Howard - MIA

It is now a few days into the Howard-less future of Australia. And what has changed?

Virtually nothing - no falling sky, no unions striking, no wage demands. Nothing.

Well - maybe just one thing - John Howard is missing. For eleven and a half years, Howard would be making comments on everything from politics to sport to entertainment, normally by starting with “Well - I am not going to be a commentator, but…” before he would attempt to marginalise some part of the electorate for his own personal gains.

And you know what? I feel much better that he is not clogging the airwaves.

Venezuela - Entering Authoritarianism or 21st Century Socialism ?

Venezuela’s President, Hugo Chavez is on friendly terms with authoritarian Iranian leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In fact the relationship is so cosy between the two that the latter has called Mr Chavez a “brother and trenchmate”. According to BBC, Chavez also praised Iran’s Islamic form of government and said it was “high time Islam was no longer demonised in the world as a religion.” Both countries have also started construction of a 700 million joint petrochemical plant in Iran; with a second one in the pipeline in Venezuela; and that is in addition to agreements in joint production in other areas including manufacture of cars and tractors.

The uneasy alliance between Chavez, touted by socialists as an emerging force against US imperialism; and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a dictator; has drawn criticisms from observers.

The Iranian Revolutionary Socialists’ League, a left wing- worker’s group in Iran published online statements and even wrote a letter to Hugo Chavez, urging the latter to raise worker’s issues to the their government. They explained how the Iranian regime has suppressed worker’s rights including their right to form independent unions and right to strike; and that the authorities, despite professing an anti-US stance, is in fact, working towards normalization of ties.

Sydney-based freelance journalist, Antony Loewenstein, also “noted the unhealthy relationship between the Latin American left and the regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” In one of his blog postings, he wrote that while he is in favour of the “rapid democratisation that has occurred under Chavez”, he is having doubts on the President’s increasingly authoritarian ways and “love affair with a dictator like Ahmadinejad“.

Chavez’s proposed referendum to changes in the constitution has attracted worldwide attention recently due to the street unrest and opposition. University students have publicly protested against the constitutional changes and the upcoming referendum to vote for these changes. The Opposition feels that changing the constitution will give Chavez too much power as it will allow the incumbent President to be voted for unlimited terms, and that the terms will be extended from six to seven years, while giving him the power to appoint regional vice presidents.

The business sector has also expressed worries over the proposed constitutional amendments. Nelson Maldonado, president of Consecomercio, one of Venezuela’s main business group, was quoted, “It seems the government intends to make private business progressively disappear,” He also argued that people cannot practice democracy without private property. Another business association, Fedecamaras, is concerned about a newly worded and ambiguous anti-monopoly clause which could be used to punish “the most successful and efficient businesses”.

In addition, the President can also declare a state of emergency in which he would have the power, not only to close down Venezuelan media but also detain citizens without trial. Fears of Venezuela becoming an autocratic state is not unfounded, if the constitution is being amended and approved through a majority yes vote from the referendum.

On the other hand, Chavez supporters have claimed that these constitutional changes are necessary to bring Venezuela forward into a new century of socialism. Steve Lendman argued that these changes include new provisions which would extend “existing constitutional law that guarantees human rights and recognizes the country’s social and cultural diversity”. They include: building a “social economy” to replace the failed neo-liberal Washington Consensus model; officially prohibiting monopolies and unjust consolidation of economic resources; lowering the eligible voting age from 18 to 16; guaranteeing free university education to the highest level; reducing the work week to 36 hours to promote more employment; prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination and enacting gender parity rights for political candidates amongst other changes. Mark Weisbrot writing for New Statesman argued that the international media is inherently biased against the Venezuelan President. He cited support from Brazil’s President, Lula da Silva, who defended Venezuela by saying, “You can invent anything you want to criticise Chavez, but not for lack of democracy.”

Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela Ambassador to the United States also argued that citizens were consulted on the changes. He said that within a 47-day period spanning from August 16 to October 7, 9,020 public events were held along with 80,000 phone calls made to a special hotline, which allowed people to feedback. More than 10 million copies of the reforms were also distributed to the public.

Chavez cannot be termed a dictator simply by guilt for his association with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. After all, many elected leaders of democracies have extensive trade and economic relations with other authoritarian regimes. Yet, his praise for the Iranian regime, to the extent of choosing to neglect the voice of the Iranian socialists, makes his call for a new socialism and international anti-US imperialism stance sound empty, if not hypocritical. Moreover, the proposed changes to the Constitution, which will see greater changes including increasing worker’s rights is offset by a greater concentration of powers on the executive.

What remains more disturbing about Chavez, is the way he rallies support for his brand of socialism - one that like Bush, is full of absolutes and isms, to the extent of demonising his critics. For example, he recently lauded Venezuelans for their obsession with consumerism - cars and alcohol. In a recent pro-yes rally for the referendum, he was reported to have said, “He who says he supports Chavez but votes ‘no’ is a traitor, a true traitor.”

===

References

1. Iran and Venezuela heads in talks, BBC, Friday, September 28, 2007

2. Venezuela deepens ties with Iran, BBC, Monday, July 2, 2007

3. Iran and Venezuela bolster ties, BBC, Sunday, September 17, 2006

4. Open letter to President Hugo Chavez from Iranian Revolutionary Socialists’ League, Iranian Revolutionary Socialists’ League, July 28, 2006

5. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s trip to Venezuela, Iranian Revolutionary Socialists’ League, September 17, 2006

6. For and against Chavez, Antony Loewenstein, 19 November 2007

7. Chavez: No risk to private property, Associated Press, Jorge Rueda, November 24, 2007

8. Chavez: Only a ‘traitor’ will vote no, Associated Press, Dan Keane, Friday, November 23, 2007

9. Coup D’Etat Rumblings in Venezuela, Steve Lendman, Monday, November 19, 2007

10. Reforming Venezuela’s Constitution, Venezuela Analysis, Bernardo Alvarez Herrera

11. Venezuela: still a democracy, New Statesman, Mark Weisbrot, November 21, 2007

Will the American President shut down the School of Torture?

Though the School of Americas (SOA) has been renamed as The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) and claimed that it has included a human rights programs in its curriculum, SOA Watch, a movement, which is actively campaigning to close down the school, has rebutted their change as cosmetic.

Since 1990, SOA Watch has been organising protests every late November. This year, Ohio Democratic congressman and presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich joined in the demonstration and vowed to close the school immediately if elected. The other presidential candidate to endorse the closure is Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska.

The School of Americas, which was established in 1946 and renamed in 2001, remains a controversial institution for having taught and graduated some of the most notorious Latin American dictators. They include Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri of Argentina; Panama’s Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos, Peru’s Juan Velasco Alvarado and Ecuador’s Guillermo Rodriguez. Pentagon documents released in 1996 also revealed that the school taught students executions, torture, blackmail and other forms of coercion techniques. A U.N. Truth Commission report found that over two-thirds of the Salvadoran officers it cites for abuses are SOA graduates and that 40% percent of the Cabinet members under three sanguinary Guatemalan dictatorships were SOA graduates.

Supporters of the school claim that the number of “evil-doers” who graduated from the institution is small in number compared to the overall total throughout the years. They also claim that they do not teach torture; that the curriculum includes a human rights component; and that the school cannot be held accountable for the actions of some of its graduates.

The new school, despite having a new name and revamped program continues to be plagued by scandals of having produced military criminals. According to SOA Watch, seven of the thirteen military officials who attended the school, were caught in August this year for their implications in a drug cartel protection ring in Columbia. Columbian Army Chief General, Mario Montoya, who had taught at the school was alleged in March this year for having links with right-wing militias that Washington considers terrorist organizations. Gonzalo Guevara Cerritos, a former army officer from El Salvador, who was trained in the School of Americas, was convicted in October 2006 for taking part in the 1989 massacre of six Jesuit priests and two other people during that country’s civil war.

Some Latin American countries have boycotted the school. In 2004, Venezuela decided against sending their soldiers. By 2006, Argentina and Uruguay also made the same decision. They were joined by the president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, this year who stopped sending their police to the school for training.

The more disturbing allegations are that the school is a testing ground for torture techniques practiced in Abu Ghraib. For example, the black hood used to cover the faces of naked prisoners was practiced in Guatemalan and Salvadoran torture chambers. During the General Augusto Pinochet regime, prisoners were bound to a metal bed frame, similar to the way on how detainees are stripped naked and hooded while being bound in a crucifix position in Abu Ghraib.

While the Democratic presidential candidates, save Kucinich and Mike Gravel, have promised to close down the school, others have chosen to either adopt a “wait and see attitude” or applaud its inclusion of “human rights component”. The school, which has been used as a training ground for torture, is an institute that promotes the “war on terror”. Along with issues such as Guantanamo Bay or Iraq War, the new president should also be questioned, “Will you shut down the School of Americas if elected?”

===

References and further reading materials:

1. Kucinich protests Army training school, Associated Press, Harry R. Weber, November 18, 2007

2. SOA Protest Draws Scant Support From Candidates, Nation, Patrick Mulvaney, October 30, 2007

3. SOA Watch

4. Center for International Policy on Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (Successor to School of the Americas) Fort Benning, Georgia

5. Backyard terrorism, The Guardian, George Monbiot, October 30, 2001

6. Teaching Torture, LA Weekly, Doug Ireland, July 22, 2004
7. U.S. Instructed Latins on Executions, Torture, Washington Post, Dana Priest, September 21st 1996

8. School Of The Americas, PBS Online Focus, September 21, 1999

9. Hidden In Plain Sight, CommonDreams.org, by Leah C. Wells, November 18, 2003