Is Barack Obama a closeted Republican?

It is discomforting, if not puzzling that Mr Barack Obama, a Democratic Presidential candidate, promising positive blazing changes, has chosen to use Ronald Reagan, a former Republican President as an example; as well as to endorse the Republican party in an interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board.

After all, Reagan was a controversial figure head, who was notorious for his human rights and environmental record, mismanaging the economy, and having the dubious honour of being the first President who surrounded himself with a bunch of neo-conservative advisers during his administration. They included Defense Department aide Richard Perle, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.

Upon hearing his comment, John Edwards, another Democratic candidate, was quick to denounce Obama for using Reagan as an example. On Reagan, Edwards said, this was ‘the man who busted unions, the man who did everything in his power to destroy the organized labor movement, the man who created a tax structure that favored the richest Americans against middle class and working families… was destructive to the environment by removing a lot of the regulation that existed

Edwards is spot right on all accounts.

On busting unions, just months into being office in 1981, Reagan fired about 12,000 federal air traffic controllers from the Professional Air Traffic Controllers’ Organization (PATCO) who, ironically, supported his presidential campaign. While it was a violation for governmental employees to strike at that time, the result was to ‘break the union and signal to corporations that it is acceptable to be anti-union.’

The former President’s track record in the management of the American economy has often been labelled as ‘Reaganomics’, which, according to Robert Pollin, Professor of Economic and founding co-director of the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, benefited the rich and not the poor.

In the article, ‘Reaganomics Revisited, Beyond the Glow of Nostalgia’ published on Counterpunch, he cited the increase of individual poverty rate from 11.9 per cent under Carter to 14.1 per cent under Reagan as an indicator. He also cited the fall of average real wages. The average figure during his presidency ‘was $15.72 per hour (in 2005 dollars), was 7.6 per cent below the average hourly wage under Carter of $16.95, and 9.6 below the Nixon/Ford peak of $17.39.’

He summed up, ‘Reagan’s fiscal program was fundamentally about tax cuts for the rich, a massive expansion in military spending, sharp reductions in social expenditures, and an acceptance-or better still, an embrace-of large-scale federal government fiscal deficits on these terms.’

Even on the topic of environmental conservatism, Reagan nominated advisers who actively sought to break the laws for the benefit of corporate profiteers. Jeffrey St. Clair charted the rise of these figures, known as the ‘Sagebrush Rebels’ or ‘the Crazies on the Hill,’ which featured two prominent stalwarts - James Watt, the head of the Department of Interior and Anne Gorsuch in the Environmental Protection Agency.

In an excerpt of Jeffrey’s book on Reagan’s Administration, he had this to say about Watt, ‘ Within a matter of months Watt proposed the sale of 30 million acres of public lands to private companies, gave away billions of dollars worth of publicly-owned coal resources, fought to permit corporations manage national parks, refused to enforce the nation’s strip mine law, offered up the Outer Continental Shelf oil reserves to exploration and drilling, ignored the Endangered Species Act and purged the Interior Department of any employees who objected to his agenda.’ Gorsuch, on the other hand, according to him, created a ‘climate of cronyism that infected the EPA in those days… pander to its political allies: Coors, Browning-Ferris Industries, Westinghouse and Monsanto.’

His claims were supported by Amanda Griscom on Grist.com, a Washington based environmental group. In her article on Reagan’s environmental legacy, the writer quoted Frank O’Donnell, director of Clean Air Trust, who reported on environmental policy for The Washington Monthly during the Reagan era, “EPA budget cuts during Reagan’s first term were worse than they are today.” Phil Clapp, president of National Environmental Trust said, ‘the administration tried to cut EPA funding by more than 25 percent in its first budget proposal’.

While Edwards had not touched on Reagan’s foreign policy, it was the latter’s aggressive ‘anti-communism’ efforts, in the form of funding and supporting right wing Latin American dictatorships that proved most disturbing. Reagan’s support of these illiberal and violent regimes paved the stage for repressive military assaults causing massacres and human rights violations.

The Iran-Contra scandal in which proceeds from weapon sales to Iran was secretly used to fund the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua, an illegal act under the Congress, caused a civil war in Nicaragua, leading to the deaths of 50,000 people.

In El Salvador, Reagan’s administration pumped in more than $4 billion on economic and military aid to the military government, resulting in more than 75,000 deaths, most of them civilians, who were caught in the crossfire. He also supported General Efrain Rios Montt’s coup in Guatemala that caused the death of than 200,000, mostly indigenous people, over a lengthy 36 years period of civil war.

Reagan’s supporters may argue that the former President was an important figure, at least, in contributing to world stability for his overstated role in ending the Cold War. Yet, scholars and historians have disputed that version of history. In fact, Reagan was purportedly ‘anti-communist’ as has been witnessed through his support of Latin American military dictatorships. He admonished, called the Soviet Union an ‘evil empire’ and came up with belligerent military policies which escalated the arms race. Efforts which are clearly promoting distrust and increasing tension with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

During his administration, he approved the Star Wars, or the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a military defense program (as a deterrence against the Soviets), using ground and space-based systems to protect America from strategic nuclear ballistic missiles attack.

As such, he actually extended the cold war by promoting hard-line rhetoric in the Communist bloc, and not the other way round. Academics also argued that the end of the cold war were due to internal pressures within Soviet Union, in the form of declining legitimacy, an increasing need for reforms and widening gaps in the society as the reform process unfolded. All these were significant factors in ending the cold war.

Perhaps a Sunday Times Online article, uncannily titled, ‘Republicans defect to the Obama camp’ will provide clues as to why Barack Oabama has chosen Reagan as his exemplifying example of change.

The writer, Sarah Baxter, reported that Barack Oabama is converting, not just Republicans, but also those who used to be ardent Bush supporters. For example, John Canning, a previous Bush supporter and investment banker; and Tom Bernstein, who co-owns Texas Rangers baseball team with the current President.

Robert Kagan, founder of the neoconservative think think, Project for the New American Century, and a supporter of John McCain, has publicly endorsed Obama, as a “pure John Kennedy”, a neocon hero of the cold war for his support of the war.

At the end of Sarah’s article, Obama was strangely labelled, the ‘Black Ronald Regan’ for his unwavering optimism for the future. Is it therefore, any surprise, that Mr Obama has chosen to cite the former President as an agent of change, and perhaps, implicitly and unconsciously, his source of inspiration?

===

References:

1. Edwards, Clinton critical of Obama, Associated Press, Nedra Pickler, 19 January 2008

2. Reagan presidency pivotal for unions; Workers: Organized labor’s situation worsened under his administration, Baltimore Sun, Stacey Hirsh, 8 June 2004

3. Reaganomics Revisited; Beyond the Glow of Nostalgia, Counterpunch, Robert Pollin, 22 February 2006

4. The Nature of Ronald Reagan, Will the Earth Accept His Corpse?, Counterpunch, Jeffrey St. Clair, 8 June 2004

5. How Green Was the Gipper?, A look back at Reagan’s environmental record, Grist, Amanda Griscom, 10 June 2004

6. In Central America, Reagan Remains A Polarizing Figure, Washington Post Foreign Service, Kevin Sullivan and Mary Jordan, 10 June 2004

7. Republicans defect to the Obama camp, The Sunday Times, Sarah Baxter, 6 May 2007

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