An unsourced rumor in Honduras...

[Peace Patriot]

BoRev has posted a link to a Spanish language web site--which contains what BoRev describes as an "unsourced rumor"--regarding a meeting between Shannon and the National Party (rightwing*) candidate for president, Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo. The gist of the story is that, to sign the agreement, Zelaya wanted assurance that he would be restored to his rightful office, and Lobo agreed to deliver the votes in congress to restore Zelaya to his office (though Z will be greatly curtailed in his power as president). This is to Lobo's advantage, because he is ahead in the polls, and getting US and international recognition for the election is vital to him (and key to getting US, EU and LatAm trade and various kinds of aid, including US military aid, restored).

I read some hint to this effect, recently--that Lobo would likely back the deal because he is likely to win the election. It's no skin off his nose to have a disempowered Zelaya as president for a few months. Then Lobo will be in charge, with legitimacy that Micheletti's coup regime does not have.

So this "unsourced rumor" makes sense. Not sure I got all the nuances. Better Spanish readers than I am might want to check it out.

http://www.borev.net/2009/11/whiskey_tango_foxtrot_honduras.html#comments
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/EE/UU/pacto/garantias/vuelta/Zelaya/poder/elpepuint/20091101elpepiint_7/Tes

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

*(I don't pretend to understand the nuances of the National vs Liberal parties in Honduras, except that (I gather) there isn't much difference between them. They are like our Puke and Dem parties here, pre-Bush. (The Bushwhack Pukes are extreme, naked, unapologetic fascists--prior Pukes were better at disguising it; and the Dems, well, they are insurance company leftists and have been for a long time. We haven't seen a real Democratic leftist as president since FDR.)

(Zelaya, then, is an anomaly--a Liberal party president who took "the will of the people" seriously (an FDR type). And it was the Liberal party--Zelaya's own party--that spearheaded the coup d'etat against him. This may be why Hondurans--who give Zelaya a 67% approval rating--are apparently supporting a rightwing-tending candidate for president--Lobo. Voters are pissed off about the coup, and want to punish the Liberal party and its traitorous Mitcheletti's. I don't know how bad of a rightwinger Lobo is--or if he is a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' (so to speak), like George "compassionate conservative" Bush. And I don't know zilch about the Liberal party candidate. I do know, though, that an independent candidate for president in this Honduran election has broken bones from police beatings. Any real leftist has had no chance of being heard. Hondurans have been without civil rights for the last four months, with all objective and opposition media shut down. And both the National and the Liberal party candidates supported the coup (i.e., got air time). So how do the Honduran people even know that they have a choice?

(Zelaya is not going to go away, by any means. The moment he's out of office--in January--I expect him to start organizing again for a Constituent Assembly, like all his supporters have demanded (the labor unions, human rights groups, religious advocates of the poor and grass roots groups of every kind). Some 25 people have sacrificed their lives for this cause. The cause has never been stronger. Zelaya is already a legendary figure and will be a rallying figure for reform. And it's possible he will join in creating a new political party. But in the meantime the fate of his policies--such as doubling the minimum wage--is in doubt, and the safety of leftist political activists is a big question. The left (the people) will win, in the end. They are part of an historic leftist democracy movement that has swept elections in the region. It cannot be stopped. Will Lobo continue the violence against it? I really don't know--but my guess would be that, once the international spotlight is off, he will be as much of a golpista as Micheletti. If he's smart, he will call off the death squads, the police and the military, and allow gradual change (or at least some alleviation of poverty). If not, things could get even uglier in Honduras.)

[rabs]

1. Llorens has denied that Shannon and Lobo made a deal, and did not meet at all

Just heard a report on CholusatSur that Llorens said it was a "malicious lie" and that it was part of the misinformation campaign by the anti-Zelayistas to muddy the waters and create confusion.

The report originated on Sunday in the Madrid newspaper El Pais, a rightwing newspaper that is respected in the Spanish-speaking world. The article was immediately picked up by the golpista press in Honduras.

The El Pais report also said that Shannon had "forced" Zelaya into accepting the accord because if Zelaya did not, his son Hector would be charged with narco-trafficking in the United States. Hector Zelaya is reported to be living in St. Petersberg, FL, studying at a university there.


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

Btw, the WSJ published a vicious hit piece on Llorens yesterday (Sunday). Not sure what to make of the real "why" behind the article just yet but first impression is that the WSJ is pissed at the possible restitution of Z.

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

If there is one person in Honduras who is more despised these days than deposed president Manuel Zelaya it is a foreigner who goes by the name of Hugo. We refer here not to the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chávez but to U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.

Many Hondurans, including, rumor has it, President Roberto Micheletti, see Mr. Llorens as the principal architect of a U.S. policy that has caused enormous Honduran hardship.

There is a chance that the agreement signed late Thursday between the interim government and Mr. Zelaya will put an end to that suffering. Finally the U.S. and the Organization of American States (OAS) have agreed to step aside and allow Honduran institutions to decide if Mr. Zelaya is to be reinstated. Without international meddling, it is quite likely that Mr. Zelaya will be refused the presidency once more.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574508141774783168.html


Have to go out but will check what is happening tonight.

[Peace Patriot]

2. Thanks, rabs! I should have known that this was an anti-Shannon (and therefore,

in current circumstances, an anti-Zelalya) rumor. But I had no familiarity with El Pais, so couldn't judge what their motives might be in promoting an untrue story. And the story seems plausible. That's what Shannon was supposed to be doing--getting assurances on all sides, that the agreement would go forward. This is what negotiators and diplomats do. I guess the shock value is that the US was trying to create the illusion that the golpistas have a choice--that the Honduran government isn't a US puppet--and this story strips away that illusion. There is Shannon "fixing" the congressional vote. But, hey, was anybody, anywhere, in any doubt that Honduras is a US client state? So the purpose of this rumor is just to embarrass Shannon? Probably.

And, for the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would object to Zelaya being restored to office for two months! He has promised not to seek a Constituent Assembly (for now). He will have to share power. Then he's out. It seems like the perfect "lipstick on a pig." Order restored. Reform prevented.

Okay, let me think this through. Why would anybody object? (Or, in other words, who is the WSJ pimping for?) Well, I can see the grand architects of Rumsfeld's war plan objecting. They wanted to establish a precedent--that coup d'etats and killing leftists is back. And they wanted a place to experiment with importing death squads from Colombia, and subduing leftist activists. So they wanted the coup to stick. 'This is how things are going to be from now on,' they would say, 'You get out of line, you oppose US policy, you get ousted if we feel like being nice, and murdered if we don't.' (Just like how it is in Colombia.)

Nothing immediate or obvious is at risk for corpo-fascists or war profiteers in general--just letting Zelaya be president for two months, with few or no powers. The "ten families" remain in full control of the powers of government, with their control of the police and military well-established. Anybody gets out of line in the future--and, say, proposes converting the US military base to a commercial airport--knows what will happen to them. The movement for reform will have virtually no advocates in government--they've all been purged, and the new president will be a "ten families" tool. So what's the problem with two months of a disempowered Zelaya? The precedent! And the people who play that kind of game are very big powers--the Pentagon, Exxon Mobil, James Baker.

Jim DeMint probably feels tweaked. If Zelaya is restored--even for a brief period--his support of the coup looks a bit smelly, and he is proven to be less powerful than he imagines. But he is nothing more than puppet for the above.

Restoring Zelaya serves everybody's purposes except the long term war planners, who wanted another foothold--like they have in Colombia--where they call the shots. You live, you die, at their will. One 'lily pad," delivered.

Zelaya restored: The leftist democracy movement at least gets the satisfaction of democratic order being restored (however tenuous it may be). Zelaya gets out of his prison in the embassy. The golpistas get to step into the background gracefully. Clinton/Shannon get feathers in their caps. Obama makes good on his word. His peaceful corporate policy can get started (deals with Brazil, etc.) Even the military and the police have a chance to redeem themselves looking like the guardians of liberty at the polling stations. And all the money starts flowing again.

There is only one "interest group" whom restoring Zelaya doesn't serve: the architects of the plan that this coup was only part of. Even those who just wanted to secure the US base are served, by Zelaya's return (by the legitimacy of the current order being re-established). Evicting the US military has been taken "off the table." That is one of the farthest reaches of reform--decades away. If that's all they wanted. But if they are war planners, they want much more. They want total control of Honduras, with no hitches. They want the precedent of removing any president who gets in their way. They want war power over Honduras. They don't give a crap about the appearance of legitimacy. In fact, they would like people to perceive them as all-powerful. (That is one of the purposes of death squads--not just to remove dissenters, but to impose a reign of terror--to make everyone afraid.)

What's good for business is democracy--or at the very least the appearance of democracy. But that is not true of warmongers. They operate best from a tyrannical position--with everyone afraid to oppose them. They are not interested in people having money to buy things, nor in the free movement of goods. They are interested in recruiting cannon fodder, bleeding the public coffers for war booty and using violence, and great war machines, to acquire resources. Everyone--even Chiquita, even the clothing retailers with their sweatshops, even the "ten families," benefit from restoring Zelaya for two months. Goods flow, money flows. But the makers of war are not happy with it. That is who the Wall Street Urinal is speaking for.

My guess.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Wow. Real hardball. Never heard it, before this. Very strange.

What a shame Llorens was chosen to be the one to deliver this bit of blackmail. Zelaya is the least of their problems if they think forcing his cooperation will solve everything. They are trying to overturn the will of the Honduran people.

The WSJ story is wildly ugly, but they have been on a virulent, vicious destructive path regarding Hugo Chavez from the first, long before Rupert Fox Murdoch bought the paper. The author of the article is a shrieking lunatic. She's nowhere close to a real journalist. What the heck IS she, anyway?

On edit, adding article regarding the WSJ's article:

More Bizarreness from the WSJ on Honduras
By Steven L. Taylor

One of the consistent elements of the Honduras story has been the odd columns by Mary Anastasia O’Grady of the WSJ which seem to be written from an alternative universe

In today’s piece she writes:

There is a chance that the agreement signed late Thursday between the interim government and Mr. Zelaya will put an end to that suffering. Finally the U.S. and the Organization of American States (OAS) have agreed to step aside and allow Honduran institutions to decide if Mr. Zelaya is to be reinstated. Without international meddling, it is quite likely that Mr. Zelaya will be refused the presidency once more.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that there would have been no agreement sans “international meddling” by basically the whole hemisphere, the fundamental basis of the paragraph (and the whole column) is nonsensical.

The crisis in Honduras was precipitated by the inability of Honduran politicians to find an adequate means of dealing with the inter-branch conflict that had arisen over Zelaya’s plebiscite short of a coup and exile, not by international involvement.

Indeed, had the Honduran authorities simply arrested Zelaya that morning and/or engaged in some legal proceeding with due process, one suspects that that most that would have come out of Washington would have been some sort of passing statement about internal Honduran politics and probably little else.

Moreover, the events of June 28th, 2009 were the first of several opportunities that Honduran institutions had to directly deal with Zelaya.

If, as has been constantly asserted by the interim government and the coup boosters, there was a clear legal process that was being followed by the Honduran Supreme Court and Congress to allow them to remove the president from office, then the question remains on the table over a 100 days into this process as to why they did not pursue it.

They had the chance on the morning of June 28th, 2009 to arrest Zelaya and hold him for trial. Instead, they forcibly exiled him from the country.

Then on July 5th they had the chance to let him return to the country and arrest him then. Instead, they would not let his plane land. Later that month Zelaya played footsie on the Honduras-Nicaragua border. Instead of arresting him upon his return to Honduran soil, the authorities let him briefly come over and leave.

None of this is the behavior of a state who has a slam-dunk legal case against a fugitive. It is not the behavior of a government that wants very much to settle a legal issue but is being prevented from doing so by outside actors. Instead, this has always been a case of a set of political actors hoping very much that if they wait out a problem long enough, that it will go away.

http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=17229

[spanza]

10. El Pais, a right-wing newspaper? How come?

I thought El Pais was close to the Spanish Socialist Party (PSOE). In Europe, El Pais is seen as a moderate left-wing newspaper.

"El compromiso de El País con la democracia ante el 23-F, el triunfo por mayoría absoluta del PSOE en las elecciones de 1982 y su abierto apoyo al gobierno de Felipe González, facilitaron que El País se consolidara, durante la década de 1980, como líder de la prensa española, frente a ABC, de tendencia más conservadora.

Al prestigio de El País contribuyó su riguroso tratamiento de las normas periodísticas y el hecho que fuese el primer periódico de España en establecer normas internas de control de calidad. Así, fue el primer diario español en crear la figura del «Defensor del lector» (equivalente al Press Ombudsman anglosajón) y en redactar y publicar un Libro de estilo que se convirtió en referencia, y continúa siéndolo, en el mundo del periodismo.<6> El País también estableció varios acuerdos de colaboración con otros periódicos europeos de línea socialdemócrata. Así, en 1989, El País participó en la creación de una red común de recursos informativos con La Repubblica (Italia) y Le Monde (Francia).

...

A principios de la década de 1990, El País tuvo que hacer frente a una nueva situación tanto política como periodística. El incremento de la tensión política causado por los escándalos de corrupción del gobierno socialista de Felipe González bipolarizó tanto a la política española como a la prensa en medios de izquierda y de derecha.

A partir de entonces, tanto desde el entorno del Partido Popular, como de los medios de comunicación afines ideológicamente a aquel, se ha acusado a El País y al resto de medios propiedad del Grupo Prisa<7> <8> junto con Sogecable<9> <10> de apoyar a los intereses del PSOE"

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pais

[Braulio]

3. Leftist what?

I wouldn't be counting on an ultra left wing trend in Latin America. Brazil seems to be getting its act together, Lula has been a great leader, and will likely work in an axis with Obama's USA to contain communism in Latin America.

One would think the Fernandez-Kirchner defeat in Argentina, and the forthcoming defeat of the left in Chile would be a sign that things aren't just as red as you think. The keys to Latin America are Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia - that's where the population and cultural centers are.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Oh, Braulio, you are such a scream!

"Lula ... will likely work in an axis with Obama's USA to contain communism in Latin America."

So, what do you make of Lula da Silva and that "communist" Chavez celebrating this week, and announcing their abiding friendship and accord on numerous big development projects, with Lulu specifically stating that he chooses Venezuela over the U.S.?

That's what the man said. The occasion was Lulu's final stomping of the rightwing on the Brazilian senate committee who were obstructing Venezuela's full membership in the Mercosur trade group.

Lulu and Chavez are close friends and allies. They meet monthly to discuss various projects. And Lulu has also said, of Chavez: "They can invent all kinds of things to criticize Chavez, but not on democracy!"

He is a friend and dauntless defender of Chavez. He will not be "divided and conquered."

He is a great leader, I'll grant you that. And he for sure wants to work with Obama on US/Brazil projects. But he is absolutely not who you seem to think he is--an idiot commie hater.

Is free universal health care "communist"? Is free education through college "communist"? Is equal rights for women and gays "communist"? Is giving Exxon Mobil a punch in the nose "communist"? Is working amicably with France's Total, British BP, Norways's Statoil and other big corporations "communist"? Are honest, free and transparent elections "communist"? Is disliking the US trying to pull off a violent rightwing military coup in your country "communist"? Is using the profits from a country's main resource--in this case, oil--to benefit the poor majority and develop the country "communist"? Is tough bargaining on their behalf with multinational corporations "communist"? Is a ten percent economic growth rate over five years time, with most of the growth in the private sector, "communist"? Is forming a trade group, ALBA, and forming a regional lending institution, the Bank of the South, and helping to form a South American "common market," UNASUR, "communist"? Please tell me what makes you think that Hugo Chavez is a "communist."

And, since what I have told you is the absolute truth--that Chavez and da Silva are close friends and allies--are you going to start calling Lulu a "commie lover"?

----

"I wouldn't be counting on an ultra left wing trend in Latin America."

Who said anything about "ultra left wing"? You talking about Maoists, or what? NOTHING that Chavez has done is "ultra left wing." His policies are quite well in line with European socialism--not to mention with common decency--and he is running a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. You seem to get your sense of the political spectrum from the Wall Street Journal. There are other ideas in the world, you know--ideas like the common good, a decent life for everyone, equal opportunity, sharing the wealth, and government "of, by and for the people" rather than "of, by and for" global corporate predators and war profiteers. And none of the political systems that maintain these values are "communist." Perhaps the most leftist of them all are Sweden and Norway, which both believe in cradle-to-grave welfare for their people. Nobody starves. Nobody goes homeless. Everybody has a decent life--that is a DUTY of the government and of society. And they also have private money and ownership, private industry, and corporations, and make lots of business deals. And people have maximum civil liberties and individual freedom--but they must pay their fair share of taxes. Venezuela current political/government system has the same aspirations, and is structured along the same lines. It does not even remotely resemble any known "communist" system. And it is not "ultra left wing." If anything, it is to the right of Europe's most socialist countries. (Its taxes are lower; its rich/poor discrepancy is bigger; it does not provide "cradle-to-grave" welfare, but mere poverty alleviation and bootstrapping; and it has a lot less regulation of every kind.)

I don't see how you can deny that there is a leftist trend in Latin America. Leftist governments have been elected Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay--that's the whole continent except for Colombia and Peru--and in Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, and a leftist president in Honduras--that's about half of Central America. Also, the leftists in Mexico came within a hairsbreadth (0.05%) of winning the presidency in the last election. Some of these elections are quite recent--and some were very big surprises (Paraguay comes to mind; also El Salvador). Whatever happens next--in Chile or Argentina--this has been not just a leftist "trend" but a huge leftist trend--and a very remarkable one. That is the reality. Whether or not the rightwing (with millions and millions of our tax dollars, through the USAID-NED and other US agencies, and the constant help of the corpo-fascist press, not to mention CIA psyops) can reverse it is merely a guess and apparently your wish. Is it? Do you want to see the rightwing rise again in Latin America?

[Braulio]

6. Lula Celebrates with Chavez

Lula is probably the greatest president Brazil ever had. He's smart, sophisticated, and surrounds himself with very smart people. And one of the keys to his success is the way he supports Brazilian business interests abroad.

Thanks to Lula's diplomacy, Brazilian companies have secured no-bid contracts to carry out large projects in Venezuela - projects Venezuelan companies could do, if they had been bid out.

The faction supporting a yes vote for Venezuela to join Mercosur is the business community, they're salivating because between Lula's charm, the Mercosur bid, and Venezuela's growing dependency on imports and desire to shift away from Colombian imports, they think they got that market locked.

The Brazilians are even working on a deal with the Swedes (never mind the puffery about their deal with the French) to buy Swedish fighter bombers, with the proviso that Swedish technology be transferred to Brazil. This will allow them to build fast modern jets for the arms market, and they hope Chavez will be one of their best customers.

Politically, Lula and even the Brazilian "right" are close to the Obama Democrats in the USA. And the Republican melt-down in the post-Bush era means the Democrats are likely to be in power for a long time.

The Brazilians are cynics, they know the USA has a serious problem with human rights, Iraq, Afghanistan, and its support for the Israeli criminals, but they are looking out for number one. And this means they play ball in a low key way with the US. Long term, they would like to see the FARC defeated, and make sure the USA military clears out of Colombia. But they're willing to softball the issue now, because right now they got bigger fish to fry - and to them the number one goal is economic development. And economic development means selling stuff to Venezuela, and getting those juicy no bid contracts for Brazilian companies. So they'll work with the US to contain Chavez, quietly, using the typical good cop-bad cop routine. What do you think the deal in Honduras is about, with Zelaya sleeping in the Brazilian embassy? It's all worked out in sync.

[spanza]

9. Again and again, false affirmations

Chavez made free universal health care and free education through college, Venezuelans' political choice is only between Chavez and the imperialists... none of them are true. Concerning the first two affirmations, I don't understand why people insist in denying historical facts.

Brazil has ALWAYS been pro-US, they didn't even join the non aligned congress as a member. And now, their industrial elite is really happy that Venezuela doesn't have any industrial policy and exchange rate logic for competing against them.

If I was a Chavez supporter, I would rather give some nuance concerning the 2003-2008 growth in Venezuela. I would say a considerable part of it was due to the oil shock, so that, if the oil goes down or stagnates, I would have the possibility of saying that the crisis is due to the oil bust and not to the government's management.

The snake eats its tail.

[Peace Patriot]

11. "Brazil has ALWAYS been pro-US..." WTO-Cancun, Mexico, 2003

Brazil LED the block of 20 'third world' countries who walked out of the WTO meeting in protest of US and other 'first world' protectionist policies against third world products--and other bullying and lack of democracy and fairness.

Brazil's leadership nearly destroyed the WTO. It has never really recovered. Now it's reorganizing to be less dominated by the US. The US was the enemy!

Where you been, girl? Lula da Silva is a leftist. He is closely aligned with Chavez, Correa, Morales, Lugo and other leftist leaders, and with the poor countries of the world.

He has not made anti-US statements, generally--although he did say that the US 4th Fleet, reconstituted by the Bushwhacks in the Caribbean, poses a threat to Brazil's oil, and proposed that South America create a "common defense--but his quieter views about the US (compared to Chavez and Morales, for instance) may be because he was never been the victim of a rightwing military coup sponsored by the US. That could turn you a bit negative, no? Even Chavez, though, has made it clear that he has no animosity toward us--the people of the US--nor toward Obama. He has continued the free heating oil programs here, and provides the US with 15% of its oil.

-----

This sentence doesn't make any sense. What do you mean?

"If I was a Chavez supporter, I would rather give some nuance concerning the 2003-2008 growth in Venezuela. I would say a considerable part of it was due to the oil shock, so that, if the oil goes down or stagnates, I would have the possibility of saying that the crisis is due to the oil bust and not to the government's management."

The astonishing growth in the Venezuelan economy, under the Chavez government, over the previous five year period (2003-2008) had nothing to do with "oil shock," and most of the growth was in the private sector (not including oil). The growth was due to the right stimulus packages being applied--for instance, loans and grants to small businesses and co-ops, and government projects like the building of the Orinoco bridge--creating business startups and providing jobs; putting money in peoples' pockets, to get things going, That and bootstrapping of the poor are what should be done with the oil profits--and also saving money for a "rainy day," which they did very well. I don't know why you want to deny these facts, or put your own negative spin on it--but the truth is that Chavez government managed the economy very well--and in some respects, conservatively--produced a continual high rate of growth, and now are facing a downturn, like everybody, due to the criminal irresponsibility of the moneyed class here and throughout the 'first world.' And you ought to consult Lula da Silva about what he thought of that--gross US financial irresponsibility. His remarks are as angry as I've ever seen from him.

I am not a "Chavez supporter." I can't vote in Venezuela. But I think he's been a good president, completely undeserving of the bile that's thrown at him from Washington and our benighted press corps--undeserving on the facts, not on any stake I have in the matter. I look at facts. Transparent election system. Near 60% approval rating, consistent over time. High percentages of people saying they are satisfied with the direction of the country. Using the oil revenues wisely and for the benefit of society. Funding education. Printing the Constitution on the grocery bags in government food subsidy stores. Things like that tell me a lot. Wants people to know their rights. Wants people to read. Hands out free copies of "Don Quixote"! Saves a lot of the public's money in a "rainy day" fund. Punched Exxon Mobil in the nose and got away with it (so far). Fighting for Venezuela and its people against corporate monsters like that. Has courage. Has inspired a lot of people. Shut down Stanford Bank before anybody (cares about Venezuelan investors). Good friends and allies with Lula da Silva, who praises him as a democrat with a small d, and also a "peacemaker." These things add up. My positive take on Chavez is not my kneejerk reaction to a leftist leader, just because he is leftist. I've researched the matter, including every allegation that has been made against him, every one of which has turned out to be false, once you review the facts and the context (most of which is left out--or greatly distorted--in our press).

I don't like being lied to. I didn't like being lied to about WMDs in Iraq. I don't like being lied to about Chavez. If he's a bad leader, the people of Venezuela have had every chance to say so and to do something about it. That he's a good leader is their judgement--which is the only important one. And it really bothers me when my government lies about this, or tries to topple a democratic leader, or throws MY money into rightwing groups to sabotage someone whom the people of Venezuela approve of and want as their president. That's my main concern--what MY government and our global corporate predator rulers are doing--to destroy the democratic choices of others, to force other countries to kneel before their power, and to inflict a rotten deal on their people to make the rich richer here.

And if he fails his people, if he becomes corrupt, if he makes huge mistakes out of ego, or whatever could happen to a thus far successful and popular leader, and Venezuelans throw him out, in a fair and honest way, that's fine with me. I hope they hang onto the good things he did, and find new leadership of the caliber that he and his government have shown so far.

[spanza]

12. Historically, Brazil has been one of the closest allies of the US in Latin America

Remember Brazil actively participated in WWI and WWII, being the only Latin American country to send troops to fight (like 30,000 in WWII). From 1946 to 1964, the only non pro-US president to stay in office more than a year was Goulart, deposed by a military coup in 1964. One year after, Brazil was sending troops to the Dominican Republic in order to counter the leftist pro-Bosch revolt, fighting with the US marines against the Dominican. In 1976, Nixon sent Kissinger to Geisel's Brazil and the two countries signed a memorandum of mutual consultation and Brazil became the only third-world country with Saudi Arabia to have such an alliance with the US. In the democratic period (1985-), only Sarney (1985-90) took some distance with the US, before Lula.

What happened in the WTO was about agricultural subsidies given to US and European producers by their governments. Every single food-exporting third-world country, including the closest allies of the US, supported Brazil's position. It's a question of self-interest and I wouldn't qualify it as a rupture in US-Brazil relations. The same goes for his comments on the 4th fleet and the oil in their littoral, which were pretty similar to the ones made by US aligned Brazilian dictators Medici and Geisel, with their 200-miles maritime zone policy, and the Costa e Silva "Latin American Nuclear Community".

Brazil is a giant trying (and finally succeding) to expand its natural zone of influence. Lula is the head of a coalition of parties, half on which are explicitly opposed to Chavez. I wouldn't say Lula is closely aligned with Chavez at all. Lula isn't closely aligned with anyone. His comments are the ones of a president representing his country's commercial interests and he knows very well that his model of state is rival to Chavez's model for taking the lead in Latin American actual leftist dynamic.

[Peace Patriot]

14. You sound like a CIA analyst, wishfully thinking.

This is what the CIA, working on behalf of US war profiteer and global corporate predator interests, WANTS to be the case: that Lulu is just a self-interested deal-maker who considers Venezuela a rival for power, and will be easy to "divide and conquer." Makes a slick thesis to hand to the boss. And I think you and such analysts really miss the boat. Lulu has consistently defied US dictates on "isolating" Chavez since at least 2006. That's when I first noticed his deliberate supportive actions--quite dramatic ones, like visiting Chavez for a celebratory opening of the new Orinoco Bridge on the eve of the 2006 election in Venezuela, concerning which the opposition and the Bushwhacks were planning a second putsch attempt. They meet monthly. They are good friends. And Lulu has been an absolute brick in supporting the smaller countries, including the most left of the leftist countries in South America, and Venezuela, when Chavez needed his support, and now Honduras. He has not pushed anybody around, or "gone it alone," which Brazil could easily do, with its large size, resources and economic clout, and he has specifically, publicly disavowed that sort of attitude by Brazil. His philosophy is "raise all boats."

Brazil's dictatorial past, and its putrid alliance with the likes of Kissinger, is something I'm sure Lulu would find absolutely disgusting as any kind of guide for Brazil/US policy now or measure of Brazil's importance. I think you are really out of tune with Lulu. You don't "get" him. Could be you're right that he's just a shrewd operator and everything else is "show." But I wold be very surprised if that were true. I don't see that at all. And I really looked for it. I wondered about him, because he made what I thought was a very bad deal with the Bushites on biofuels (bad environmentally, bad as social policy, short-term thinking on jobs). I was prepared to conclude just what you have concluded, but I decided to look closer and followed his relations with Chavez, in particular, very closely, and other actions and statements of his. I think Lulu is a leader of very high caliber who sees the "big picture"--that South America has strength in unity, and will be conquered again, and picked off individually, and RUINED again, one by one, if they don't stick together. He is genuinely friends with Chavez on a deeper level than we normally see in politics. These South American leaders are more like the Founders of the USA, who had a mission, pulling the states together for maximum effectiveness in their goals, for strength in numbers, and on the basis of common principles. Only in unity could they defy the powerful British Empire and build their own sovereign world. Only in unity, can Lulu, Chavez and the others defy the US empire and build their own sovereign world.

It was interesting what trouble Michele Batchelet went to, to include Colombia in UNASUR, and even to include them on the "common defense" committee (though that may turn out to have been a mistake). "Unity" was the watchword. It's what drove her to work so hard on that matter. She even got Colombia to vote with majority for a unanimous resolution on the Bolivia crisis. And it's also what drove Chavez in his various gestures toward and "forgiveness" scenes with Alvaro Uribe. Unity. Colombia sticks out like a sore thumb, but they have tried all sort of strategies to pull Colombia into UNASUR's orbit and away from the US. This illustrates how important the concept is, to Batchelet, Lulu, Chavez and all of these other leaders. I think they are more or less following the EU model, as well as the early US. And they are certainly informed by Simon Bolivar's vision of a "United States of South America."

Seeing Lulu as just in it for Brazil misses everything. It's a superficial analysis. It misses the passion of the man, what moves him, and why, with Chavez the other day, he called it "an historic moment." And he went on to define that as a moment of South American countries choosing each other--as friends and economic partners--rather than each of them "looking north" to the US for an alliance.

You can say this is all blather and politics and "shrewdness"--which I guess is always a possibility with politicians--but when you then look at Lulu's actions, or the others' actions, you see this principle of unity, that underlies their thinking, result in concrete policies, for instance Lulu's help to Paraguay's Lugo in renegotiating Paraguay's hydroelectric contracts with Brazilian companies. Lulu told the companies that Brazil cannot tolerate something that is so unfair to Paraguay, a poor neighbor who needs help. His appeal to them was to "raise all boats." And they knuckled under--even though it reduced their profits. Or Chavez's help to Argentina, when Argentina was suffering World Bank/IMF meltdown. The Chavez government loaned them part of the money help pay off their debt--at a very critical moment. I've followed these kinds of events in both corpo-fascist and alternative news sources so frequently that it has become routine to see another cooperative project announced, or another big country helping a little country, or some other gesture of unity and 'we're all in this together.' It is such a consistent theme that you'd have to be blind to miss it. And it is simply not blather--it involves loans, and contract help, and bridges, and roads, and granting access to the sea, and having someone's back in a coup situation (Venezuela, Bolivia, Honduras), and forming the Bank of the South, and rejecting US dictates to "isolate" somebody, and partying together at Lugo's inauguration, and Evo Morales sending Lugo the message, upon Lugo's election as the first leftist president of Paraguay, "Welcome to the 'Axis of Evil'".

I'm not saying that Lulu--or any politician--doesn't have mixed motives. I'm just saying that the predominant motive of this group of political leaders, Lulu included, in altruism and a sense of common mission. I think it's very unusual, and very notable. And I think if you miss that about Lulu, you really don't understand him.

----------

"Every single food-exporting third-world country, including the closest allies of the US, supported Brazil's position."

Yeah, but only 20 stood up and walked out, with Brazil leading the parade! The others joined later. The group then became 30. None of them had any success at influencing the WTO until Brazil pulled them together and led the walkout. And it was very much an anti-US movement. The Bushwhacks were frantic to stop it, and tried every arm-twisting, kneecapping, putrid bribing tactic they could think of, to shut down the rebellion. I had a close friend who was there. I know what happened there. Brazil, which could have played the game to Brazil's advantage alone, did not do so. And people were in fact surprised by that. Brazil had the clout to push its own advantage. The Bushwhacks would likely have given them anything they wanted, to stop them from leading the rebellion and to head off that huge Bushwhack failure. Brazil instead did "raise all boats."

Again, at every turn, you miss what is really driving Lulu. Yeah, he's hot for Brazilian development and prosperity, and he's less careful about how he does it that some leaders--which is why business people like him--but he sees an almost moral and certainly inspiring duty to share the wealth, to see that everyone prospers, and to build that prosperity into a South America, not just Brazilian, economic system. In a way, it is the opposite of what the US does these days, more like what the US did with the Monroe Doctrine after WW II (rebuilding Europe), and unlike what empires normally do, which is to bully their way around and exploit everything and everybody. Lulu has a new ethic. And so do these other leaders. It is, indeed, historic, as Lulu himself said.

Whatever rivalries there are are quite friendly, from what I can see--not vicious and "dog eat dog", the way the Bushwhacks did things, and the way our corpo-fascists do them. This, too, is new. This is a product of generosity. If your goal is to "raise all boats," and alleviate poverty, and attend to the general welfare, everybody feels better about themselves, everyone can breathe easier. But if you're out only to triumph, to get "all the marbles," to dominate and exploit, people do become ugly, and rivalries become bitter. The new ethic has led to the settling of several bitter and very old disputes, such as Bolivia's access to the Pacific on what is now Chilean land. It has led to the settlement of several land and border disputes, and virtually every major leader in South America trying to get a peace settlement going in Colombia's civil war. Peace, friendship, unity, having each other's backs--and the great villain of the north has met this unified resistance on several occasions now, when it has tried to pick off a weak or troubled country (Bolivia, Paraguay, Honduras) or one where it wants something (Venezuela, the oil). Brazil has played key roles in all of these situations, sometimes at considerable risk of the giant's ire. They have not always played things to Brazil's advantage. They have played it for solidarity and a better future for everyone.

[Judi Lynn]

15. So glad to have seen your comments. Efforts to this point to divide and conquer,

to try to seduce Lula to think of himself and his country first, to the deteriment of the coming integration and solidarity in Latin America have fallen flat. We've all followed the events very carefully for years.

We knew what _{George Bush} was after on his planned trip to Latin America long before it was acknowledged, and no trip could have failed more, other than Richard Nixon's trip to Caracas in 1958, where he had his ass handed to him, and his presidential limousine neatly contunded and egged for his effort.

You covered this subject exquisitely. Thanks for taking the time to address it!

http://mercopress.com.nyud.net:8090/images/uploads/7214940171197a1c11d1114ead458687.jpg

Mercosur meeting in Santiago, immediately after the separatists' massacre of native Bolivians, in Pando, Bolivia.

[spanza]

16. It was more about the historical position of Brazil in the continent than about Lula

Brazil is a huge country with complicated power structures/networks that haven't vanished since Lula was elected. Does Lula has had some effect on this structures? I believe so, that's why I said "before Lula", and I think the trend is a very positive one, especially in the Brazilian society. But I believe he represents those structures as well when we consider the role of the industrial elite in the commercial agreements, for example.

All in all, I think there's a middle point between "Lula is closely aligned with Chavez" and "Lula is just a shrewd operator and everything else is "show."", as wanted by the CIA. My point is that Brazil is not aligned with any country, which doesn't mean that Lula is "just in it for Brazil". The progressive political entity has always been shaped by debate and rivalries. The leftist models that have succeeded in history are the ones which have been able to integrate the diversity of progressive political positions in order to let them express freely within the system of power, without fear.

Lula has managed to do so in Brazil when Chavez has closed that possibility in Venezuela. Was it because of the 2002 coup from the RW extremists allied with the CIA? I agree. But I believe that the radicalization of the regime, the logic of a unique leftist party under his control and the rise of the cult of personality were the worst answers to build a real social and political consensus in the progressive side around the revolution. I felt that was the answer of a military man. I think that without that consensus, his model slowly stops being progressive and becomes something very different that's not built for the long term.

[spanza]

13. About the sentence that doesn't make any sense...

English is a foreign language for me so, really, I'm sorry if I write things in a strange way.

"If I was a Chavez supporter, I would rather give some nuance concerning the 2003-2008 growth in Venezuela. I would say a considerable part of it was due to the oil shock, so that, if the oil goes down or stagnates, I would have the possibility of saying that the crisis is due to the oil bust and not to the government's management."

What I meant is that Chavez "supporters" should have been careful not to give him so much credit for the growth Venezuela experienced during the 2003-2008 oil shock. Why? Because when the oil prices go down, they don't have credibility when they say that the crisis is because of the oil bust.

For example, you say that the actual recession in Venezuela is because of the world crisis:

"...and now are facing a downturn, like everybody, due to the criminal irresponsibility of the moneyed class here and throughout the 'first world.'"

I want to remind you that the only aspect of the world crisis that affects Venezuela is the oil prices being half of what they were 14 months ago, nothing more. So, essentially, your affirmation is that the actual recession in Venezuela is the result of lower oil prices. It sounds a bit like a double standard: when Venezuela grows during an oil shock, it's because of good government management but when it stops growing during an oil bust, it's because of the... oil bust.

Please read this and tell me if it's not clear
You mention the growth in the non oil private sector as a proof that the oil shock was not the generator of the economy's growth.
I disagree. Why?

When you talk about growth measured in constant prices (as you are), you're talking about volumes produced. Venezuela is producing (+/-) as much oil as it was producing at the beginning of the shock, in 2003-2004. That means oil GDP in constant prices hasn't grown a bit despite the shock.

Now, oil revenues were multiplied by 4-5 from 2003 to 2008. These huge quantity of additional revenues belongs to the state. By spending them, the state promotes non oil private sector growth through its budget. The oil revenues finance the rise in consumption and investment that translates into growth of the non oil GDP in volume or constant prices.

This is a constant pattern of our 90 year old oil economy. Double "heteronomy":
a) the non oil economic growth is determined by the quantity of money the state spends.
b) the quantity of money the state spends is determined by the oil revenues.
a+b) the non oil economic growth is determined by the quantity of oil revenues spent by the state.

The 5 times there has been an oil shock for Venezuela between 1920 and 2008, the non oil sector has been the one to grow. There was no change in this constant pattern this time. In Venezuela, oil shock = increase of oil revenues in the budget = growth of the non oil GDP... always. Venezuela is a budget-driven economy.

If the increase of oil revenues had been the result of an expansion in the oil production, I would agree with you and give credit to my government. In this case, however, it was the result of the increase of oil prices in the world market.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Lula da Silva was a worker starting early in his life,quit school in the 5th grade to support family

and identified throughout his entire life, clearly, with real workers, long before he was a member of the Worker's Party.

His own brother was thrown in prison and tortured by the hard rigid right military dictatorship for being a "communist." Lula has been labeled a communist throughout his life, and his answer used to be "no, I'm a lathe operator" (a machine he operated removed one of his thumbs for him). He's proud of his working class origins.

He would NEVER identify with the parasites who use the energy of the workers and pay as little as legally possible, even if it comes to near slavery conditions.

Glad I stopped to read your comments on this thread. Had to add a reference you and some of the rest of us knew long ago.

[flamingdem]

4. good info/rumor - keep it coming - ! nt