GRANMA
Colombians re-elected Juan Manuel Santos and his proposal to reach peace through dialogue

Author: International Drafting | internacionales@granma.cu

June 16, 2014 00:06:16

Google translation. Revised by Walter Lippmann.

BOGOTÁ – The Colombian electorate on Sunday scored a goal in the field of betting to return to the warlike policy of former President Alvaro Uribe.

President Juan Manuel Santos won reelection for the period 2014-2018 with the support of 50.9% of the vote, which means that about 4 million 500 thousand voters joined those who had supported his proposals in the first round .

The president focused the final stretch of his campaign in the peace process that maintains in Havana with the Revolutionary Armed Forces People’s Army of Colombia and the exploratory process with the ELN.

In his first speech after the results, Santos said yesterday that the election victory is a mandate of Colombians for peace, who “voted with the hope of changing fear into hope.”

The president-elect said in this election was in the course of playing well understood Colombia and independent sectors, from left, unions, non-governmental organizations that were instrumental in his success.

“We’re going to fix everything that has to be corrected, we will adjust everything to be adjusted and we will restore all that has to be reformed, because that’s what we should bring peace, to implement deep reforms in our country” promised the president.

“I will require the support of the Colombian people,” he said.

Uribismo IS NOT DEAD
The candidate of the Democratic Centre Oscar Iván Zuluaga, who was surprised to win in the first round of voting on 25 May, but who failed to convince the majority with his attacks the Colombian peace process.

However, he enlisted the support of a significant 45% of the electorate went to the polls, which confirms the weight of Uribe’s ghost in the Colombian political scene.

Just minutes after the last newsletter of the Registrar will deliver, Zuluaga recognized the victory of his opponent.

“I feel very proud to have been a candidate for President Uribe of Colombia”, he said in reference to the political affiliation he did not hide at any time. Even made an invitation to that party from now, is better organized as it is “an alternative to Colombia.”

Another was the tone Uribe, head of the Democratic Centre. The current senator did not recognize the election victory, nor did h congratulated the President, whose candidacy Uribe described as the “most corrupt in the history of Colombia.”

Abstention this time was around 52%, lower than in the first round figure, when 6 out of 10 Colombians decided to stay at home, but still worrisome for a country that has major political and social changes to come peace with social justice.
===========================================

GRANMA

Elecciones en Colombia: paz 1, guerra 0

Los colombianos reeligieron a Juan Manuel Santos y su propuesta de llegar a la paz por la vía del diálogo

Autor: Redacción Internacional | internacionales@granma.cu

16 de junio de 2014 00:06:16

BOGOTÁ.—El electorado co­lom­biano anotó este domingo un gol en la cancha de los que apostaban por regresar a la política guerrerista del expresidente Álvaro Uribe.

El presidente Juan Manuel San­tos obtuvo su reelección para el pe­riodo 2014-2018 con el apoyo del 50,9 % de los sufragios, lo que quiere decir que unos 4 millones 500 mil electores se sumaron a los que ha­bían apoyado sus propuestas en la primera vuelta.

El mandatario centró la recta final de su campaña en el proceso de paz que mantiene en La Habana con las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia-Ejército del Pueblo y el proceso exploratorio con el Ejército de Liberación Nacional.

En su primer discurso tras conocer los resultados, Santos aseguró ayer que el triunfo electoral es un mandato de los colombianos por la paz, que “votaron con la ilusión de cambiar el miedo por la esperanza”.

El mandatario electo afirmó que en estos comicios estuvo en juego el rumbo de Colombia y así lo entendieron los sectores independientes, de izquierda, sindicales, organizaciones no gubernamentales, que fueron decisivos para su triunfo.

“Vamos a corregir todo lo que haya que corregir, vamos a ajustar todo lo que haya que ajustar y vamos a reformar todo lo que haya que reformar, porque a eso nos debe llevar la paz, a poner en marcha profundas reformas en nuestro país”, prometió el mandatario.

“Requeriré del apoyo de los co­lombianos”, dijo.

EL URIBISMO NO ESTÁ MUERTO

El candidato del Centro Demo­crático Oscar Iván Zuluaga, quien había sorprendido al llevarse la victoria en la primera vuelta de los comicios el 25 de mayo pasado, no logró convencer a la gran mayoría de los colombianos con sus ataques al proceso de paz.

Sin embargo, consiguió el apoyo de un importante 45 % del electorado que asistió a las urnas, lo que confirma el peso del fantasma uribista en el escenario político colombiano.

Tan solo unos minutos después de que se entregara el último boletín de la Registraduría, Zuluaga reconoció la victoria de su oponente.

“Me siento muy orgulloso de haber sido el candidato del uribismo a la Presidencia de Colombia”, refirió en referencia a la afiliación política que no ocultó en ningún momento. Incluso hizo una invitación para que esa colectividad a partir de ahora, se organice mejor ya que es “una alternativa para Colombia”.

Otro fue el tono de Uribe, jefe del Centro Democrático. El actual senador no reconoció el triunfo electoral, ni felicitó al Presidente, cuya candidatura calificó como la de “mayor corrupción en la historia de Co­lombia”.

La abstención en esta ocasión rondó el 52 %, una cifra menor a la registrada en la primera vuelta, cuando 6 de cada 10 colombianos decidió quedarse en su casa, pero aún preocupante para un país que tiene por delante importantes transformaciones políticas y sociales para llegar a la paz con justicia social.
http://www.granma.cu/mundo/2014-06-16/elecciones-en-colombia-paz-1-guerra-0

Discurso pronunciado por el General de Ejército Raúl Castro Ruz, Presidente de los Consejos de Estado y de Ministros, en ocasión de la Cumbre del Grupo de los 77 más China

Agradezco al compañero Evo Morales Ayma, Presidente y destacado representante de los pueblos originarios de nuestra región, la convocatoria de esta importante Cumbre…

Autor: Consejo de Estado | internet@granma.cu

15 de junio de 2014 17:06:47

(Versiones Taquigráficas – Consejo de Estado)

Compañero Evo Morales Ayma, Presidente del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia y Presidente del Grupo de los 77 más China:

Excelencias:

Agradezco al compañero Evo Morales Ayma, Presidente y destacado representante de los pueblos originarios de nuestra región, la convocatoria de esta importante Cumbre.

Al término de la Primera Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Comercio y Desarrollo, en junio de 1964, un grupo de países en desarrollo, conscientes de los enormes desafíos que tendrían que sortear, decidió marchar unido para hacer frente a un sistema económico mundial que desde entonces se manifestaba desigual e injusto.

A este grupo se debe la preparación, negociación y aprobación, el primero de mayo de 1974, hace ya 40 años, de uno de los documentos programáticos más importantes en la lucha contra el subdesarrollo y por el logro de la justicia económica internacional: la Declaración y el Programa de Acción para el Establecimiento de un Nuevo Orden Internacional, (y cito), “basado en la equidad, la igualdad soberana, la interdependencia, el interés común y la cooperación de todos los Estados, cualesquiera sean sus sistemas económicos y sociales, que permita corregir las desigualdades y reparar las injusticias actuales, eliminar las disparidades crecientes entre los países desarrollados y los países en desarrollo y garantizar a las generaciones presentes y futuras un desarrollo económico y social que vaya acelerándose, en la paz y la justicia (…)”. (Fin de la cita).

Poco después, logró la aprobación de la Carta de Derechos y Deberes Económicos de los Estados, que consagra el ejercicio de la soberanía de los Estados sobre los recursos naturales y la actividad económica en su territorio.

Esos importantes documentos mantienen plena vigencia, pero la gran paradoja es que hoy no se quiere hablar de ellos. Se les califica de “atrasados” y “superados por los hechos”.

Sin embargo, ahora se amplía la brecha entre el norte y el sur, y una profunda crisis económica global, resultante del irreversible fracaso del neoliberalismo impuesto desde los principales centros de poder, con un impacto devastador para nuestros países, se ha convertido en la más larga y compleja de las últimas ocho décadas.

Cuando casi concluye el ciclo previsto para los Objetivos de Desarrollo, acordados en la Cumbre del Milenio del año 2000:
•Mil doscientos millones de personas en el mundo viven en la pobreza extrema. En África subsahariana, el número de pobres ha aumentado ininterrumpidamente, pasando de 290 millones en 1990 a 414 millones en el 2010.
•Una de cada ocho personas en el mundo sufre de hambre crónica.
•El 45% de los niños fallecidos antes de cumplir los cinco años, muere por malnutrición.

•La deuda externa registra niveles sin precedentes, a pesar de los enormes pagos que hemos realizado por su servicio.
•Se agrava el cambio climático, generado -en lo fundamental-, por los patrones de producción y consumo irracionales y derrochadores de los países industrializados que, de mantenerse, para el 2030 harían falta recursos naturales equivalentes a dos planetas.

Ante estas realidades, conserva plena vigencia el principio de las responsabilidades comunes, pero diferenciadas en el enfrentamiento del cambio climático y otros desafíos ambientales.

Como ha dicho el compañero Fidel Castro Ruz, “Existen los recursos para financiar el desarrollo. Lo que falta es la voluntad política de los gobiernos de los países desarrollados.”

Es preciso exigir un nuevo orden financiero y monetario internacional y condiciones comerciales justas para productores e importadores a los guardianes del capital, centrados en el Fondo Monetario Internacional y el Banco Mundial, a los defensores del neoliberalismo, agrupados en la Organización Mundial de Comercio, que intentan dividirnos.

Solo la unidad nos permitirá hacer prevalecer nuestra amplia mayoría.

Así tendremos que hacerlo si queremos que la Agenda de Desarrollo después del 2015, que deberá incluir los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible, ofrezca respuestas a los problemas estructurales de las economías de nuestros países, genere cambios que permitan proponerse un desarrollo sostenible; sea universal y responda a los diferentes niveles de desarrollo.

Compañero Presidente:

En la actualidad, se transgrede la soberanía de los Estados, se violan de forma descarnada los principios del Derecho Internacional y los postulados del Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional, se imponen conceptos que intentan legalizar la injerencia, se usa la fuerza y se amenaza con su uso de manera impune, se utilizan los medios para promover la división. Todavía resuena en nuestros oídos aquella amenaza contra “60 o más oscuros rincones del mundo” del presidente de Estados Unidos George W. Bush, obviamente, todos países miembros del Grupo de los 77.

Debemos ejercer nuestra solidaridad con aquellos a quienes se amenaza con la agresión. Hoy, el caso más nítido es la República Bolivariana de Venezuela, contra la que se emplean los medios más sofisticados de subversión y desestabilización, incluidos los intentos de golpe de Estado, según las concepciones de la guerra no convencional que Estados Unidos hoy aplica para derrocar gobiernos, subvertir y desestabilizar sociedades.

Por más de 50 años, hemos sido víctimas de un genocida bloqueo norteamericano; de acciones terroristas que han costado la vida a miles de nuestros ciudadanos, y provocado cuantiosos daños materiales. La absurda inclusión de Cuba en la lista de “Estados Patrocinadores del Terrorismo Internacional”, es una afrenta a nuestro pueblo.

Como hemos denunciado, es creciente la promoción de acciones ilegales, encubiertas y subversivas, así como el uso del ciberespacio para intentar desestabilizarnos, no solo a Cuba, sino a países cuyos gobiernos no aceptan injerencia ni tutelaje. De esta forma, cualquier nación puede ser objeto de ataques informáticos dirigidos a fomentar la desconfianza, la desestabilización y conflictos potenciales.

Durante todos estos años, siempre nos ha acompañado la firme solidaridad de los miembros del Grupo de los 77 más China, lo que agradezco en nombre del pueblo cubano.

Aprovechemos este 50 aniversario del Grupo de los 77 para renovar nuestro compromiso común de concertar esfuerzos y estrechar filas para construir un mundo más justo.

Muchas Gracias (Aplausos).

FARS NEWS

Sun Jun 15, 2014 3:6
Cuba’s President Urges Allies to Support Venezuela’s Maduro

TEHRAN (FNA)- Cuban president urged allies to defend Venezuela against foreign conspiracies, amid months of anti-government protests in Venezuela.

“Venezuela deserves strong support from its allies,” Raul Castro said in a speech at a Group 77 (G-77) plus China meeting in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz, press tv reported.

“Imperialism and the oligarchs who were no match for President (Hugo) Chavez think that the time to destroy the Bolivarian revolution and overthrow President (Nicolas) Maduro’s government using unconventional warfare methods, as they have done lately in different countries,” Castro stressed.

Bolivian President Evo Morales also commented on the situation in Venezuela, saying that if the United States meddles militarily in the country, it would have a new Vietnam on its hands.

“If Barack Obama keeps assailing the people of Venezuela, I am convinced that, faced with provocation and aggression, Venezuela and Latin America will be a second Vietnam for the United States,” Morales stressed.

“Let us defend democracy, natural resources, our sovereignty and our dignity,” Morales added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/katrina-vanden-heuvel/2011/02/24/ABMj4XN_page.html

By Katrina vanden Heuvel, Tuesday, June 10, 8:00 AM

The sad irony of U.S.-Cuban relations is that Cuba, under the leadership of 83-year-old Raúl Castro, is changing rapidly, and the United States, despite President Obama’s promises of a “new beginning,” remains largely frozen in a self-destructive Cold War policy.

The fifty-plus year-old embargo of Cuba continues. The administration still lists Cuba as a “state sponsor of terrorism.” The United States continues to sponsor covert activities — this time a U.S. Agency for International Development attempt to generate “smart mobs” through a secret text-messaging program — to help destabilize the regime. Ten presidents after the embargo began, U.S. policy remains dedicated to folly.

Meanwhile the world, the hemisphere and Cuba have changed. If anything, the embargo isolates the United States, not Cuba.

Washington’s relationship with the region is deteriorating, corroded by its policy toward Cuba. With few exceptions, the left-leaning governments that govern across Latin America have normal relations with Cuba and scorn the U.S. attempt to isolate the little island. At the last Summit of the Americas in 2012, the presidents of Brazil and of Colombia, one of the few remaining U.S. allies, joined several other countries in announcing they would skip the next summit in 2015 if Cuba is not invited. And well they should, as the summits become increasingly irrelevant, with regional trading and political ties developing with the United States, not Cuba, on the sidelines.

My recent trip to Cuba, as part of the nation’s first educational exchange trip to that country, reaffirmed what Josefina Vidal, head of the North American Division of Cuba’s Foreign Ministry, told our delegation in a wide ranging 90-minute conversation: “The U.S. is facing the risk of becoming irrelevant in the future of Cuba.”

The conservative Republican head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donahue, while visiting Cuba last month, reiterated the chamber’s call to lifting the embargo in his speech at the University of Havana. Donahue understands that the major victims of the U.S. blockade are U.S. businesses.

Cuba has just passed a new law facilitating foreign investment. A new rush is on. A Brazilian firm captured the major project of modernizing the port at Mariel. A Chinese company is building 34 wind turbines. And another Chinese company sells the new cars that are starting to be seen on the streets. A British developer has just initialed a deal to build a “luxury golf resort.” The European Union has opened a formal dialogue with Cuba on trade, investment and human rights.

The pace of change in Cuba is accelerating — and is visible on the ground. Paladares (private restaurants), tapas bars and even night clubs are sprouting up in private homes. When Obama rightly eased restrictions on the travel and remittances of Cuban Americans, visitors bearing gifts flooded the island.

Remarkable changes in sex education and official attitudes are apparent, with the state going from imprisoning homosexuals to launching campaigns against sexual violence, considering legalizing same-sex marriage, subsidizing sex-change operations and banning discrimination based on sexuality at the workplace. Castro’s daughter, Mariela Castro, the charismatic head of Cuba’s National Center for Sexual Education, has become a renowned figure both in Cuba and across the world for her work in this area. Despite her government’s restrictions on political speech, Castro is an outspoken advocate for more open sexual discourse. When we met with her at the center, she expressed frustration at continuing official resistance to legalizing gay marriage and spoke of herself as a fighter — fighting for a new way of thinking about sexuality and supported by a growing Cuban grassroots network of activists.

Of course, Cuba faces severe challenges. The regime still keeps a heavy hand on the press and social media and, as I learned in conversations with a leading Cuban journalist, the recent Twitter scandal has made reform-minded Cuban journalists’ fight to modernize the country’s social-media infrastructure more difficult.

Human rights are still constricted. The regime knows it has to change but hopes to maintain core advances (particularly in health care and education) that are the signatures of the revolution.

With foreign investment, expanding private enterprises and increasing tourism comes greater inequality and increasing tension. Yet, as veteran journalist Marc Frank explains in his fascinating new book, “Cuban Revelations: Behind the Scenes in Havana,” there is a “grey zone” — a significant segment of Cubans whom Castro is trying to win over with his efforts to modernize the economy.

Amidst all of these changes, the United States is fighting yesterday’s war. At present, Cubans are freer to travel to the United States than Americans are to go to Cuba. What fears or fantasies support that idiocy?

U.S. policy is frozen in large part because bureaucratic inertia is reinforced by the hold anti-Castro zealots have on our policy — most notably Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who represents Miami’s Little Havana neighborhood, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). But these zealots are growing ever more isolated. Recently, nearly four dozen former government officials, diplomats, retired military officers, wealthy Cuban emigres and business leaders warned in an open letter to the president that the United States is “increasingly isolated internationally in its Cuba policy,” and called on the administration to act on its own to ease travel for all Americans and allow increased trade and financial exchanges. Even Hillary Clinton — who has a hawkish track record on Cuba — claims in her new book that she urged Obama to ease or lift the embargo, although she seems content with the minor reforms that were made

Obama has said he needn’t wait for the Congress, he has a “phone and pen” to take executive actions. He could act now to negotiate with the Cubans the long-overdue trade of the Cuban Five (now three) jailed for espionage in the United States for USAID contractor Alan Gross, jailed in Cuba nearly five years ago for distributing communications equipment to Jewish groups. Obama could open up exchanges and travel for all Americans, while loosening financial restrictions.

In discussions with our delegation, former Cuban foreign minister Ricardo Alarcon noted that the fact the White House is prepared to negotiate with the Taliban but not its neighbor raises questions about how “rational” U.S. policy is. Sustaining a policy that has failed for over 50 years and 10 presidents, an embargo that has isolated the United States in its own hemisphere, a blockade that damages U.S. businesses and restrictions that constrict the rights of Americans — no, that doesn’t sound rational.

The experts suggest there is a window of time for the president to act — after the midterm elections and before the middle of 2015. The promised “new beginning” would be better late than never.

By James Thompson

The government of the USA and the propaganda mill of the mainstream media shamelessly extol the virtues of being a “Christian nation.” Although portrayed as a heretic by religious zealots, even President Obama frequently quotes Christian Scriptures. President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize soon after he took office.

Of course, those who study the reality of the political situation in the United States notice that the actions of the US government fly in the face of the main teachings of Christianity.

This paper will first present some well-known quotes from the Bible and then apply them to the stance of the United States government towards one of its closest neighbors, Cuba, and then to the sons of Cuba, the Cuban 5. The Cuban 5 are terrorist fighting heroes who have been persecuted by the US government since 1998 and three of them are still languishing in prison.

First, the quotes from the Bible:

Leviticus 19:18
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.

Matthew 19:19
honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.'”

Romans 13:8
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law.

Romans 13:10
Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Galatians 5:14
For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Romans 12:17
…Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved…

US foreign policy towards Cuba and the persecution of the Cuban 5

It is clear that the US foreign policy towards Cuba in general and towards the Cuban 5 specifically violates these main biblical teachings. The first quote commands Christians to never seek revenge or bear grudges. Instead, it instructs Christians to “love your neighbor as yourself.” “Love your neighbor as yourself” is a repeating theme throughout all of the quotes above. The US government imposed a vicious embargo, including a travel ban, after the revolution of 1959. The embargo prevents Cubans from obtaining many commodities from the United States. It also prevents the US from obtaining many commodities from Cuba. The embargo is definitely not an expression of “love thy neighbor” but instead is an ugly, hateful policy that hurts both Cuba and the United States. Hate is always destructive. Love is always constructive.

The persecution of the Cuban 5 is similar to the persecution of Jesus Christ, himself. The Cuban 5
were intelligence experts who gathered information on right wing organizations in Miami who plotted and carried out terroristic acts against the working people of Cuba. Many people were killed in Cuba and a great deal of public property was destroyed in the attacks of the right wing counterrevolutionaries. The work of the Cuban 5 thwarted the destructiveness of these deadly attacks. For their noble efforts, the US government threw the Cuban 5 in prison under inhumane conditions and three of them have been there since 1998. Three have been recently released since they completed their terms.

Of course, the persecution of the Cuban 5 by the US government violates all of the Christian teachings cited above. The US government has been condemned around the world for this injustice and human rights violation. The US government has similarly been condemned around the world for its unjust and vengeful embargo and travel ban against Cuba.

What can be done about this awful situation which is an ugly stain on the reputation of the United States of America?

There are two steps that should be taken by the US government in response to the demands of the people of the United States. An overwhelming majority of the US population favors lifting the embargo and travel ban against Cuba. People of conscience overwhelmingly favor returning all of the Cuban 5 to their homes and families.

The government of Cuba has a CIA operative in prison for conspiratorial acts against Cuba. There has been a great deal of talk of swapping this individual, Alan Gross, for the remaining Cuban 5. The people of the United States of America should demand that this move forward so that Mr. Gross can return home immediately. The US people could also demand that other US citizens imprisoned in Cuba be part of the trade. Many US tourists have been arrested for drug activity and other crimes and are in prison in Cuba. It is time for people to demand that the US government negotiate in good faith with the Cuban government for the release of these individuals. Their records should be examined and if returned to the United States, they should be punished for their crimes here, rather than in Cuba.

Medical cooperation between Cuba and the USA

The Cuban government has offered in the past to provide emergency medical care following the devastation of hurricanes in the United States. Cuban doctors are experts in providing this kind of care under very adverse conditions. President Bush declined the humanitarian offer of the Cuban government to provide this kind of assistance following Hurricane Katrina. Instead, people on the Gulf Coast died as a result of a lack of medical care. The people of the United States should demand that in exchange for the return of the Cuban 5 to Cuba, that the US government accept without condition any offers of medical assistance from Cuba following natural disasters.

The Cuban health care system is noted by experts around the world to be one of the most advanced. Cuba has a cooperative relationship with many countries, most notably Venezuela. Cuban doctors work in Venezuela providing health care in underserved areas and train Venezuelan doctors to provide similar care. This is done on contract and Cuba and its doctors are paid by the Venezuelan government to provide this care.

The people of the United States should demand that in exchange for the Cuban 5, the Cuban government enter into a cooperative relationship so that similar services could be provided to underserved populations in the United States. For example, recently there has been a scandal in the VA system. It has come to light that many veterans are dying while waiting for an appointment at the VA. Cuban doctors could help shorten the wait and provide the medical care that US veterans desperately need.

Part of the recently implemented ACA, commonly referred to as Obamacare, was an expansion of Medicaid to working people with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid and too low to afford to purchase private insurance. Many states, including Texas, declined to cooperate with the expansion of Medicaid. Cuban doctors could be contracted to provide care to this segment of the population that now has no medical coverage.

Cuba has developed many innovative drugs which are not available in this country. These include a drug to fight and prevent cancer, a drug that lowers cholesterol and raises libido, and a drug that treats diabetic ulcers which frequently result in amputations. These drugs could improve the quality of life of many people in the United States.

Let us beat our swords into plowshares, bury the hatchet and make love a major component of US foreign policy, especially towards our close neighbor, Cuba. Let us not cut off our nose to spite our face. What would Jesus do?

PHill1917@comcast.net

How Florida Reactionaries Undermine Venezuelan Democracy

by W.T. WHITNEY

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/12/how-florida-reactionaries-undermine-venezuelan-democracy/

Remember the Tonkin Gulf Resolution? In 1964 that joint congressional resolution propelled the United States into war lasting nine years. Resolution 488, passed by House of Representatives by a 393 – 1 vote on March 4, is a moral and practical equivalent. Its title was “Supporting the people of Venezuela as they protest peacefully for democracy, a reduction in violent crime and calling for an end to recent violence.”

The vote took place under a provision known as “suspension of the rules” which Congress uses for “legislation of non-controversial bills.” The sole dissenter was a Kentucky Republican. Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen introduced R 488. In Florida she represents the 27th congressional district, part of Miami-Dade County. All but unanimous backing for the resolution is reprehensible – for three reasons.

One, the resolution did not tell the truth. It speaks of Venezuelans “protesting peacefully.” Actually as of March 7 protesters had shot five people dead. Three were soldiers. Six deaths are attributed to opposition roadblocks, 30 more because roadblocks prevented access to emergency services. Soldiers had killed three people, one a government supporter. When protests started in Táchira, Mérida, and Caracas in early February, police did not intervene until government offices and police cars were being attacked and burned and until food and medical supply trucks were blocked. The government arrested officers who violated orders to to act with restraint.

The resolution suggests Venezuela is undemocratic. Over 15 years, however, governments there have won 17 out of 18 national elections. They are elections that for fairness and efficiency are “the best in the world,” according to the Carter Center in Georgia. Press freedom abounds: Venezuela’ predominately privately-owned newspapers and television outlets disseminate opposition viewpoints. Their television broadcasts reach 90 percent of viewers nationally.

Real democracy means uplift for everybody. In Venezuela poverty dropped from 50 percent in 1998 to 32 percent in 2011. Social spending increased from 11 percent of the GDP to 24 percent. Pensioners rose from 500,000 to 2.5 million; people finishing college, from 600,000 to 2.3 million. High school enrollment increased 42 percent. Children malnutrition and infants deaths have fallen dramatically. Every year the minimum wage has increased 10 – 20 percent.

Media misrepresentation contributed to the resolution’s passage. Protesters, for example, hardly represent Venezuela’s majority population. Disturbances have taken place in only 18 of 335 municipalities, places where the middle and upper classes live and where right-wing politicians are in charge. Most students in the streets attend private schools. National polling shows that 85 percent of respondents oppose “protests continuing throughout the country.”

Secondly, passage of Ros-Lehtinen’s resolution is a new chapter in the process of U.S. preparations for undermining Venezuela’s elected government. Money tells some of that story. Analyst Mark Weisbrot reports, “[O]ne can find about $90 million in U.S. funding to Venezuela since 2000 “just looking through U.S. government documents available on the web, including $5 million in the current federal budget.” According to Venezuelanalysis.com: “Over one third of US funding, nearly $15 million annually by 2007, was directed towards youth and student groups, including training in the use of social networks to mobilize political activism.” And, “Embassy cables also reveal US government funding of opposition parties.” Discussing his leadership of the National Endowment for Democracy, a prime source of U.S. funding, Allen Weinstein told the Washington Post in 1991 that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

Preparations are evident too from a report produced by Venezuelan – U.S. lawyer Eva Golinger. She alludes to a meeting on June 13, 2013, location unspecified, attended by representatives Colombia’s “Center for Thought Foundation and the Democratic Internationalism Foundation. The two groups have links with ex-Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, right wing protagonist of destabilization in Venezuela. Mark Feierstein, regional head of the US Agency for International Development, attended the meeting.

It generated a document entitled “Venezuelan Strategic Plan,” which detailed 15 “action points.” They included destruction of facilities, “massive mobilizations,” food shortages, and “insurrection inside the army.” The document mentions “crisis in the streets that facilitate the intervention of North America and the forces of NATO, with support of the government of Colombia.” “Violence [causing} deaths and injuries” is anticipated.

The third objection to Ros-Lehtinen’s resolution, and especially to congressional consensus, relates to her associations. She is famous for projecting Cuban-American determination to undo the Cuban Revolution onto the national stage. She thereby bears major responsibility for continuing a national policy of economic blockade of that island. Nor has she challenged her neighbors’ toleration of, even direct participation in, anti-Cuban terrorist attacks. It’s clear now that her neighbors have extended terror attacks to Venezuela, presumably as their contribution to U.S. plans to overthrow Venezuela’s government.

Surely it’s reasonable to expect that U.S. congresspersons, as part of their job description, might ask questions.

They could have inquired about Raul Diaz Peña, who in 2010 showed up in Ros-Lehtinen’s Miami office after having just arrived in the United States. Weeks earlier he had escaped from prison in Venezuela where he was serving time for having bombed embassies in Caracas in 2003. He told reporters on hand that costs for his escape and U.S. entry amounted to $100,000. The congresswoman indicated she “had been lobbying the US government”on his behalf .

On February 23, two days before Ros-Lehtinen introduced her resolution, Robert Alonzo held a “patriotic lunch” for friends at his farm outside Miami. He told them he wanted “help and solidarity of unyielding Cuban – exile combatants in their campaign to step up resistance to [President] Maduro’s misrule.”

Present were Reinol Rodríguez, head of the paramilitary group Alpha 66; José Dionisio Suárez, admitted murderer of ex-Chilean foreign minister Orlando Letelier in Washington; and Armando Valladares, formerly imprisoned in Cuba for bombings and more recently implicated in a plot to kill Bolivian President Evo Morales.

Born in Cuba, Alonso was living in Venezuela until authorities there discovered 153 Colombian paramilitaries lodged at his farm near Caracas. Their plan was to kill then President Hugo Chavez. Alonso helped out with the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002 by leading an assault on the Cuban Embassy.

Another meeting to plan the ouster of President Chavez took place in Miami in 2009. On hand were Jose Antonio Colina Pulido, on the lam after the embassy bombings in 2003; Joaquim Chaffardet, intelligence chief in Venezuela linked to the bombing of a fully loaded Cuban Airliner in 1976, along with Miamian Luis Posada; and Johan Peña, self-exiled after participating in the 2004 murder of Venezuelan prosecutor Danilo Anderson.

Other notable neighbors include: Patricia Poleo, who plotted against Danilo Anderson; military officer Gustavo Diaz, who helped propel the anti-Chavez coup attempt in 2002; and Angel De Fana who tried to kill Fidel Castro in 1997. Former Miami-area FBI head Héctor Pesquera attended a meeting in Panama where final arrangements were made to kill Danilo Anderson.

Finally, R-488 is emblematic of a serious problem relating to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, specifically privatization. The U.S. government has long farmed out decision-making on and implementation of policies toward Cuba to agents, really proxies, belonging to the Cuban-American émigré community. The same tendency now crops up in regard to Venezuela.

It’s apparent that privateers involved with Cuban affairs, epitomized by Representative Ros-Lehtinen, are promoting a U.S. campaign to undermine Venezuela’s government. Joining this essentially autonomous force are self-exiled, often terrorist-inclined, migrants from other Latin American countries, notably Venezuela. The evidence shows that the milieu where Resolution 488 was spawned nurtures this class of dark characters. That the resolution gained quick, basically unquestioning approval – after all, it was deemed “non-controversial” – is bad news for the future of democracy in both Venezuela and the United States.

Secretary of International Relations of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB)

We were in the middle of an electoral process politically polarized into two opposing fields. It was essentially a direct battle between popular, democratic and patriotic forces on the one side and right-wing, conservative and liberal forces on the other side. The broad coalition supporting Dilma Rousseff’s candidacy, with eleven left-wing and center parties, is the largest alliances ever achieved to support a left-wing candidacy in the history of Brazil. However, on October 31, the day of the runoff in the presidential elections, it faced José Serra’s candidacy, representing a strong right with the militant support of the monopolist media and anti-communist and reactionary sectors.
Dilma Rousseff won the first round of the elections on October 3 with 47% of valid ballots. Serra won 33% of the votes and Green Party’s Marina Silva won 19% of the votes for president. Marina Silva’s candidacy pushed the elections to a runoff and objectively benefited the right-wing candidacy. Marina Silva offered an anti-development and morally conservative discourse and her economic assistants showed neoliberal inclinations. Other far-left candidacies won 1% of the ballots, an insignificant performance demonstrating that the true alternative is to strengthen the revolutionary left inside the broad coalition supporting Dilma Rousseff.
Below: a table displaying the result of the first round of the presidential elections.
VOTES FOR PRESIDENT – 1st round

Candidate Party / Coalition Valid votes
DILMA ROUSSEFF * PT – Workers Party
PMDB – Brazilian Democratic Movement Party
*PCdoB – Communist Party of Brazil
* PSB – Brazilian Socialist Party
* PDT – Democratic Labor Party
PSC – Social Christian Party
PR – Republican Party
PRB – Brazilian Republican Party and others
46.91%
JOSÉ SERRA PSDB – Brazilian Social Democracy Party
DEM – Democrats
*PPS – Social People’s Party and others
32.61%
MARINA SILVA PV – Green Party 19.33%
PLÍNIO ARRUDA SAMPAIO PSOL – Socialism and Freedom Party 0.87%
IVAN PINHEIRO * PCB – Brazilian Communist Party 0.04%
OTHERS 0.24%
TOTAL 100%
* Members of the São Paulo Forum

Presidential elections headed for a runoff
As Dilma Rousseff did not win half of the valid ballots, the election headed for a runoff. Supported by a broad coalition of forces and by president Lula, whose administration is considered “excellent” or “good” by 83% of the population, Dilma Rousseff could have won the election in the first round. The runoff is the result of several factors, but mainly of the sordid campaign of lies, prejudice and hate promoted by the opposition and the monopolist media against Dilma Rousseff and president Lula. The right-wing opposition conceals its real program, characterized by privatization and anti-popular and anti-national policies, and confounded part of the people with a falsely moralizing mermaid spell marked by blatant religious obscurantism.

The left and the Dilma Rousseff coalition have grown in state governments and in the National Congress
In the elections for 27 state governments, 18 were decided in the first round and 9 state governments were disputed in the runoff. 16 of the elected governors are members of the coalitions supporting Dilma Rousseff (11 left-wing and 5 center) and 11 are members of the right-wing opposition.
The coalition supporting Dilma Rousseff won about 70% of the 513 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and of the 81 seats in the Federal Senate. We achieved a qualitative change in the correlation of forces inside the National Congress, although the left amounts to approximately only one third of each legislative chamber.
In the Parliament, the left is composed by members of the São Paulo Forum, namely, the Workers’ Party (PT), with 88 deputies and 13 senators, the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), with 15 deputies and 2 senators, the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB), with 34 deputies and 4 senators, and the Democratic Labor Party (PDT), with 28 deputies and 4 senators.

Below: the composition of the new National Congress.

DEPUTIES

PARTY VOTES FOR THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES (%) ELECTED DEPUTIES
* PT – Workers Party 16.74 88
PMDB – Brazilian Democratic Movement Party 13.00 79
PSDB – Brazilian Social Democracy Party 11.82 53
PR – Republican Party 7.58 41
DEM – Democrats 7.57 43
* PSB – Brazilian Socialist Party 7.10 34
PP – Progressive Party 6.56 41
* PDT – Democratic Labor Party 5.02 28
PTB – Brazilian Labor Party 4.19 21
PV – Green Party 3.85 15
PSC – Social Christian Party 3.18 17
* PCdoB – Communist Party of Brazil 2.85 15
*PPS – Socialist People’s Party 2.63 12
PRB – Brazilian Republican Party 1.82 8
PSOL – Socialism and Freedom Party 1.18 3
PMN – National Mobilization Party 1.13 4
* PCB – Brazilian Communist Party 0.06 0
Other parties 3.72 11
TOTAL 100 % 513
* Members of the São Paulo Forum

SENATORS
PARTY VOTES FOR THE FEDERAL SENATE (%) ELECTED SENATORS TOTAL SENATORS IN 2011
* PT – Workers Party 23.12 11 13
PSDB – Brazilian Social Democracy Party 18.13 5 11
PMDB – Brazilian Democratic Movement Party 14.08 16 20
* PCdoB – Communist Party of Brazil 7.37 1 2
DEM – Democrats 6.00 2 6
PP – Progressive Party 5.38 4 5
PTB – Brazilian Labor Party 4.69 1 6
* PPS – Socialist People’s Party 3.97 1 2
* PSB – Brazilian Socialist Party 3.60 3 3
PV – Green Party 2.96 0 0
PR – Republican Party 2.73 3 4
PRB – Brazilian Republican Party 1.96 1 1
PSOL – Socialism and Freedom Party 1.78 2 2
* PDT – Democratic Labor Party 1.43 2 4
PSC – Social Christian Party 0.73 1 1
PMN – National Mobilization Party 0.14 1 1
* PCB – Brazilian Communist Party 0.09 0 0
Other parties 1.84 0 0
TOTAL 100% 54 81
* Members of the São Paulo Forum

The runoff decided an election of strategic importance
The true “political war” that characterized the first round of the dispute intensified in the runoff and Dilma Rousseff was elected the first woman president of Brazil. Candidate Dilma Rousseff won the run off with 56% against 44% of valid votes obtained by the right-wing forces.
VOTES FOR PRESIDENT – 2nd round

Candidate Party / Coalition Valid votes
DILMA ROUSSEFF * PT – Workers Party
PMDB – Brazilian Democratic Movement Party
*PCdoB – Communist Party of Brazil
* PSB – Brazilian Socialist Party
* PDT – Democratic Labor Party
PSC – Social Christian Party
PR – Republican Party
PRB – Brazilian Republican Party and others
56.05%
JOSÉ SERRA PSDB – Brazilian Social Democracy Party
DEM – Democrats
*PPS – Social People’s Party and others
43.95%
TOTAL 100%
* Members of the São Paulo Forum

Among the reasons leading to the third victory of popular forces in 2010 (the two first ones being the victories of president Lula in 2002 and 2006) is the fact that the differences between the programs of the two candidacies became clearer for the people. Dilma Rousseff fought for the program that is being put into practice in the Lula administration, which turned Brazil into a respected nation in the international arena with an anti-imperialist foreign policy defending world peace, Latin America integration and national sovereignty. That program gave greater liberties to popular struggles, broadened democracy and economic and social development and improved the living standards of workers. Dilma Rousseff was a leading person in the success of Lula’s government and, as a candidate, declared that continuity in this case is “to advance, advance, advance” with changes.
During the runoff, Renato Rabelo, national president of PCdoB, declared “we are not facing any given battle, but a political battle that has a strategic character for our country.” The communists, as part of the Brazilian left and our coalition, faced the task of making a more vibrant campaign with greater participation of the militant cadres and progressive sectors of the people.
Along with the party’s militant forces, organizations of the popular movements also took part in the dispute, among which unions such as the Brazilian Workers Central (CTB) and the Unified Workers’ Central (CUT), student organizations such as the National Students Union (UNE) and the Brazilian Union of Secondary Students (UBES), and farm workers from the Brazilian Farm Workers Union (CONTAG) and Landless Workers’ Movement (MST), which supported with their great strength Dilma Rousseff’s candidacy in the runoff.

PCdoB’s electoral result and perspectives for communists
In the last parliamentary elections PCdoB has grown continuously and steadily. When compared to 2006, the votes for PCdoB increased 41%, reaching 3% of total votes in the Chamber of Deputies. The Party went from 13 to 15 federal deputies and we achieved the merit of keeping the greatest proportion of women among the parties in the Chamber of Deputies.
The Communist Party of Brazil was the 4th most voted party in the Senate and now has 2 senators. PCdoB won 7% of the votes for Senate. PCdoB disputed the government of the state of Maranhão with a candidate that did not go to a runoff due to a very small difference in the number of votes.
The popular forces won the elections in Brazil. PCdoB will fight for the success of the Dilma Rousseff administration in the execution of the advanced measures listed in her program. In the course of this journey the Communist Party of Brazil will try to reinforce its role and political influence among the Brazilian people and develop in ideological and organizational terms.
PCdoB will keep on fighting to allow workers and all the Brazilian people to turn the revolutionary hope of a socialist Brazil into a reality.

Renato Rabelo highlights inauguration’s unique meaning
“Today Dilma Rousseff’s inauguration as the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil has a unique meaning for the Brazilian politics,” affirmed Renato Rabelo, president of the Communist Party of Brazil.

Firstly, according to the communist leader, it is the “third consecutive national victory of the democratic, progressive and left-wing forces, maintaining the political cycle that Lula opened in 2002.”
One must also take into account the fact that “Dilma Rousseff’s election takes place as the outcome of a successful democratic and popular government with broad popular support.”
The third point stressed by Rabelo is the fact that “now Brazil finds itself in a favorable situation for a fast development in a world undergoing a systemic crisis of capitalism, heading towards a transition in the global political system.”
“President Dilma Rousseff acknowledges the fact that the essence of continuity in her government is advancing, which, according to our point of view, is the continuation of greater changes towards an advanced, sovereign, democratic and popular government,” he added.
Lastly, he mentioned that “the victory of the first woman President of the Republic after the successes of the first blue-collar worker in that high political post has a remarkable meaning for the civilizing advance in the history of the Brazilian nation.”

By the editorial staff of “Vermelho” – www.vermelho.org.br