Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mexico's Partial Vote Recount Confirms Massive and Systematic Fraud

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:43 PM
Original message
Mexico's Partial Vote Recount Confirms Massive and Systematic Fraud
Mexico’s Partial Vote Recount Confirms Massive and Systematic Election Fraud
With Less than 9 Percent of Precincts Recounted, More than 126,000 Votes Are Found to Have Been Disappeared or Illegally Fabricated


By Al Giordano
Part V of a Special Series for The Narco News Bulletin
August 14, 2006

Finally, the hard numbers are starting to come in. In the “partial recount” of paper ballots from the July 2 presidential election in Mexico, ordered by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (known as the Trife), the recount has been completed in 10,679 precincts of the 11,839 ordered by the court (about 9 percent of Mexico’s 130,000 precincts). From these precincts, Narco News has obtained the following preliminary numbers that confirm the massive and systematic electoral fraud inflicted on the Mexican people:

In 3,074 precincts (29 percent of those recounted), 45,890 illegal votes, above the number of voters who cast ballots in each polling place, were found stuffed inside the ballot boxes (an average of 15 for each of these precincts, primarily in strongholds of the National Action Party, known as the PAN, of President Vicente Fox and his candidate, Felipe Calderón).
In 4,368 precincts (41 percent of those recounted), 80,392 ballots of citizens who did vote are missing (an average of 18 votes in each of these precincts).
Together, these 7,442 precincts contain about 70 percent of the ballots recounted. The total amount of ballots either stolen or forged adds up to 126,282 votes altered.
If the recount results of these 10,679 precincts (8.2 percent of the nation’s 130,000 polling places) are projected nationwide, it would mean that more than 1.5 million votes were either stolen or stuffed in an election that the first official count claimed was won by Calderon by only 243,000 votes.
Among the findings of this very limited partial recount are that in 3,079 precincts where the PAN party is strong and where, in many cases, the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) of candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador did not count with election night poll watchers, one or more of three things occurred: Either the Federal Electoral Institute (IFE, in its Spanish initials) illegally provided more ballots than there are voters in those precincts, or the PAN party stole those extra ballots, or ballots were forged.

“Taqueo and Saqueo”

These preliminary recounts demonstrate mainly two kinds of fraud: “taqueo,” or the stuffing of ballot boxes with false votes as if putting extra beans inside a taco, and “saqueo,” or “looting,” that is, the disappearance of legitimate ballots cast.

A significant problem, now, for Mexican democracy (for those who claim that the election was fair, and also for those who view this evidence as proof of electoral fraud) is that there is no way to tell, inside each ballot box, which of the ballots were legal and which were not; nor which ballots were stolen and which were not.

In some past post-electoral disputes for state and local offices, the Trife electoral court has opted, based on this kind of evidence, to annul the results from those precincts where stuffing or looting occurred.

If the Trife follows the law and its own established precedents, and annuls the results in these 7,442 precincts where the fraud took place, it would reverse the official results and López Obrador would emerge the victor by more than 425,000 votes nationwide.

Specifically, Calderón would lose 1,225,326 votes from his tally, while López Obrador would lose just 556,600; a difference of 668,726. When factoring in IFE’s claim that Calderón has a more than 243,000 vote advantage, López Obrador would still win the election by those 425,000 votes plus some.

In other words, if the Supreme Electoral Court determines that only half of the problematic precincts are to be annulled, López Obrador would still be declared the presidential victor. To continue to impose Calderón, at this point, would require the court’s endorsement of results from at least 4,000 precincts that the recount has demonstrated were scenes of the electoral crimes of ballot-stuffing and ballot-theft. By failing to annul those precincts, the court would, in effect, annul the legitimacy of the Mexican State, lighting the fuse on a social conflict much larger than anything that has yet occurred in the wake of the fraudulent election.


The Clock Is Ticking

The Trife court has a constitutional deadline of August 31 to complete its computations and of September 6 to either declare the presidential winner or, alternately, to annul the elections. The court has very broad and absolute power to annul up to 20 percent of the precincts without annulling the entire election (annulment would mean that Congress would choose an interim president and new elections would be called within two years). If the Trife annuls more than 20 percent of the precincts, the entire election would have to be annulled.

López Obrador and his supporters have demanded a full recount of all precincts: “Vote by vote, precinct by precinct.” And, indeed, the results of the partial recount strongly suggest that a full recount would demonstrate that they won the election. As the tension has risen, and the deadlines approach, López Obrador supporters maintain a 12-mile encampment in downtown Mexico City, have symbolically closed government office buildings, held mass marches with millions of protesters, maintained encampments outside of IFE offices throughout the country, and this past week began “takings” of toll booths on federal highways, allowing motorists to pass through without paying.

López Obrador has already announced that if the Trife tries to impose Calderón, there will be “civil resistance” at the halls of Congress on September 1, when President Vicente Fox must give his annual State of the Union address, and that on Mexico’s national Independence Day, September 15, when the president traditionally leads the “cry of pain” from the Mexico City Zocalo, the opponents to the electoral fraud will displace Fox with a cry of their own.

Many observers viewed the Trife court’s initial rejection of a full recount as a reflection of the court’s own bias and willingness to impose Calderón as president at any cost. Others believe that the electoral court’s own established precedent of annulling precincts where ballot stuffing or theft occurred puts it in a position of having to annul those 7,442 precincts (almost six percent of all precincts nationwide), reversing the results of the election. Also, recently, one of the justices of the nation’s Supreme Court suggested in public that if the Trife doesn’t or can’t establish certainty over the result, the highest court may then intervene. In other words, September 6 might not be the final date of the legal conflict over this very tarnished election.


Presence of Malice


Photo: D.R. 2006 El Universal
The partial recount has also revealed more evidence of a pattern of malice on the part of IFE officials. The existence of more ballots than there are voters in PAN stronghold precincts indicates that either the IFE illegally sent more ballots than allowed to those precincts, or somehow the party in power obtained them by other illegal means. The recount has also revealed a massive number of precincts where the seals on the ballot boxes had been broken since Election Day, opening the possibility that ballots were inserted or removed after July 2nd.

Mexico’s television duopoly – Televisa and TV Azteca – have declined to report the irregularities that have surfaced as a result of the partial recount. The same goes for much – but not all – of the corporate media. The facts have instead broken the media blockade via Internet and organization, as well as the detailed reporting of the daily La Jornada in Mexico City, the daily Por Esto! in Yucatán (two of the nation’s four largest newspapers) and some other media. Add to this mediatic schizophrenia the factor that those who support Calderón and insist the election was clean are passive, lacking conviction, whereas those millions who believe an electoral fraud was committed are active, and in the streets, and it is evident that just as the Mexican State has lost legitimacy, the corporate (especially television) media have lost credibility and power to spin public opinion.


Photo: D.R. 2006 Reforma
This morning, part of the protest encampment in downtown Mexico City, along Madero Street, was dismantled by its participants and thousands moved, en masse, to the entrance to the halls of the Federal Congress. Riot police blocked them from reaching the doors. There was some pushing and shoving, as the accompanying photos show, but demonstrators – who outnumbered police by a factor of thousands – by and large remained peaceful, still holding out a cubic-centimeter of hope that the Trife electoral tribunal will do the right thing and fix the fraud. But that patience is as thin as a razor, and as the clock counts down to the decision that the Trife must make by September 6, the electoral court and its seven judges now have the facts in hand, the evidence of systematic fraud that changed the results, which the partial recount has furnished.

The anti-fraud protestors have maintained a peaceful round-the-clock vigil outside the halls of Congress in the Mexico City neighborhood of San Lazaro for various weeks, in which many of the current senators and congress members from the PRD party have participated. At 2:15 this afternoon, elements of the Federal Preventive Police (PFP, in its Spanish initials, the same agency that invaded San Salvador Atenco in May) attacked the vigil encampment, according to this wire report from La Jornada. (The report states that six congressmen and women were wounded in the attack; El Universal reports the number of legislators wounded by police at 11.) When police forces attack and prevent duly elected senators and congress members from entering their own governing hall, the term for that is coup d’etat. It is an invitation to social revolution. The events of recent weeks and months in Mexico suggest that Vicente Fox and his attack troops would be wrong to presume that there are enough police in the country to hold back the turn of history that he is provoking from above.


Photo: D.R. 2006 El Universal
Today marks two months since June 14, when 15,000 citizens of Oaxaca beat back and chased 3,000 riot cops from that city’s historic center, revealing the “new math” of Mexican protest movements. They have since taken the state TV station and more than 30 city halls, as well as having shut down the state government in their demand that repressive Governor Ulises Ruiz Ortiz resign. Yet their numbers are a fraction of the masses that, in Mexico City and elsewhere, are resisting the electoral fraud. And added to the post-electoral conflict, more related to that in Oaxaca, is the unsettled account of 30 political prisoners arrested May 3 and 4 in San Salvador Atenco, the pending arrival there of indigenous comandantes from the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN, in its Spanish initials), and the quiet organizing being done from Mexico City and in other states by its Subcomandante Marcos and thousands of organizations and adherents to the Zapatista Other Campaign, which, outside the glare of the media and the electoral spectacle, organizes toward a national rebellion more ambitious than saving the vote of a single election, but, rather, seeking to topple an economic system. The Trife, if it imposes the fraud, will accelerate the Zapatista calendar as perhaps the greatest consequence.

If the seven electoral justices believed that holding a partial recount would calm passions, the facts unleashed by that partial recount have served, instead, to flame them. What the judges do with those facts will determine whether the institutions will correct the fraud, or whether the institutions will risk, as in Oaxaca, falling from power because of trying to impose an indefensible crime against Mexican society and democracy. What seven judges decide in the next three weeks will mark a crossroads in Mexican history… and that of all América.


Read Part I of this series: In Mexico, 2.5 Million Missing Votes Reappear: López Obrador Reduces Calderón’s Official Margin to 0.6 percent

Read Part II: A Full Recount Would Show that López Obrador Won Mexico’s Presidency by More than One Million Votes

Read Part III: Death by Video: Mexico’s Election Fraud Is Coming Undone

Read Part IV: Mexico’s Electoral Tribunal Orders Partial Recount to Begin on Wednesday

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
1. sure, a republican group of operatives was down there showing them...
how to 'do it', and that is the only thing they know how to do is steal elections so it makes sense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluerum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obreaslan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Shall we expect an "Alboroto de los hermanos Brooks" ?
Translated (sort of) as a Brooks Brothers Riot. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
4. Sounds like an accurate total recount is not possible
I wonder what they are going to do about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. If they follow past practices, they would annul the votes of the ...
recounted districts: AMLO would win. However, I somehow just don't think that that's what they will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. No, that does not follow logically from the information given
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 04:39 PM by slackmaster
From my reading it isn't possible to determine what effect the fraudulent activity actually had on the outcome. Too much information has been lost. People are making a very big and IMO very shaky assumption that all of the fraudulent actions were done on Calderon's behalf.

A re-vote would be the only way to make sure it went as the voters really intended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Slackmaster, Lopez Obrador would hardly be insisting on a recount if HIS
side committed fraud! All evidence I've read of, so far, is pro-Calderon fraud (or pointing to pro-Calderon fraud). For instance, the ELECTRONIC reporting system was rigged to report heavy Calderon precincts LAST--late into the night--where the reports were of 90%, 100% or more than 100% turnouts for Calderon--all of it statistically impossible. This did not occur with any Lopez Obrador precincts. Only Calderon precincts. And this is true of all of the evidence I have read of. It is not at all a "shaky assumption" that most of the irregularities favored Calderon. And I would say that the millions of Mexicans in the streets, for weeks and weeks now, tells you something about what THEY experienced in the election, and what THEY perceive about its fairness. Millions of people don't disrupt their lives, and camp out in the capitol, for weeks and weeks over NOTHING. If they had a weak case--or if there was anything to the argument that "both sides cheated"--it would be well known by now (it would be blasted in blazing headlines throughout the corporate-controlled press, for one thing), and the fervor of these millions of protesters could not be maintained. They would lick their wounds, go home and try again next time. They are obviously inspired by the strength of their case--in a system, unlike our own, that is still recountable.*

-----------------

*(In the 2004 election in the U.S., one third of the country voted on paperless electronic voting machines--un-auditable, un-recountable--installed by Congressional coup during the 2002-2004 period, and 80% of the nation's votes were "tabulated" by two corporations with very close ties to the Bush junta, using TRADE SECRET, PROPRIETARY programming code, with virtually no audit/recount controls. This radical change in the election system occurred so fast--as the result of a $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle, engineered by the biggest crooks in the Anthrax Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney--that most people didn't realize how riggable it was. The story of its installation--and of who was counting our votes and how--was the most black-holed story in the history of American journalism, and is only just now leaking out in fits and starts. Mexico, on the other hand, still uses paper ballots--so the rigging is VISIBLE. If U.S. voters had been aware of what the Bushites had done to our election system, they, too, might have been in the streets by the millions. Mexico still has some vestiges of democracy. We are in a far more perilous condition. People here have been massively disinformed about the election SYSTEM.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. I still think a re-vote under tight control is the only possible solution
Edited on Tue Aug-15-06 07:15 PM by slackmaster
Lack of anecdotal reports one way or another proves nothing when we have strong evidence that the chain of custody for many of the ballots and ballot boxes was broken. We can't be sure who did what to them, or when, or even necessarily what they were trying to accomplish.

They are obviously inspired by the strength of their case--in a system, unlike our own, that is still recountable.

Righteous-looking behavior counts for nothing. How can you call the election "recountable" if it is clear that in some cases ballot boxes were stuffed and in others ballots were discarded? If the integrity of a precinct's sealed ballot boxes has been comrpmised, there is no longer any confidence in their contents.

Mexico, on the other hand, still uses paper ballots--so the rigging is VISIBLE.

Only if a vote-rigger is so careless as to leave more completed ballots in a box than there were people who voted, or too few completed ballots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. And the main story spread among the MSM?
Calderon wins! says Calderon. Losers unhappy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
6. Mexico, we know how you feel.
We've had a couple of elections stolen recently, as well.

You didn't really think we voted for this goofball, did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Astonishing
Why is Mexico's democracy so much more durable than the United States'? Remember back in 2000, that waiting even a few days beyond four weeks after the election was unthinkable, for both the claimed winner and his tools on the Supreme Court. It was just too precarious for the American system for the outcome of the election to wait for a recount in Florida to establish the actual winner rather than the claimed winner. Our entire nation was tottering on the brink of total anarchy, according to the Republicans.

Oddly enough, it's been several more weeks of uncertainty in Mexico, yet anarchy hasn't swept that nation. People still go to work, send their kids to school, obey traffic lights and observe all the other conventions of civil society while the outcome of their election is still up in the air. Why don't we respect democracy as much as Mexico? Or, more properly, why doesn't the Republican party respect democracy and the will of the people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. You're setting the bar too low:
judging Mexican 'democracy' against the recent U.S. record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. The National Endowment for Democracy (Sourcewatch)
This is the right-wing organization that is stealing elections all over the world.

National Endowment for Democracy
From SourceWatch

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Washington D.C-based non-profit funded by the U.S. national budget, boasts that it is "supporting freedom around the world."

Carl Gershman has been President since April 1984.

NED's website describes its mission as being "guided by the belief that freedom is a universal human aspiration that can be realized through the development of democratic institutions, procedures, and values." NED, which is publicly funded, "makes hundreds of grants each year to support pro-democracy groups in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, Eurasia, Latin America, and the Middle East." <1> (http://www.ned.org)

NED funding mostly flows through the four foundations listed below; these in turn are active in influencing "civil society" and electoral processes around the world, in a process sometimes referred to as "cloak and ballot" operations. While NED remains accountable to the U.S. Congress and has to publish its disbursements, this doesn't apply to the organizations that it in turn finances.

Other groups undertaking similar activities around the world based in other developed countries include: the Australian Centre for Democratic Institutions (CDI); the Westminster Foundation; the Canadian International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

Another similar US group was also formed in 1984 called the Center for Democracy.

Table of contents
1 Founding

2 Involvement in Foreign Political Processes

2.1 Europe
2.2 Nicaragua
2.3 Haiti
2.4 Venezuela
2.5 Iran
2.6 Moldova


3 Revolving doorways

4 Fostering "Free Press"

5 Covert Embedded Reporters

6 Conducting Polls

7 Critiques and Support

8 Funding

9 Officers

10 Directors of the Board

11 Affiliated Contractors

12 Contact Information

13 SourceWatch Resources

14 Websites critiquing the NED

15 External Links

Founding
NED was founded during the Ronald Reagan presidency in 1982, and shaped by an initial study undertaken by the American Political Foundation. <2> (http://www.ned.org/about/nedhistory.html)

NED was created with a view to creating a broad base of political support for the organization. NED received funds from the U.S. government and distributes funds to four other organizations - one created by the Republican Party, another by the Democratic Party, one created by the business community and one by the "labor" movement (N.B.: the names of these organizations have changed over time):

International Republican Institute (IRI)
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI)
Chamber of Commerce's Center for Private Enterprise (CIPE)
AFL-CIO's American Center for International Labor Solidarity
Although publicly funded, the activities of these four institutes are not reported to Congress. According to William Robinson, "NED employs a complex system of intermediaries in which operative aspects, control relationships, and funding trails are nearly impossible to follow and final recipients are difficult to identify."

In a March 2005 interview, former CIA officer Philip Agee discussed the thinking behind NED's establishment: (Dennis Bernstein, "Philip Agee, Former CIA agent speaks on Venezuela (http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html)", Flashpoints, March 14, 2005)

During the late 1970s there was new thinking at the highest levels of the U.S. foreign policymakers, and they reconsidered whether these ugly murderous military dictatorships of the 1970s were really the best way to preserve U.S. interests in these countries – U.S. interests being defined traditionally as unfettered access to the primary products and raw materials, to the labor and to the markets of foreign countries. This new thinking led to the establishment in 1983 of the National Endowment for Democracy. They had chosen the German pattern in which the major political parties in Germany have foundations financed by the federal government. They did more or less the same thing with the establishment of the NED as a private foundation – there is really nothing private about it, and all its money comes from the Congress.
But then there were the other core foundations – this was the fundamental mechanism for promotion of democracy around the world, but in actual fact, when they say the promotion of democracy, or civic education, or fortifying civil society, what they really mean is using those euphemisms to cover funding to certain political forces and not to others. In other words, to fortify the opposition of undesirable foreign governments as in the case of Venezuela, or to support a government that is favorable to US interests and avoid of coming to power of forces that are not seen as favorable to US interests. This will be the case since the early 1990s in Nicaragua because all those programs that were started in order to assure the defeat of Daniel Ortega in 1990 continued, and they continued to make sure that Sandinista Front was not reelected again after their defeat in 1990 – and that has been the case. These programs go on in various different countries and they require quite a bit of research. ... I am sure that one could find these programs in Mexico, Colombia, Peru probably, Brazil, and other countries outside the Latin American region.
Involvement in Foreign Political Processes
NED regularly provides funding to opposition candidates in elections in countries other than the USA. According to Allen Weinstein, one of the founders of NED, "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" (Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, 2000, p. 180).

NED has principally supported candidates with strong ties to the military and who support the rights of U.S. corporations to invest in those countries with minimal restriction. The NED has not supported candidates who oppose investments by U.S. corporations or who promise restrictions on investment rights of U.S. corporations.

Tom Engelhardt (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=7585) notes that "we've seen "the Rose Revolution" in Georgia, "the Orange Revolution" in Ukraine, and now "the Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan, all heavily financed and backed by groups funded by or connected to the U.S. government and/or the Bush administration." He then quotes Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times, who writes:

"The whole arsenal of US foundations -- National Endowment for Democracy, International Republic Institute, International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES), Eurasia Foundation, Internews, among others -- which fueled opposition movements in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine, has also been deployed in Bishkek ... Practically everything that passes for civil society in Kyrgyzstan is financed by these US foundations, or by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). At least 170 non-governmental organizations charged with development or promotion of democracy have been created or sponsored by the Americans. The US State Department has operated its own independent printing house in Bishkek since 2002 -- which means printing at least 60 different titles, including a bunch of fiery opposition newspapers. USAID invested at least $2 million prior to the Kyrgyz elections -- quite something in a country where the average salary is $30 a month." <3> (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/GC26Ag03.html)
Europe
In the 1980s, NED also funded political groups in some Western European countries. Investigations by French newspaper Liberation revealed that NED funded right-wing French political groups such as the National Inter-University Union (associated with violent groups).

During the 1990s, NED invested some money, at least about $9,000,000 <4> (http://www.maloca.com/zagloba/ned.htm), in Eastern Europe to support its vision of economics and the shock therapy program, leading to unemployment rates of about 20-40% in Eastern European countries. In Serbia, NED also meddled, by among other things funding Otpor - purportedly a non-violent youth shock group.

Nicaragua
Before the 1990 elections in Nicaragua, "President Bush (Sr.) spent $9 million in NED, including a $4 million contribution to the campaign of opposition presidential candidate Violeta Chamorro" (John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge is Good for You, Common Courage Press, Monroe Maine,1995, page 166). Chamorro won.

In 1990, Michael Kozak was the US ambassador for Nicaragua; he is presently US ambassador to the Republic for Belarus where the US is busy "promoting democracy" at this very moment (2005), and in his own words:

"Our objective and to some degree methodology are the same. Then we worked with the Sandinista authorities, the Organisation of American States, other countries in the region, and the former Soviet Union to encourage a free, fair and transparent election."
"Twelve years ago, we advised the Nicaraguan opposition that the best way to pursue their political agenda was through participation in a peaceful electoral process; today we are giving the same advice to the opposition in Belarus." <5> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,542155,00.html)
Haiti
In the 1990 elections in Haiti, NED supported Marc L. Bazin, providing a big fraction of his total U.S.-supported campaign funds of $36 million. Despite this funding, he only obtained 14% of the vote. Bazin had earlier been a World Bank official. He was seen by most Haitians as a "front man for military and business interests", and had been prime minister during military rule, for the presidential election. <6> (http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Zone/2424/haiti1.html)

In February of 2004, Haitian political instability erupted thanks to NED's providing financial and technical support to anti-Aristide groups such as the Democratic Platform. The Democratic Platform denied supporting the armed resistance that killed scores of people and created many refugees, but organized many disruptive rallies that forced Aristide to scramble in order to maintain order. <7> (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-copposition14feb14,0,7280682.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines) Combined with a freeze on aid to Haiti, silence from the administration of President Bush (Jr.) and preparations for housing "15,000 Haitian boat people after they are interdicted on their way to Florida," the will of the United States appears to be regime change in Haiti. <8> (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb04/Leight0212.htm)

Venezuela
During 2001/2002, NED gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to U.S. and Venezuelan groups who organized protests and a coup d'etat against the elected president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. The coup happened on 11 April 2002. According to Wayne Madsen, a former intelligence officer with the U.S. navy, U.S. military attaches such as Lieutenant Colonel James Rogers had been in touch with members of the Venezuelan military to examine the possibility of a coup, while Roger Rondon claimed that both James Rogers and another US military officer, Ronald MacCammon, had been at the Fuerte Tiuna military headquarters with the coup leaders during the night of April 11-12. <9> (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,706802,00.html)

In 2003, Terry Allen wrote, "Using the same conduit Reagan used to fund the contras, the National Endowment for Democracy, the George W. Bush administration had funnelled money to Venezuelan 0pposition." <10> (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2003/11.html) Documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act show that $1 million of NED funding went to opposition groups determined to unseat Chavez. <11> (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/04/1554235) <12> (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=500711)

During a March 2005 interview, former CIA officer and author of Inside the Company, Philip Agee, discussed the role of NED in Venezuela: (Dennis Bernstein, "Philip Agee, Former CIA agent speaks on Venezuela (http://www.flashpoints.net/index.html)", Flashpoints, March 14, 2005)

The failed military coup attempt of April 2002 was about one million per year. That was National Endowment for Democracy money being channeled through the so-called core foundations of NED, which are the foundations of the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Democratic and Republican parties; there are four of these foundations. In the wake of this failed coup against Chavez, a decision was taken in Washington to expand dramatically the amount of money and the types of operations that have undertaken to that point. ...
Meanwhile the NED programs continued through the four core foundations, two of which have offices here in Caracas. ... So there are in fact three supposedly private offices opened here in Caracas through which all these millions of dollars are being funneled out to the Venezuelan opposition. And it turns out in the one contract between USAID and Development Alternatives Inc., USAID named the staff in the Caracas office, and there was a provision in the contract that not one of those people could be replaced unless they were named by USAID. So you have these three offices here, that are nothing more than extensions of the United States embassy, under the control of the embassy, of the State Department, of USAID in Washington, and posing as private firms (two foundations and one commercial consulting firm) while as a matter of fact they are no more than extensions, mechanisms and instruments of the US embassy.
In September 2005, the Miami Herald reported that NED approved a $107,000 grant to Sumate, "a Venezuelan citizens group whose leaders already face charges in Venezuela of using Washington's money to try to overthrow President Hugo Chavez's government. ... Súmate leaders could face prison sentences of up to 16 years if convicted of 'conspiracy to destroy the nation's republican form of government' by accepting $31,000 from NED in 2004. Súmate helped gather the signatures to force last year's recall referendum on Chávez, which the president won handily." The 2005 grant was to train up to 11,000 people on electoral rights, in small groups of 20 to 25. <13> (http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/12629899.htm)

Iran
According to the NED's online Democracy Projects Database (http://www.ned.org/dbtw-wpd/textbase/projects-search.htm) the following Iranian groups have received grants from the NED since 1990:

Iran Teachers Association (1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2001, 2002, 2003)
Foundation for Democracy in Iran (1995, 1996)
National Iranian American Council (2002)
Women’s Learning Partnership (2003)
Abdorrahaman Boroumand Foundation (2002, 2003 and 2004)
Center for the International Private Enterprise (2004)
Vital Voices Global Partnership (2004)
Moldova
"In 2003, the BIOTICA Ecological Society received NED funding to ensure the expansion and long-term survival of the nascent civic sector in Transdniestria by establishing five NGO resource centers in the breakaway region." <14> (http://www.ned.org/grants/03programs/highlights-cee.html)

Revolving doorways
The close alignment of the NEDs activities with US foreign policy interests comes as no surprise, especially when you consider the revolving doorways between the US Government and the NED Board of Directors, some of the most notable of which include:

"...former US Secretaries of State, Henry Kissinger (Nixon) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton), former US Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci (Reagan), former National Security Council Chair Zbigniew Brzezinski (Carter), former NATO Supreme Allied Command in Europe, General Wesley K. Clark (Clinton), and the current head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz (George W. Bush). Another notable, Bill Brock, served as a US Senator, a US Trade Representative, and US Secretary of Labor, and then Chairman of the Board of NED." <15> (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?sectionID=19&itemID=8268)
Fostering "Free Press"
In late 2004, Adam Wild Aba wrote, "The new intelligence law also directs the State Department to promote a free press and the development of 'professional journalists' in the Muslim world. It says free press is a must as part of the overall public diplomacy strategy for the Middle East, according to the State Department’s statement. Under the law, the National Endowment for Democracy shall fund a private-sector group to establish a free-media network to help participants share information concerning development of free media in 'societies in transition'." <16> (http://www.islamonline.org/English/News/2004-12/25/article05.shtml)

NED also supports the nonprofit organization Internews which encourages media worldwide to "promote democracy". In 2004, Internews had a budget of $27 million, 80 percent of which came from the U.S. government.

Covert Embedded Reporters
Several articles about the political process in Haiti, Iraq, and the Palestinian-occupied territories have appeared in The New York Times, NPR, and other mainstream US media. The impression is given that the articles are from bona fide journalists, but it transpires that several of them are paid by the NED or its affilated organizations. The case of Regine Alexandre is particularly interesting. She wrote articles for the New York Times, AP, and commented on NPR. It transpires that she is on the NED payroll, and the NED confirmed this fact. However, when confronted with this information both the NYT and NPR failed to respond or take this seriously.

Source: Anthony Fenton and Dennis Bernstein, "AP reporter RéGINE is wearing two hats," (http://www.haitiaction.net/News/FP/12_29_5/12_29_5.html) Haiti Action.net, December 29, 2005.

Conducting Polls
NED (or its satellite organizations) has been active in conducting election exit polls in Serbia, Ukraine, Venezuela. These results were used on occasion to cast doubt on the actual election results, and thus deligitimize the winner of the election, and thus create pressure for an election re-run. <17> (http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/031905Mowat-1/031905mowat-1.html)

In December 2004, the NED-association organization International Republican Institute conducted a survey in Iraq to determine the popular intent to vote. It found that 75% of Iraqis would opt to vote, thus lending some legitimacy to the elelectoral exercise. However, IRI didn't poll the key cities where the insurgency is strong, i.e., Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul. <18> (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/10479673.htm) Such surveys lend legitimacy to so-called demonstration elections, and discredit those opposed to the elections.

Critiques and Support
On the right, NED has been criticized by the Cato Institute which issued a briefing which states, "NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements." <19> (http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-027es.html)

On its website, NED notes the criticism but responds that "over the years mainstream conservative activists have been among the most outspoken advocates on behalf of the Endowment. Endorsements of NED have been offered by the leadership of such stalwart conservative organizations as the Heritage Foundation and Empower America, and favorable editorials have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and National Review." <20> (http://www.ned.org/about/nedhistory.html)

In his 2004 State of the Union Speech, Bush proposed doubling funding for NED and called for a greater focus on "its new work on the development of free elections, and free markets, free press, and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world." <21> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html)

In March 2006, a number of activists (including amongst many others Howard Zinn, Gore Vidal, Michael Parenti and David Harvey) launched a new US project called the International Endowment for Democracy (http://www.iefd.org) which critiques the activities of the NED.

Funding
NED receives an annual appropriation from the U.S. budget and, while a non-governmental organization, is subject to Congressional oversight. In the financial year to the end of September 2002 NED's budget was US$48.5 million. <22> (http://www.ned.org/publications/02annual/02finance.pdf)

In December, 2005 PhD researcher Sreeram Chaulia noted that:

"...97 percent of NED’s funding comes from the US State Department (through USAID and before 1999, the USIA), the rest being allocations made by right-wing donors like the Bradley Foundation, the Whitehead Foundation and the Olin Foundation.(http://www.ned.org/publications/04annual/auditors04.pdf see)" <23> (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051225&articleId=1638)
Officers
Vin Weber Chairman
Thomas R. Donahue Vice-Chair
Julie Finley Treasurer
Matthew F. McHugh Secretary
Carl Gershman President
Directors of the Board
Frank Charles Carlucci III of the Carlyle Group
Wesley Kanne Clark, retired General, presidential candidate, and board member of Stephens Group, a venture capital company
Michael Novak of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Francis Fukuyama, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Affiliated Contractors
While most of NED's funding is directed towards the four affiliated core foundations, these in turn hire a variety of "consulting" companies. In the past, these have included:

Albert Einstein Institution - involved in most Eastern European countries
Delphi International Group - involved in Nicaragua
Development Alternatives Inc. - involved in Venezuela
IFES - involved in Haiti, Pakistan, Afghanistan
Penn, Schoen and Berland - Specializes in surveys and "exit polls"; involved in most Eastern European countries and in Venezuela
Contact Information
National Endowment for Democracy
1101 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington DC, 20005
Phone: 202 293-9072
Fax: 202/223-6042
Website: www.ned.org
SourceWatch Resources
Center for the Dissemination of Economic Information
Imperial terror in South America
U.S. Agency for International Development
America ’s Development Foundation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Thanks for the info on NED, and in the OP (on Mex.)! What's the AFL-CIO
doing, using workers' dues and their union, in conspiracy with Bushites to support rightwing candidates and undermine and destroy the Left in other countries? I wondered about this when I first heard of NED and AFL-CIO activity in Venezuela. I can't see anything in it for the AFL-CIO, or, in any case, for its rank and file. Maybe it's just a way of getting grants--or of achieving a labor presence/point of view within nefarious U.S. and foreign groups. Anybody got a clue on this?

It doesn't make much sense to me, even if the AFL-CIO leadership is severed from the rank and file, in the manner of the Democratic Party (--millionaire political operatives faking concern for the poor and colluding with Bush on turning the poor into slave labor and cannon fodder). Labor leaders have to maintain an appearance of being pro-labor, right? The issue in so many of these countries is labor rights--decent wage, safe working conditions, education, health care, etc. --the right not to be corporate slave labor. Also, clearly, the proliferation of sweatshops worldwide has greatly undermined labor rights here in the U.S. You get too uppity, they outsource all your jobs to Saipan and Cambodia.

The South Americans are fighting off these US-based global corporate predators, and utterly rejecting the economic model they impose (World Bank/IMF). You'd think the AFL-CIO would be cheering them on, or at least trying to appear as if they were--not joining the Dark Lords in direct electoral interference.

I'm also wondering about that oil strike in Venezuela--a strike of the rich, elite professional class, who were hording oil profits--that followed the coup attempt, in a second effort to remove Chavez, this time by crippling Venezuela's economy. (The third attempt was the Recall, which Chavez won handily in the most heavily monitored election on earth.) Of the three attempts, the oil strike was the most devastating, and almost succeeded. Anybody know what, if any, part the AFL-CIO played in that strike (which was basically a coup attempt)?

Chavez is NOT a communist--very decidedly not--and is not a violent or repressive revolutionary. He represents a badly needed ADJUSTMENT of the capitalist system with social justice measures--an ADJUSTMENT that is occurring with amazing peacefulness throughout Latin America (in Venezuela, Bolivia, Chile, Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, where it has won the major elections, and with a growing movement in Peru, and even in Columbia--virtually the entire continent is moving dramatically to the left). Why would the AFL-CIO oppose this PRO-LABOR movement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
12. Wow. Thanks for the heads up.
Narco News rocks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
13. I guess Choicepoint didn't train them well enough to cover things up!
Looks like they spent most of their time in helping the Calderon people setting up the election fraud and not enough in putting in ways to cover their tracks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pushycat Donating Member (401 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Covering up tracks is not so important when you have all the
major news avenues sealed off. Our elections are so corrupt I have a hard time believing it myself. We should have rioted against that dumb SC decision of 2000 ! The opposition down south really puts us to shame they way they've stayed the course and pressed for this partial recount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. As I said in another post on this thread,
the Mexicans are doing the work US citizens won't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
15. So Olbrador wants to use the oil wealth for the good of the people
and Calderon wants to do bidness with the BFEE. Gosh, I hope we wouldn't get involved in manipulating their elections.

<snip>
Mr. Calderón . . . would be preferred by many U.S. officials . . . "Definitely, from a Washington perspective, it would be easier to work with someone like Calderón . . .shares an economic philosophy with the White House . . . Mr. Calderón, 43, is a free-market proponent. He promotes lower taxes, more private investment in the government-controlled energy sector . . .

In the debate, Mr. Calderón touched on some of the themes near and dear to Washington, such as investing more money in oil exploration to keep Mexico, one of the U.S.'s biggest suppliers, from running out of crude in the next decade. . . .

Traditionally, the Mexican government has dumped oil profits into the government's general fund to pay for everything from education to roads . . .

In February, Mexico was the No. 1 foreign supplier of crude oil to the U.S., averaging nearly 1.8 million barrels per day. Normally, Mexico is No. 2 or 3, behind Saudi Arabia and Canada. end>

http://www.kvue.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/world/mexico...

<snip>
Left-of-center candidate Andres Lopez Obrador wants to de-emphasize production of crude oil and focus instead on refined products such as gasoline and plastics, while his main challenger, conservative Felipe Calderon, proposes opening the industry to foreign oil corporations to help increase crude exports.

Calderon, candidate of the pro-business National Action Party (PAN), says that foreign companies, which are allowed only as contractors providing oil-field services such as drilling, seismic work and infrastructure construction, should be allowed to enter into joint-production agreements with Pemex.

Lopez Obrador defends the ban on most foreign investment and has pledged to build three gasoline refineries and boost petrochemical production. He notes that Mexico annually spends $4.5 billion in gasoline imports and nearly $10 billion in petrochemical imports, mainly from the United States. Pemex has made no significant refining investments in 20 years, and none in petrochemicals in 15 years.

In Tabasco, engineers who have been fired from the company complain that Pemex under the Fox administration has unnecessarily given billions of dollars of service contracts to U.S. companies such as Bechtel, Halliburton and Schlumberger.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/200...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
17. kick for Obrador
Criminals in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nothing Without Hope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
19. ***Link to AUTORANK's excellent compilation thread from yesterday***
Be sure to also look at his additional posted links in the replies:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x445931

K & R for Mexican democracy and the patriotic and courageous Señor Obrador
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tblue37 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
20. As usual,
Mexicans do the work that Americans won't do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomfries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-15-06 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC