone is screaming to each other for the ball and making fancy plays to make the gallery roar. He knows it is a game played in a peaceful setting, by smart people and that every player has 40 minutes to think about their next move and the probable consequences of such move further down the game. Garcia may not have changed, but he certainly has learned.<br />
<br />
Chavez is right in being scared of Alan Garcia. He should be very scared. In a single election, Chavez nemesis has been born and the initiative in the Latin American geopolitical game has changed sides.<br />
<br />
Alan Garcia is a seasoned, vicious and relentless politician. He is young, willing and certainly able to go up against Chavez and Castro. He is a pure breed with impeccable ideological credentials since he is the political heir of Victor Raul Haya de La Torre, a Peruvian intellectual who founded the APRA party; one of the oldest socialist movements in Latin America and a party with a historic and undisputed commitment to democracy.<br />
<br />
As for stature, Alan Garcia has all the right connections.<br />
<br />
He literally loves Colombia and believes it to be his second country. His ties to this country, as well as those of the APRA party, run very deep. He was exiled in Colombia during the government of Fujimori as was Haya de la Torre long ago before him. Uribe may be a little too conservative for his taste but they are both pragmatic politicians and will get along fantastically well.<br />
<br />
As for Brazil, Lula da Silva is one of Alan Garcia’s oldest friends. He knows Lula since his days as a union leader and ideologically they are indeed look-alikes.<br />
<br />
Alan Garcia’s relationship with Argentina and for that matter, the relationship of every Peruvian with Argentina, is one of brotherhood. Peruvians consider themselves forever in debt to Argentina and especially to Don Jose de San Martin, the Argentinean general that liberated Peru from Spain. Further, Alan Garcia is married to an Argentinean, Pilar Nores, who is highly regarded as a lady among ladies both in Peru and Argentina.<br />
<br />
Since the Pacific war the relationship between Peru and Chile has always been rocky. Nevertheless, if there is a politician that can bring these countries together that is Alan Garcia. The APRA party has deep roots in Chile. Many of their leaders were exiled at one point or another in Chile and married Chilean ladies. Also, from an ideological standpoint, Garcia and Bachelet, Chile’s president, certainly think in the same wavelength.<br />
<br />
Mexico is the only weak spot for Garcia but he knows that country well. Ties between the APRA party and Mexico are also strong. After all, it was in Mexico that Haya de la Torre wrote the founding manifest of the APRA party. If Garcia is able to pull Calderon/Obrador away from the demanding Mexico/US relations and pay attention to Latin America they will be on the way to a great relationship. I have the feeling that either Calderon or Obrador will indeed give Latin America a higher priority in Mexican foreign policy.<br />
<br />
Any way, Chavez days are counted. Alan Garcia will have a major impact in his Bolivarian revolution and most likely even in his political future inside Venezuela. On the other side, Garcia knows he is a young gun and that in politics there are rules. He will act as the point man for the other presidents while they remain behind the curtain and will certainly not step into anyone’s turf and/or move them out of the picture.<br />
<br />
The United States in turn will have to reach out to him and that is going to take some fine work. Fine work indeed, because, for some ridiculous reason that I do not understand, the US has always been scared of the word socialism.<br />
<br />
In the Peruvian election we were supportive of the conservative candidate and that was a mistake. Not a big mistake but certainly a mistake.<br />
<br />
The US is good at playing geopolitical games but we definitely have a clumsy style and that is why every move we make is so expensive.<br />
<br />
The British in turn are the real masters of the game. They have over 500 years of experience and as a matter of fact I think it was them who invented it.<br />
<br />
Throughout history they have accomplished amazing things and have always either created or managed to continue to have influence through some of the most enduring conflicts in the world. More importantly, they have always managed to do so without having to pay and even making a profit.The US in contrast is far away from this level of proficiency.<br />
<br />
Most Cubans in Miami are under the impression that Fidel Castro is a problem that the US doesn’t have the guts to face. Others, particularly in Latin America and certainly the puppy president, think that he is larger than life and brilliant because after challenging the US he is still in power.<br />
<br />
Both arguments are flat wrong. Fidel Castro exists because we want him to exist. Castro works for us; he is our puppy. We have been able to constrain him to a maze similar to the one used for hamsters and, though reluctantly, we get him to do what we want by opening or closing little political doors. The best about this is that we are not paying for it. As I said before, we are a clumsy but we are also fast learners.<br />
<br />
In this case, he is doing exactly what we want him to do and has been able to lure the puppy president to serve our interests. In the Latin American geopolitical game we, like Castro, also need to cover our tracks so that it is not obvious that we are the ultimate beneficiary of the things to come. Maybe the word need here is a little too strong for what we mean. In fact, it is more like, we want to do it, so that political wounds inflicted in the process can heel sooner.<br />
<br />
Castro is doing a terrific job by making the puppy believe he can be a regional leader and having him stir things up in Latin America. We, in turn, have already started the propaganda machine to back his efforts by saying that Chavez is destabilizing the region and a threat to democracy.<br />
<br />
When “Peak oil” hits the fan every country is going to run for cover. The world is going to enter into a political time gap. A sort of political time/space continium were no rules apply and, every major power will use that cover to do whatever is necessary to secure access to the energy resources they need.<br />
<br />
When we first moved into Iraq we were selfish and wanted Iraq for ourselves and our British partner. That generated a reaction from some of our allies and that is why Germany, France and Russia opposed us. Since then, we have agreed to share Iraq with France and Germany and that is why these countries have come around and are now backing our efforts in that conflict. China and Russia, in turn, want Iran for themselves and that is why they are not willing to allow us make a move on that country. That is a work in progress though and we might very well end up killing two birds with one stone. Get control over the oil and over China’s disturbing economic growth. It is amazing how the WMD excuse has served us for that purpose.<br />
<br />
Chavez, in a spark of coherence, likes to say that we are going to make a move on Venezuela. That is no news! We do not spend the money we spend on arms to sit back and see our country collapse. He is wrong though, when he pompously declares that we are going to invade Venezuela in order to kill him. That, as the British would say, is pure rubbish. We couldn’t care less about him. We are clumsy but not stupid.<br />
<br />
We are just going to take control of all the oil fields and installations in a swift operation backed by overwhelming power, secure the area pretty much like we have in Guantanamo and create a comfortable buffer zone to fight any opposition. We will of course render the Venezuelan armed forces useless and leave the rest of the country for Venezuelans to deal with. Most of Venezuela will not even notice that we are there.<br />
<br />
The way we see it, It really doesn’t matter how many rifles Chavez wants to give to the people because we are not going to chase them. His Bolivarian resistance on the other hand will have a tough time trying to survive without money. No oil; no money.<br />
<br />
Do not read me wrong, we are not going to steal Venezuela’s oil; we are just going to secure it until we feel that our interests are not in jeopardy. Of course we will pay, whoever takes over the government, a reasonable price for the oil we take. Until the “Peak oil” crisis is over though, we will have, kind of a Panama Canal arrangement, with Venezuela and eventually we will just leave and continue with what has always been a mutually beneficial and friendly relationship.<br />
<br />
This is the reason why Fidel Castro knows from the beginning that the whole Bolivarian revolution is going to be a political blunder. He knows that this travesty is as strong as its weakest link. That link is, having control over the Venezuelan oil and, for the US, taking control is indeed a gimme.<br />
<br />
During the crisis, Mexico will take care of Central America and the Caribbean, Ecuador, with our help and investment, will look after Colombia and the major countries in the South part of Latin America will be faced with having to take a very tough decision.<br />
<br />
Most Peruvians have always been wary about Chile’s military capacity and they are certainly worried now that we are selling them last generation F-16’s. There is nothing to worry about though.<br />
<br />
On one side, Chile has realized that the best way to go about Peru is by doing business. It is cheaper, mutually beneficial and the potential is huge. On the other side, a military adventure in Peru would be costly, can end up bankrupting Chile and further, it would trigger another 100 years of uncertainty. Uncertainty is bad for business because, in time, all countries have up and downs and you never know when the other part is going to strike back. Chile still needs to be more liberal when it comes to Peruvian investment but they are on the way of ironing up these issues.<br />
<br />
On the other side, we would not let that happen. The US has always been close to Peru and historically, though we have gone through some rough spots, our relationship has been excellent. Peru is not a country with expansion delusions and has always managed to take care of its domestic problems without affecting his neighbors. It is a trust worthy country that believes in fair play and further, it is the largest recipient of US aid in the world.<br />
<br />
When “Peak oil” hits though, Argentina, Brazil and Chile will have to switch into survival mode. The only energy resources left will be the ones in Bolivia and therefore they will have to make their move. Evo Morales, following Chavez feverish advice, has already badly damaged the relationship of Bolivia with both Argentina and Brazil and as for Chile, Bolivia doesn’t even have diplomatic relations with that country.<br />
<br />
Chile is willing, ready and able to spear head the move to take control over the oil and gas fields in Bolivia since, out of the three countries, Chile is the most energy dependent. Argentina and Brazil will act accordingly and back Chile 100% in this operation.<br />
<br />
Though Peru has strong historical ties to Bolivia, they will not make the same mistake they made 100 years ago by backing Bolivia against Chile in the Pacific War. This time, they will most likely join Brazil, Argentina and Chile in their survival endeavor and stand to benefit from a closer alliance with these countries.<br />
<br />
Bolivia in turn will have very little say in these events. The Santa Cruz province, which accounts for a substantial part of the Bolivian GDP and territory, has already indicated that they want to separate from Bolivia. El Beni, which is also a very large province, would follow suit if Santa Cruz moves ahead in this direction. Both provinces share a long border with Brazil and from en economic stand point their ties to Brazil are stronger than with the rest of Bolivia.<br />
<br />
A “Peak oil” scenario might force these provinces to contemplate the possibility of becoming a new State of Brazil and this country might feel compelled to oblige.<br />
<br />
Under those circumstances Bolivia’s economic feasibility as an independent country would be in serious jeopardy and it could rapidly break into pieces with the Pando, La Paz and Cochabamba provinces looking to establish closer ties with Peru and the Oruro and Potosi provinces moving towards Chile. Tarija and Chuquisaca would most likely build ties with Argentina since they already have very strong economic relations.<br />
<br />
Evo Morales will go down in history as an inept politician who fell for Chavez comical Bolivarian revolution and brought about the destruction of Bolivia. Chavez on the other hand, could end up in Jamaica writing, or I should say dictating, his memoirs. One thing is for sure, he will not be found in the hills of Venezuela with a gun in his hand.<br />
<br />
As traumatic as this might seem, in the long run, this might be better for Bolivia. Historically, regional sentiment in Bolivia, split along the lines of the three main ethnic groups (Aymara, Colla and Camba), has run stronger than national sentiment. This has made Bolivia a very difficult country to govern and the country with more presidents in the world; a real Guinness book record.<br />
<br />
Also, it could be good for Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Chile. For the first time in history those countries will share something special with the United States. They would be accomplices in embracing the policy of survival of the fittest and reshaping the Geopolitical map of Latin America to suit their interests.<br />
<br />
To lead, you have to be able to endure the moral quandary of harsh decisions and, in politics, it doesn’t get harsher that this. Guilt though, can be liberating and a very powerful force. Once you break with idealism it is easier to deal with reality.<br />
<br />
Believe it or not, this could very well be the missing foundation for a new era in Latin America/US cooperation; the key stone for a broad economic and political alliance in the Continent.<br />
<br />
As I finish writing, I can not help but remember the following words from Confucius; “may you live in interesting times”. “Peak oil’ has certainly the potential to make our times very darn interesting.<br />
<br />
<b>How about that for a new and different angle?</b></div>
<span style="color: black;"><br style="color: #666666;" /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1149199297882061032006-06-04T17:36:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:54:58.204-05:00CUBA HAS NO STRATEGIC VALUE FOR THE US. LETS FOCUS ON LATIN AMERICA!<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>While engaging in the discussion of comments posted on the very interesting blog from the Miami Herald columnist Mr. Andres Oppenheimer (find link here), I have come to realize that sooner rather than later we have to leave the Cuba issue behind and move on. Latin America is far more strategically important for our future well being. I am herein quoting some of those comments and my response to them to illustrate the case at hand.</b><br />
<b>mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
Mini-me: You are absolutely right. The US foreign policy in Latin America has been and continues to be Cuban centric and this has been both bad for Latin America and for our interests in the region. Cuba is a very small country, with a small population and a very small GDP. If at all it doesn’t deserve more attention that the one we pay to Jamaica and Trinidad & Tobago. The problem is that Republicans are businessmen and therefore they feel comfortable selling out our interests in Latin America in exchange for the Cuban vote in Florida. A shame and a pity, but it did get them in the White House.<br />
<br />
<b>proudcubanamerican said:</b><br />
<br />
“Oye Mosquito, In case you just crawled out from under a rock where you lived with the rest of the tira-flecha indios, Cuba has been at the center of a geo-political crisis in the Western Hemisphere since 1959. That makes it more relevant and important to US foriegn policy than Jamaica, Trinidad and even Mexico.<br />
<br />
It was out of Cuba that the world almost got involved in World War III during the Kennedy Administration. Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis?<br />
<br />
It was out of Cuba that approximately 2 million exiles have come to this country and built a region of this country (South Florida) that is quite prosperous and very beautiful, thank you.<br />
It is out of Cuba that President Carter suffered his second greatest political defeat (the Mariel boat lift). The Iranian hostage crisis was Carter's worst mistake.<br />
<br />
And it is out of Cuba that the US has the opportunity to win the final battle of the Cold War when Fidel dies and the country turns to democracy.<br />
<br />
Also, you make a big mistake thinking numbers instead of power. There are only 2 million exiled Cuban Americans in this country. Yet we wield more political power and clout than perhaps the other 60 million Hispanics put together.<br />
<br />
Instead of your poorly veiled passive aggressive rip on Cubans, you should try to learn something from us.”<br />
<br />
<b>mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
My dear proudcubanamerican: Let me start by saying that I do not have any passively aggressive rip against Cubans. As a matter of fact I have the utmost respect for the Cuban people and the Cuban culture. This is, for all the Cuban people and the entire Cuban culture which off course is not limited to Cubans in the US.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
Having said this I must say that I am sorry that you feel offended because I have just stated the undisputed fact that Cuba as a country, including the Cuban population in Miami, has no strategic value and/or importance for the US.<br />
<br />
It is not that I am trying to be offensive or nasty, it is just a fact.<br />
<br />
Of course you are welcomed to give your arguments as to why this assertion is wrong but you will have to do much better than the emotional and inaccurate outburst in your comment. Let me explain:<br />
1) You are wrong and a bit arrogant when you say that Cuba has been at the center of the geopolitical crisis in the Western hemisphere since 1959.<br />
<br />
It is us, the United States of America that has been at the center of the geopolitical crisis in the Western Hemisphere from the day we adopted the Monroe doctrine and due to our own naïve and inept foreign policy in the region.<br />
<br />
Cuba has only been an instrument used by both sides to show their contempt for each other. The United States punished Cuba to make an example in the region and Latin America continued to have diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba to express their contempt at the United States.<br />
<br />
Do you seriously believe that Cuba is the leader of anything in the region? Wake up for God’s sake; only in fantasy land you can dream of midgets leading giants. It would take us only hours, not even days, to take full control of Cuba. We haven’t done so because it has been in our best interest to keep things the way they are. Believe me when I say that neither the US or Latin America is afraid of Cuba and that Cuba is the center of nothing.<br />
<br />
2) You are right when you say that it was out of Cuba that the world almost got involved in world war III. What you do not mention though is that Cuba was just a puppet in that crisis. Cuba had little or no say in the crisis and the crisis itself was not of Cuban making. So much so, that the solution to the crisis was negotiated with the puppeteer (USSR) and not with Cuba.<br />
<br />
For all purposes, any minute island in the Caribbean could have been used by the URSS to challenge the US. It just happens that Cuba was for sale at the time.<br />
<br />
That doesn’t make Cuba strategically important for the US. It just makes it a sorry and opportunistic country.<br />
<br />
3) The fact that over 2.0 million Cubans have fled to the US doesn’t mean that the country is of strategic importance to us either. If at all it only proves that our policy towards Cuba has been and continues to be wrong.<br />
<br />
Freedom is not a gift that can be handed over by others. It is a right that you conquer. You have to fight and die for freedom to deserve it. People in countries through out the world have fought and continue to fight, even against incredible odds, to conquer their freedom. This is, people throughout the world except in Cuba. Our policy toward Cuba instead of encouraging the Cuban people to fight for their freedom has encouraged them to take the easy way out and come to Miami. Freedom is not going to come to Cuba because Fidel Castro dies. Freedom will come to Cuba the day the Cuban people decide to fight for it.<br />
<br />
4) The fact that Cubans are hard workers doesn’t mean that Cuba is of strategic importance to the US either. Hard work makes you decent not strategically important.<br />
<br />
5) You can make any arrogant and absurd comment about President Carter but that still doesn’t make Cuba strategically important for the US.<br />
<br />
6) As for, “the US has the opportunity to win the final battle of the Cold War”; what planet do you live on? There is no cold war anymore; when the dog died the rabies went away.<br />
<br />
Further, we are not at war with Cuba so there is nothing to win. Further more; it serves no logical purpose to fight for Cuba; there is nothing we need there.<br />
<br />
7) As for your power trip in the comment about Cubans vs Hispanics; do not spit to heaven because it might fall in your face. Cuban power is on its way down not because of other Hispanics but because of us, Americans, who have endured about enough of this nonsense.<br />
<br />
By the way, having political power in the US still doesn’t make Cuba strategically important.<br />
Last but not least, do not waste your Mexican bigotry on me because I am not of Mexican descent though, as with Cuba, I do have the utmost respect both for the Mexican people and culture.<br />
<br />
P.D. The only argument that I concede could make me change my opinion about the strategic importance of Cuba for the US is the possibility that Cuba finds oil in the Florida straights. If the proven reserves are significant, that would make a big difference. <br />
<br />
<b>ada b... said:</b><br />
<br />
“I read the arguments presented by Proud Cuban American and Mosqueton and have to agree with my compatriot from Cuba. To deny Cuba's mark on history is to deny the truth.<br />
<br />
This is a fact Mosqueton: In 1777, with the American revolution not faring so well, the colonies sent an envoy to Havana, then the oldest and most established city in the Western Hemisphere, to seek monetary aid for their cause. History books record that women of the Cuban elite gathered jewelery worth $1.1 million AT THAT TIME and donated it to the fledgling colonies.<br />
<br />
That money helped your country get born, which seems fairly strategically important to me. Please feel free to look this up on the internet and history books -- you'll be a less ignorant person for it.<br />
<br />
Also to deny the Cuban people's mark on South Florida is to be blind. If you can prove that South Florida is completely unimportant to the United STates, then I guess you can argue the Cuban people, and the country they come from by extension, are strategically unimportant. Otherwise, you are wrong again.<br />
<br />
One final point: The Cuban people tried to fight for Cuba's freedom but it was an American president named Kennedy who didn't have the stomach for it. He promised air cover and instead delivered only air at the Bay of Pigs. This while he was already sending troops in the guise of "advisors" to a disaster called Vietnam.<br />
<br />
Sounds like good old fashioned American hypocrisy to me. Ensuing American politicians then made it illegal for Cuban nationals to launch offensive operations from the US against communism on the island. I know because my father was arrested by the US Coast Guard when he tried to smuggle weapons into Cuba for a dissident group in 1971. So you are totally ignorant as to the facts when you speak of Cubans preferring not to fight and free themselves, mosqueton.<br />
<br />
By the way, I'm sure you're a brave American man. Why don't you set out on an inner tube into the gulf stream for a couple of days and then make the argument that that doesn't test a man's courage.”<br />
<br />
<b>mousqueton said:</b><br />
<br />
Dear Ms. Ada B...: Let me start by saying that I do not deny Cuba’s history nor I have anything against Cubans. I have great Cuban friends with whom I spend delightful nights zipping rum, smoking cigars and having enlightening and passionate discussions about politics, music and literature. My original statement, to which “proudcubanmerican” reacted emotionally and using terms that were certainly of very bad taste, is that from a geopolitical standpoint Cuba today is not strategically important for the United States and therefore we should abandon our current Cuban centric foreign policy and concentrate our efforts in building those relations, particularly with Latin America, Central America and Mexico, that are critical to our future well being.<br />
<br />
That doesn’t mean that I neglect the historic ties between Cuba and the United States, especially those between Cuba and the great state of Alabama. It doesn’t mean either that I am against Cuba. It just means that we have to look after our own interests and that we have bigger fish to fry. Let me elaborate in this regard.<br />
<br />
By the year 2050 China will be a market of 1.4 billion consumers and at the current growth rate will have a GDP (Gross domestic product) 1.5 times that of the United States. India will be a market of 1.5 billion consumers with about the same GDP as the US. Europe will have a market of 653 million and the US will have a population of 394 million. Our technological superiority is shrinking by the minute and we need to grow and acquire a critical mass that allows us to compete in a world of huge markets otherwise our economy will become totally dependent of foreign markets. Building an alliance with Latin America will make us a 1.2 billion market, give us access to natural resources that are critical to sustain our growth and pretty much make us self sufficient energy wise.<br />
<br />
I am sure you will concede that, in this picture, our relationship with Cuba has absolutely no relevance and certainly absolutely no strategic value.<br />
<br />
Having said this, I do feel compelled to mention that I take your comment about my ignorance as a compliment because it is of wise people to be aware of how little they know.<br />
<br />
I also want to take this opportunity to highlight some gross inaccuracies and erroneous interpretations in your comment with the only purpose of helping you become wiser.<br />
<br />
1)In 1777 Cuba was indeed the oldest and most established “Spanish” city in the Western hemisphere. It was built, owned and ruled by Spain.<br />
<br />
2) France and Spain, eager to settle old scores with their rival England, joined the Americans in their fight in 1777.<br />
<br />
3) It was not the women of the Cuban elite that gave away their jewelry to raise $1.1 million, “at that time” to help the colonies. Prominent merchants in Havana rose almost “half a million pesos” from patriotic residents (Spanish patriots) to support the war effort. The money sent to the Spanish crown proved valuable to the American victory at Yorktown - the engagement that finally broke the British will and ultimately ended the war. The Cubans, much like the Americans, were driven by a mixture of principle and practical materialism though. The merchants who raised the funds were awarded special trade privileges in exchange, particularly in the slave trade. I am sure some women must have donated their jewelry to the cause but certainly it was not an unselfish ladies initiative.<br />
<br />
4) We were and continue to be grateful to Cuba for that gesture regardless of the obvious self interest and that is why we liberated Cuba from Spain in 1898.<br />
<br />
5) I have never denied the Cuban people mark in South Florida but the fact that there are 2 million Cubans in South Florida does not make Cuba strategically important for the US. By the same token, the fact that there are over 2 million Dominicans in New York does not make the Dominican Republic strategically important either.<br />
<br />
As for the cause of freedom in Cuba I believe I should make my position very clear even though this has absolutely no bearing on my opinion regarding the lack of strategic importance of Cuba.<br />
<br />
Why is it that every time someone brings up the fact that there is no fight for freedom in Cuba the first argument is to blame the United States? What gives you the right to demand that we fight to liberate Cuba when Cubans are not fighting for their freedom themselves? Why should you be allowed to fight Fidel Castro from the US and drag us into a fight that is not ours?<br />
<br />
It was the Cuban people, not a foreign power or the US, who brought Fidel Castro to power. He did not start his fight in Miami with air support from the US. He fled into the mountains, earned the heart of the Cuban people and fought inside Cuba against Batista.<br />
<br />
There are over 10 million Cubans in the island and 2 million in the US. Cubans from Miami are not going back to the island to fight and certainly no one in the island is doing it either.<br />
<br />
As for the Bay of Pigs fighters I join you in expressing my utmost admiration and respect for those few brave Cubans (1,400) that are truly an example of bravery and unfledged commitment with the cause of freedom and love for their country.<br />
<br />
I must say though that I am appalled at the fact that there were about 70,000 Cubans in the US in 1961 and only 1,400 were willing to die fighting for freedom and country.<br />
<br />
History has taught us that wherever there is a will there is a way. People all over the world, and certainly in Latin America, have fought and continue to fight and die inside their countries for their beliefs (right or wrong beliefs).<br />
<br />
That is not happening in Cuba and it is a strong indicator that maybe the Cuban people, particularly inside the island, do not want to change the status quo and/or do not want it bad enough.<br />
<br />
As for us, you have no right to question our commitment to freedom or even raise the argument that we are to blame for Cuba’s misgivings because no other country in the world has shed more blood for freedom in foreign lands than us.<br />
<br />
I dare you to stand at the Normandy Cemetery and Memorial in France and question our resolve and commitment to freedom.<br />
<br />
We are not perfect and we make many mistakes, but no one has the right to question us because we do not fight their battles.<br />
<br />
Finally, I do not know if I am a brave man but you can be absolutely sure that if I was Cuban I would be testing my bravery with a rifle in my hand in the hills of Santiago and not in the straights of Florida.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1149135893315767102006-06-01T00:12:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:57:41.979-05:00WE THE PEOPLE, ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY SO CALLED WRONG DOINGS BY OUR TROOPS IN IRAQ<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>Recently I read an article from AP, written by Douglass K Daniels, reporting on the potential fallout from the killing of Iraqi civilians by our Marines and I can not help but to wonder; will our troops be the scapegoat of the Iraq War fiasco?<br /><br />This is a valid question because our troops were indeed the unfair scapegoat of the Vietnam War fiasco.</b><br />
<br />
Our soldiers are not a bunch of great guys eager to fight to protect our freedom, democracy and well being. They are far more than that. They are the warriors of our country. In fact, they are very dangerous warriors who are trained to kill, highly motivated by purpose and committed to “live winning or die killing”. They are not blood thirsty but they will do whatever is necessary to win. That is what we train them for and what we expect from them.<br />
<br />
War is a bestial endeavor and it brings out the worst in human nature. In order to survive in war, soldiers have to let loose the primal beast inside everyone of us and rely on its survival skills and instinct to keep them alive while hoping that, afterwards, they will be able to bring it under control again.<br />
<br />
Our troops have not only sworn to die for us but they have voluntarily agreed to expose themselves to being wounded and/or mutilated and further, to jeopardize their own sanity to keep us safe. Many come back from war to broken homes and lives and all of them have to endure the long process of taming back the beast they had to let loose. A good number of those soldiers spend the rest of their life trying and are never able to succeed.<br />
<br />
The sacrifice our troops are willing to make for all of us is so high that there has always been a silent covenant by which, we the people, have agreed to spare every soldier live that we can and to use our troops only as a last resort and in situations of clear and present danger.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
Living up to this covenant is what forced President Truman to take the dreadful decision of dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Staying faithful to this covenant is what forced President George Bush Sr. to stop our troops from marching over Baghdad in Dessert Storm. As a soldier, he knew first hand the true nature of war and the cost in soldier lives of pursuing further that war as well as the devastation that we would have inflicted to Iraq. Loss of lives and devastation that was not warranted since we had already accomplished the mission we were there for.<br />
<br />
In Vietnam, that covenant was broken and we sent our troops to die for political and strategic reasons but certainly not because we faced a situation of clear and present danger. When our troops came back we made them the scapegoat of that mistake instead of going after the politicians and leaders who took the decision of sending our troops there in the first place.<br />
<br />
During the Vietnam War we saw on television the face and true nature of war and most Americans were disgusted by those images. We should not forget them though because that is the nature of every war and every time we send our soldiers to fight we should expect reruns of the same nightmare. That is why in a civilized world, war is the last resort.<br />
<br />
Regardless of what Hollywood portrays, war is not a gentlemen affair and our soldiers are not gentlemen in fatigues, democracy preachers, country re-builders, peace seekers, policemen or any other dove like, politically correct term you want to use to define them.<br />
<br />
Our soldiers are dangerous and lethal warriors. They are also very scrupulous but they are human beings and do have a breaking point. They will get the job done though and in doing so we should expect situations such as “Haditha” to happen because when you go to war, you literally move into Satan’s domain and, hell, has a way to rub on.<br />
<br />
On the other side, we the people, not our soldiers, should take full responsibility for whatever excesses our troops may unwillingly commit because it is us who sent them knowing before hand the nature of their mission.<br />
<br />
In Iraq, our leaders and politicians have once again broken the covenant we have with our troops and sent them to fight and die for political and strategic reasons under the masquerade of a clear and present danger situation.<br />
<br />
Further, our trigger happy leaders have unnecessarily endangered the live of our soldiers by keeping them in Iraq, doing a job that is not theirs to do, long after they had accomplished their mission. An extended stay that has cost lives because our leaders were arrogant and did not secure a diplomatic agreement in the United Nations for them to take over Iraq once our troops were done.<br />
<br />
Once again, there are voices being raised to make our soldiers the scapegoat of this fiasco. Politicians taking distance, advocating for punishment and running away for cover leaving our soldiers hanging out to take responsibility for their actions.<br />
<br />
This time though, we are watching like hawks and will not let that happen.<br />
<br />
We the people will stand behind our troops, behind every one of our soldiers, and will take full responsibility for any and all of their so called wrong doings. We will never again allow for the responsibility to be placed on their shoulders and we will never again pay back their heroic sacrifice with reproach and neglect regardless of what they might have done.<br />
<br />
<b>We will not punish our soldiers for what is our responsibility in order to save face in Iraq. We shall place the guilt were guilt is due; with the politicians that send them there.</b></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1148542539341929782006-05-25T03:32:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:58:36.913-05:00THE STATE OF THE AMERICAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS SOUND AND WELL!<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>There are many language zealots out there that seem to think that the American English language is under attack and needs a law to protect it. There are also some who resent the way some minority groups use our language. Do not worry, the state of the American English language is sound and well.</b><br />
<br />
English is a Germanic language an as a matter of fact the name of the language itself derives from “Englisc” which is the name of the language that the Angles tribes, originally from Engel, spoke during the fifth century.<br />
<br />
Throughout the Norman Empire and up until 1362 the language of the British monarchy was French and Latin. At that time, the English underclass spoke four different English dialects. In 1399, King Henry IV became the first king of England whose mother tongue was English.<br />
<br />
English has always been a bastard language and that is why the majority of modern English words come from foreign not old English roots. As a matter of fact only about 1/6 of known old English words have descendants surviving today and only about 5,000 or so words from this period have remained unchanged.<br />
<br />
Languages that have contributed words to English include Latin, Greek, French, German, Arabic, Hindi (from India), Italian, Malay, Dutch, Farsi (from Iran and Afghanistan), Nahuatl (the Aztec language), Sanskrit (from ancient India), Portuguese, Spanish, Tupi, Quechua (from South America) and Ewe (from Africa). William Shakespeare himself coined over 1600 new words.<br />
<br />
So, do not be alarmed if the Latinos or Blacks, for that matter, continue to enrich American English with their own creative use of the language.<br />
<br />
That is what English is all about and why it has become the fastest growing and most widely published language in the world. There are at least eight main different regional standards of English and within each of these regional varieties a number of highly differentiated local English dialects.<br />
<br />
More than 300 million people throughout the world speak English as a first language. One in five of the world’s population speak English with a good level of competence and within the next couple years the number of people speaking English as a second language will exceed the number of native speakers. In Latin America alone, English is a mandatory second language course in most schools throughout the region.<br />
<br />
English is not under attack and certainly does not need to be protected by a law.<br />
<br />
What you should be concerned though is with ignorance. Over 45% of Europeans can take part in a conversation in a language other than their mother tongue as can 77% of their students while less than 10% of our college students learn foreign languages.<br />
<br />
If at all, we should be encouraging our people to learn foreign languages and certainly Spanish. In Brazil for example, both English and Spanish are now part of the elementary school curricula.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1148189364361597382006-05-21T01:18:00.000-04:002011-12-31T03:59:00.572-05:00THE COST OF WAR!<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>While surfing the Internet I found this interesting website with a running counter of the taxpayer cost of the Iraq war based on Congressional appropriations.</b><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
Let me tell you something; this is not for the faint of heart. Do not click on the link below unless you are ready for some very scary stuff. <br />
<span class="fullpost"><br /><a href="http://costofwar.com/index.html">http://costofwar.com/index.html</a><br /><br />Like everything in life though, you have to be careful not to draw false conclusions.<br /><br />While it is true that the amount of money being spent in the Iraq war is absolutely outrageous it is also true that what we are talking here is the lives of our soldiers and therefore any amount of money is worthwhile spending.<br /><br />What we need to ask therefore is not how much, but, how come we got ourselves into this mess and who is responsible for this absurd and inept adventure.<br /><br />Did the conveniently classified top secret meetings between Vice President Cheney and the good <b>oil</b> boys had anything to do with this?<br /><br />Was Ted Kennedy right when he said that Iraq was a war “Made in Texas”?<br /><br /><b>These are all valid questions that need to be answered and hopefully, some day, they will.</b></span></div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28398142.post-1148098673631267622006-05-20T00:11:00.000-04:002011-12-31T04:00:57.310-05:00THE ENEMY WITHIN!<div align="justify" style="color: #666666;">
<b>I believe it was Goethe who once said “Nothing is more terrifying than ignorance in action”. We have become an ignorant society that is governed by slogans without even questioning what those slogans mean. Even worst; we act based upon those slogans with no regard for the consequences. The concept of Democracy just happens to be one more casualty of the slogan vortex.</b><br />
<br />
There is no democracy if people do not have a clear concept of “freedom”. The problem is that this “God given right”, which is also a slogan, has been given in different measures and by different Gods.<br />
<br />
For Christians, the freedom granted to us by God has no limit or boundaries. So much so that we believe we are free even if we are agnostic. To say it in other words, our concept of freedom allows us the right to even negate God himself.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Continue....<br />
<br />
The prophet Muhammad though has granted Muslims a much more restrictive right to freedom. For Muslims there is no freedom outside religion and the boundaries of their freedom are clearly set by the teachings and rituals of the Muslim religion.<br />
<br />
In the Muslim world, democracy, which is a by-product of freedom, has to be part and bound by the principles of religion.<br />
<br />
Our concept of freedom and democracy will never set roots in the Muslim world because in order to do so, they would have to renounce to their religion. I am sorry to break the news to all of you but the fact is that this will never happen regardless of how many troops and/or money we send to the Middle East. They might end up holding elections but they will certainly not embrace the western concept of democracy.<br />
<br />
Our leaders know and understand this truth perfectly well, but, since the truth does not suit their purposes, they are now portraying democracy with another slogan; “casting a ballot is democracy”.<br />
<br />
<b>Well; it is not!</b><br />
<br />
For starters, freedom has not been granted to us by God. We, as a species, have agreed and decided that freedom is inherent to our condition of human beings and that therefore we have the right to be free. We have also decided that other species, such as animals, do not have the same right to freedom.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that, not long ago, we had a more restrictive view of this concept. Until 1854, black human beings were also excluded from the right to freedom and even though slavery was abolished that year, it has taken almost 15 years, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, for blacks to be able to exercise the right to freedom they were entitled to.<br />
<br />
Since we, as a species, also decided to live together in what we call societies, we needed a set of rules we could agree on to define and protect the boundaries of each others freedom. Initially, those rules were set by religious leaders and/or by self proclaimed rulers.<br />
<br />
In the Christian world though, since our concept of freedom has no limits, eventually we decided to do without the intervention of religion and rulers and, we the people, became our own rulers through a process of electing representatives to act on our behalf.<br />
<br />
This system is what we have come to know as democracy and in order to qualify as such it has to be implemented at every level of the decision making process. It also has to include the independent institutions that protect the people against government abuse and a check and balances system that guarantees that no single branch of the democratic organization can abuse the power vested on it.<br />
<br />
More important, it has to come about by the will of the people. If the people have the right to be free then it is up to them to decide how that freedom is going to be protected and nurtured.<br />
<br />
In Western civilizations the implementation of the democratic system has not been an easy process. In fact, it has been a long and very bloody process.<br />
<br />
Even in today’s western concept of democracy we find some remnants of how the process came about and this is why we have monarchic and imperial democracies as well as the ever present struggle between state and religion.<br />
<br />
Further, we still do not have a full consensus as to what exactly we mean by freedom and that is why we continue to pass pieces of legislation such as The Bill of Rights of 1791, The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 in an ongoing quest for the perfect definition.<br />
<br />
In contrast, since in the Muslim world there is no freedom outside religion it is absolutely logical that religious leaders and secular rulers who swear to protect the teachings of religion, are the ones who have been entrusted, by the people, to be the keepers of such freedom. I say entrusted by the people because no social system can survive without the will of the people.<br />
<br />
With globalization the differences between these two opposite concepts of freedom have been exacerbated and ended up colliding in an area of the world that is completely foreign to us, the Middle East, but that holds something we need; oil.<br />
<br />
If the Middle East had no oil, our foreign policy in the area would be very similar to the one we have in Africa and/or Oceania. We do not need anything from those continents so at best we would send a small contingent of troops once in a while to look good but we would certainly not be caught in a major military adventure there.<br />
<br />
We are in Iraq and the Middle East because we need the oil and since this simple truth is not politically correct our government has used, without shame, the suffering and fear of our people after September 11 and a bunch of meaningless slogans to make believe that we have a moral reason to kill and be killed in that region.<br />
<br />
There is a literary say that reads, “A text used out of context is a pretext” and that is precisely what the following slogans are; “War against terror”, “Weapons of mass destruction”, “Axis of evil”, “Imminent danger” and, lately, “Casting a vote is democracy”. Text used out of context to serve as a pretext. In fact, we could substitute all of them with the Nike slogan “Just do it” and it would serve the same purpose.<br />
<br />
Though I have many concerns about the actions and policies our government has undertaken in the last couple years justified by the above mentioned pretexts, nothing compares to the anguish of realizing that by doing so it is leading the country down a path that neglects the basic principles of freedom and democracy in which we believe and that so many Americans have died for.<br />
<br />
Misconceptions, like the ones promoted by empty slogans, misleading and false information, a culture of secrecy and the total absence of hard facts have been the tools of the trade of every single totalitarian government and dictatorship in the history of mankind. So have been assassinations, kidnappings, tortures, violation of civil rights and the timeless excuse that their actions and decisions are righteous because they are for the good and protection of the people.<br />
<br />
For centuries this has been the language of all kind of oppressive regimes and as amazing as it may seem this has become the language of our democracy.<br />
<br />
A system that uses slogans to create misconceptions and hence generate support for a secret agenda is not a democracy. It is a manipulative autocracy and, by definition, that system of government is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.<br />
<br />
This is where we are today in America. Further, we are being brainwashed with propaganda to make us believe that these rough methods are perfectly normal under a democracy and nothing is farther from the truth.<br />
<br />
<b>We desperately need to reclaim the principles of our democracy. We need to tell the truth to the people and trust that they will support any action that needs to be taken.</b><br />
Attacking a country because we need their oil is immoral, but, if you give the people the facts and the reasons why we need to do it, I believe the American people would support such action. Americans are not stupid and, as well intentioned and compassionate as they might be, they understand that, sometimes, you have to do what is needed to survive and/or guarantee the well being of our society. Basically it all boils down to giving the people the chance to assume their responsibility and accept to live with the moral burden of a dreadful decision.<br />
<br />
That is what democracy is all about and it is the responsibility of democratic leaders to explain to the people the hard facts that make it necessary to take certain actions and to inspire them to support these decisions.<br />
<br />
If we are to walk down the path of the beast to preserve our society and beliefs, we should be able to do it with no regret, because we have freely chosen to do so. Those in the world who believe otherwise have the right to oppose us and it will be the natural law, survival of the fittest, that shall determine who will prevail.</div>
<div style="color: #666666;">
<br /></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0