The Worst Place to Live in the World

Where is the worst place in the world to live today? If you said Iraq then guess again. Darfur? Getting closer, but still not quite there. The answer my friends is the Democratic Republic of Congo. You hear a lot about Iraq and Darfur these days for two reasons. The terrible humanitarian situations in both places and the fact that they happen to sit on large reserves of oil certainly merit out attention. On the other hand take DRC, or Somalia, or Haiti. Somalia gets a little more attention because the country is mostly Muslim and we all know that they have to be watched. Haiti, well its just some poor little island full of black people in the Caribbean whose leader is not named Castro, so who cares about them. But DRC is heads and shoulders above the rest of these countries for the level of destruction and chaos that reigns there.

A war has been ragging in that country, formally known as Zaire, since 1996. The causes can be traced back to genocide of Tutsis by Hutus in neighboring Rwanda in 1994. Many of the perpetrators of that horrible event now reside in DRC where they continue to be a major contributor to the current conflict. The war, which at its height involved five neighboring countries in a massive regional war reminiscent of Europe in the previous few centuries, was officially declared to be over in 2004. Up to 4 million died in the conflict over those 8 years. Yet today three years after the war is over up to 38,000 people are still dying every month in DRC. Institutionalized rape has become a favorite form of terror perpetrated against Congolese women. And not just women either. There have been reports of children as young as 10 months, mere infants, being raped. For anyone who did not understand the gravity of using rape as a means of terror this illustration should be clear enough. The only possible reason for raping an infant is for the message it sends to others.

The last scientific report released on the number of those killed was in 2004. A new report is to be published within the next month. Estimates are placing the likely number as high as 6 million since 1996.

When was the last time you read or heard about the plight of the people in the Democratic Republic of Congo? When is the last time Bush mentioned the conflict ragging there? But then again why should anyone give a shit about the Congolese, they are black and even more importantly they do not have any resources we want.

Blackwater, Privatization, War and Fascism

I have to preface this entry with a little explanation. The following is basically a reaction I wrote the other night to the latest controversy to deveop over the use of private contractors in US military ventures abroad. I just let the words flow out of my head and I have decided to leave them in their original format without and editing or further investigation of details that could add relevant content to the article.



The Major problem with the Blackwater corp. and other mercenaries is not that they are above the rule of seemingly any law, it is not that they act if often reckless means killing without regard or investigation, it is the fact that they represent the privatization of war. Another ugly head of the military-industrial complex has appeared, or perhaps reappeared is a better term, for mercenary armies are by no means a new invention. But the mercenary army acting under the guise of the capitalist system is a rather new development that has many ramifications beyond its counterparts from antiquity and the middle ages. At the heart of the matter is the neo-liberal objective of broad privatization of all aspects of life, from health care to the military to natural resources to public infrastructure to social security. Nothing is to be left untouched. And when I say neo-liberal I mean the group of neo-cons that made up the core of the Bush administration and still to day posses broad power, although perhaps not as much as in the past. The policies and programs of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz among others have been implemented with these ideological goals in mind. I have to make the distinction here between the neo-liberals in charge of the US now and the neo-liberalism as it was first developed by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economists. Although Friedman and his followers were devoted to privatization, they left a few things off the table that they considered to be untouchable. One of these things was the military/defense forces. This is where Rumsfeld enters the picture. His reorganization of the Defense Department has centered around the idea of privatizing as much as possible, a step that the father of neo-liberalism hesitated from advocating.

Well lets fast-forward a couple years and now the US is engaged in a war in Iraq and Afghanistan and seriously looks to be contemplating a third front in Iran. Blackwater has played a key role in this process. Allowing the US to embark on its imperialist adventures while at the same time avoiding the tremendously unpopularity of the draft. These neo-cons were around for Vietnam, hell a lot of them worked in the Nixon administration, they saw what happened in regards to public and military protest and civil disruption due to the conscription army. With a private military force at their disposal they are free to just hire more and more mercenaries to make up for any shortfall in the traditional armed forces.

The problem is that Blackwater and others, as a private company operating under the free market capitalist system, are driven by profit. It is there goal as a company to generate profit and growth; it is what drives competitive capitalism. And what is Blackwater’s business? They describe themselves as professional warriors. So lets that the next logical step; what kind of environment does Blackwater need to ensure contracts? (Contracts handed out by governments, namely the US government, which means the taxpayer is paying for it, according to congressional hearings the US pays for 90% of Blackwater’s revenue) Well the answer is almost self evident, they need chaos, they need war zones, they needed continued conflicts. They also just happened to be in a position to help extend conflicts, since they have armed personnel in the middle of said conflicts. Do you see the problem? Providing security to their clients in a war zone is suppose to let their clients accomplish whatever it is that they want to do in a secure environment, in this and most cases the US government with the objective of building a nation that is free of conflict. Well if the US succeeds in this endeavor, and it is nowhere close at the moment, then Blackwater is out of contracts and the business fails. I see three paths out of this dilemma for Blackwater. 1 – rely on the US to keep engaging in other conflicts, hence a continuation of the market and new contracts are signed. 2 – take steps to ensure the current conflicts they are involved in stay conflicts; hence they keep the contracts they have. 3 – Increasingly fill the void left by the neo-liberal privatization of the military begun by Rumsfeld and take over more and more sectors of the American military that have traditionally been subject to public funding. Number 3 is interesting to think about in a historical context, especially that of the ancient world where the empires of different states share many similarities with the US empire. The classic example is Rome. It began is ascendancy and conquest with the military might of its legions, whose ranks were filled with roman citizens. Over a period of time the Romans themselves lost the will to fight in the legions and left the tasks to others, first other italic people, then other peoples of the empire and finally to the barbarians coming from northeastern Europe and the steppes of Asia. Using money earned from the pervious conquests, the rulers of Rome depended more and more on others to do the work for them with the belief that it would lead to the same results, and it did, for a while. The ‘barbarization’of the legions had its effect though. Some parallels can be drawn from this comparison if closely examined.

My guess is that the way things are going now it is going to be a combination of all three paths that Blackwater takes. The company is certainly taking some public knocks now, only because it is the largest and most visible at the moment, but there are other private mercenary companies that are operating in Iraq that the public doesn’t hear about. If Blackwater ends up collapsing due to it being a target because it is the leader in the industry or because of its own mistakes, rest assured another company will rise to take its place.

That is unless we as a government and much more importantly as a people rethink exactly what the implications of employing private mercenary companies to do our fighting. Profit drives the private company and the mercenary companies business is war. This is a completely different level of the M-I-C than say a nuclear weapon producer like Westinghouse. The market for nukes isn’t going anywhere at the moment or anytime soon and there doesn’t have to be active warfare going on for the company to sell its weapons. In fact war, at least of the thermo-nuclear variety is highly unfavorable to Westinghouse; if it happens there will be no one left to buy any more weapons (or make them). Conventional war might actually stimulate the nuke market though, certainly proliferation and international instability does, so that is still a huge problem. But with Blackwater and others like it the mere presence of international instability and tensions is not enough; they need war/chaos to be taking place. There is no place for Blackwater in a world that is free from large conflicts.

As already noted this is a capitalist system is built upon the drive for growth and profits by companies. It is fundamentally against Blackwater’s interest for a stop to the warfare initiated by Bush. Well that’s not quite fair, he didn’t initiate it he only intensified it greatly. The military doesn’t fundamentally need warfare, as it is a public service, although of course it pushes for it. But defense forces can be scaled down in times of peace, however painfully the political steps may be. But the intertwining of government with private corporations that derive profit from war and destruction is a dangerous scenario. Blackwater is only one of the companies, others such as Halliburton profit off of different results of war, but war remains the key. This growing closeness of private business is incredibly dangerous as it takes the power away from the people and puts in the hands of the companies. It is they who financially support the politicians and in this sense determine who is in control. Who better than those who favor policies that will benefit the companies? It is instructive to note the Eric Prince, CEO of Blackwater, is a Republican backer and his family has major ties to the party and the Bush campaign. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton before becoming VP. These companies and individuals supported the ascendancy of the neo-cons and they have reaped the benefits many times over. We are witnessing before our eyes the move towards the corporate state. This my friends is the move towards fascism. It happened in Germany in a democratic republic. It happened in Spain after a civil war. It happened in Chile after a military coup. There are many paths to fascism and they by no means follow an easily mapped out path. But they do follow a general direction that has end results that we can point to. One is the emergence corporate-state. Another is the growth of executive authority. Another is political repression and terror on the local population. We are seeing some of these factors begin to play themselves out. If we do not put a stop to it then it is only a matter of time before the hammer falls. Do you want to be under it when it does? - 04.10.07 Buenos Aires

The Other September 11

The pieces I have written about Argentina have focused mainly thus far on different events and movements that I have had the opportunity to see unfolding around me. Writing about these social currents helps bring me to a better understanding of them as I am forced to put thought and analysis into what might otherwise be simple experience. But I thought I would try something a bit different with this article and address some other issues in the Latin American world. With that in mind here we go.
The anniversary of the September 11 attacks was recently remembered in the US and around the world. Buenos Aires was certainly no exception as news coverage was rather extensive. There was one major difference though. In Argentina, the rest of Latin America, and a good part of the world September 11 has long been an infamous date that is associated with tragedy and death; it marks the anniversary of the 1973 military coup against the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. General Augusto Pinochet, a name that might ring a few more bells up north, was the leading force in the coup and went on to be a rather long lasting and oppressive dictator. Most North Americans simply are not aware that this event took place and are even less aware of the all the tragic implications and details involved. Unfortunately is only one in a series of similar events that have plagued the people of the Latin America for years.
Perhaps one of the reasons that we don’t learn about the toppling of the Allende government is because the coup was supported by the Nixon administration. It just doesn’t sound that great to say you were fighting a war in Vietnam to bring freedom and democracy to the people there while at the same time you were supporting the overthrow of a democratically elected government in favor of a military dictator in South America. But then again no one had ever really paid that much attention to South America before, so Nixon probably thought no one would really notice. Like so many other of his decisions this one turned out to be a mistake as well. You see there is essentially one reason why Allende and his government are different from all the other coups in Latin American history; Allende was a Socialist and his government represented the first time in the world where an openly Socialist government was democratically elected. Its one thing to talk about giving the people freedom and democracy but it is certainly another thing when they truly begin to use it to build a better society for all. The Chilean generals and the Washington politicians were well aware of this and they moved to put the people of Chile back in the place they belonged, firmly under their control.
When Allende assumed the presidency of Chile in 1970 international news organizations declared him to be the world first democratically elected Marxist leader. That is simplifying things somewhat. Allende gained power with the backing of the Unidad Popular (UP) coalition of leftist political parties. The Socialist Party and the Communist Party did indeed make up the two largest factions in UP, but there were also smaller non-Marxists parties aligned with it as well. This conglomeration of parties on the left backing a Marxist program was a key to gaining victory through elections, something many thought was impossible in Chile or indeed any country. Clearly the CIA did not see it as such an unlikely outcome as it had infused over $11 million dollars into Chilean politics between 1962-1970 in an attempt to prevent Allende from being elected. When he finally succeeded the US stepped up its efforts to eliminate him from the scene. Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of State under Nixon, authorized the expenditure of $8 million dollars between 1970-1973 to ‘destabilize’ the economy, including money for right-wing strikes, to bring down the Allende government.
In fact when you actually examine what Allende accomplished or set out to accomplish in the three years he was in power it is clear that he was following a path of peaceful reform with the capitalist state and not a revolutionary overthrow of that system. There were modest challenges to the existing order, such as the nationalizing of the US-owned copper mines, but all in all Allende continued to push on reforms that were begun by the previous Christian Democrat government. The reforms amounted to an orthodox Keynesian plan for restarting the economy under the direction of the government, certainly nothing revolutionary as similar models had been followed all across Europe after the Second World War. The reasons behind Allende’s mild reforms are manifold, but it basically rested on his belief in the eventual success of the movement and the use of the current state institutions to build a socialist society directly at odds with those institutions. Perhaps his most fatal error was to believe right up until the end the military would obey its constitutional duty to uphold the democracy and not intervene.
That was all to change on the morning of September 11, 1973. Tensions had been rising for some time as the reactionary backlash against the modest reforms enacted over the past few years had lead to major disruptions in the country organized by industry bosses. Workers were also becoming frustrated with UP as they thought the pace of reforms should be sped up and not watered down to try to appease everyone. The line between opposing forces that Allende was trying to walk was turning out to be an impossible venture with those on the right becoming increasingly hostile and those on the left increasingly disillusioned. The hammer finally fell when the coup was launched. Allende, trapped in the Presidential Palace while it was surrounded and being bombed by the military, managed to transmit one final radio broadcast to the country. He closed his address with following,

Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Keep in mind that, much sooner than later, great avenues will again be opened, through which will pass the free man, to construct a better society.

Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!

These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason.

Whatever his faults or naivety in governing he truly was a man that had the best interest of the Chilean people at heart. It became clear that he was never going to willing resign as president to the coup plotters and he took his own life shortly after the speech rather that wait to be killed by the generals.
Allende’s end was a tragic one, but if anything it is just a representation of what happened to Chile as a whole. Tens of thousands were murdered or disappeared under the dictatorship for opposing the government, being perceived ‘subversives’, or simply to be made an example of. One such man was Victor Jara. In the preceding years he had emerged as the leader of the ‘new song movement’ in Chilean folk music. His songs with filled with praise of the brotherhood of humanity, the right to live in peace, and the socialist ideals popular among the followers of Allende. Immediately following the success of the coup thousands were rounded up by the military and placed in the national stadium in Santiago, which had been turned into a makeshift prison camp. Jara was among the prisoners and he paid a price like so many others for the ideal he represented. He first had his hands broken and mangled so that he would never be able to play the guitar again. It was a cruel punishment for simply being a musician but they couldn’t break Jara’s spirit and he sung songs for the other prisoners to help give them hope while they were all imprisoned together. After four days in the stadium he was dead, executed at the hands of the military.
The history of the coup and the long years that followed are filled with many such episodes of personal and national tragedies. Of course some were celebrating the turn of events. A US Defense Department memo dated October 1, 1973, actually goes as far as stating that September 11 was “our D- Day” and that “Chile’s coup de etat was close to perfect.” It probably doesn’t really surprise anyone to read that Nixon was involved in something so dirty and that he actually supported it. The point is that when we in the US remember the misfortunes that have afflicted us and let us also remember the misfortunes that we have inflicted upon other nations and reflect on the reasons why. These are not the sorts of things that are better to be swept under the rug and forgotten. Look at Iraq, eventually these things come back and bite you in the ass. We can learn from Chile not only about the mistakes that were made but also about what it takes to make a better place for all. It is a struggle, those with power are not simply going to hand it over to the masses, it will have to be taken from them. But without the struggle we will not only not make progress but we will slowly beat into submission.

Workers Movement in Action

After living in Argentina for over 8 months now I have had considerable amount of interesting experiences; some trying, some enlightening but for the most part they have always been interesting. A large portion of these experiences have brought myself into direct contact with the local culture here and have been very informative about the modern social and political climate. I almost always have to include the political side of things because politics here is something that has a daily and direct influence on people’s lives. The events of the past few years, especially the economic crisis of 2001, have shaped the lives and mindset of the citizens here. You can see signs of it everywhere in Buenos Aires, from the socialist slogans sprayed-painted on building walls, to the mass marches and demonstrations that have become an almost daily occurrence, to the hundreds of local assemblies that have sprung up in the different neighborhoods around the city. One of the more notable experiences for me came when I attended a meeting for the launch of a new political magazine at hotel conference center. The magazine was connected with various social movement and parties throughout the Americas, even including representative from the USA, so needless to say I was a bit surprised that it was being held in a very classy venue. I kept thinking to myself, ‘this setting seems a bit ironic for a meeting of socialist militants and thinkers.’ It was only later that I found out that the hotel I was sitting in was Hotel Bauen, a worker controlled and run cooperative. As I learned more I discovered that Hotel Bauen was only one part of a wider national movement by workers to take control their working environments. Let me explain a bit.

The movement, known as Movimiento Nacional de Empresas Recuperadas (National Movement of Recuperated Businesses) or MNER, began in the provinces independent of any party or organization when some factories were shut down because they were no longer making a profit. For the owners of the factories this made perfect sense being followers of the capitalistic model, where the goal is to generate profit. It follows that if the factories were no longer turning out a profit there would be no reason to keep them in operation under this model. Another factor leading to the closure of some factories was an increase in labor activism, which in turn led to serious conflicts between workers demanding improved working conditions and owners reluctant to make any concessions. Unfortunately for the workers this left them without jobs and in pretty dire straights. After a few months of unemployment and false promises by the former owners to reopen the factories, the workers took matters into their own hands.

After gathering together in small groups and discussing the common problems facing them as workers and a community, they decided to reoccupy the factories and start production again. They organized the production under a democratic system independent of any management or bosses and began to successfully operate the factories again. Following a cornerstone of Marxism – democratic control of the means of production by the workers themselves – the factory workers have succeeded in keeping the places running for over 5 years now.

Inspired by the example, other successful worker takeovers have spread throughout Argentina. The 2001 crisis have left no shortage of opportunities for these sorts of workers victories to rise from the ashes of the failed neo-liberal order that was adopted here in the 90’s. The movement has since spread to Buenos Aires, in this instance in the form of a hotel, Hotel Bauen, where the workers currently call the shots. The history of Hotel Bauen is an interesting one in itself. It’s a four-star hotel that was founded un the run up to the 1978 World Cup in Argentina, a time that saw large scale modernization and investment by the state, at that time under a military dictatorship. The state provided the owner of Hotel Bauen, Marcelo Iurcovich, with loans from the National Development Bank to help get the hotel up and running.

Now here is where it gets really interesting. During the privatization of state enterprises that took place during the 1990’s the National Bank of Development took its turn and was privatized and then absorbed into the larger National Bank of Argentina, bringing its debt owed it, including that of Hotel Bauen, with it. This privatization of the National Bank resulted in situation that almost defies belief. The debt owed the bank, and hence the state, by private companies was assumed by the state of Argentina as a means of making the bank more appealing to potential buyers. Did you get that? The money that the state loaned out to private interests in the 70’s is now money owed by the state to private companies today. This is the crazy logic that the Argentines have been living with since 2001. Of course money owed by the state means that the people are going to have to pay in the end and they did when in December 2001 3/4 of their savings were liquidated to keep the state apparatus from defaulting. The Hotel Bauen was closed shortly after this on December 28, 2001 due in part to the chaos it helped to create.

In March of 2003, with the support of MNER, the hotel’s former workers occupied the building. While they struggled to gain ownership over the hotel they began to make repairs to the building and eventually reopened for business. Since 2003, the Bauen cooperative has gone from 32 to over 150 employees, opened a street side café (whose tile floors come from FaSinPat, another worker controlled ceramics factory) and have equipped over 200 rooms. The hotel today has shown rising profits and serves as a free meeting place for progressive and workers’ groups. It was at one such meeting for the opening of an inter-American political/social magazine that I first came into contact with the worker control movement.

With such striking success for workers there was bound to be a backlash from reactionary forces. This came in late 2005 when the hotel was informed that the legal right of the workers to run the hotel as a business was not permitted. State officials attempted to tape off the entrances to the hotel, but the workers quickly removed this tape and the hotel has remained in operation to this day. There is still an on going legal dispute though, with the former owner Iurcovich heading the opposition. It is a very heated issue in the city right now as private capital is determined, if not to stop the workers control movement, then at least see it come under state supervision and control. But the people and independent press have also taken up the issue on the side of the workers and over 50,000 volunteers have been mobilized in support.

It is an incredibly interesting movement and it is by no means limited to Argentina. Democratic worker controlled cooperatives have been sprouting up all over Latin America, most notably in Venezuela. As is usually the case, this is a movement that we in the USA, and specifically in the Northland, can learn a lot from. If you are interested in learning more about the Argentine movement there is a good book in English about the phenomenon by Naomi Klein called Sin Patron. Check it out and more importantly take an active part in the struggle. It is not an issue that is only confined to Argentina. ¡Hasta Socialismo Siempre!

Snow and Heat in Argentina

A strange thing happened recently in Buenos Aires. It snowed. It’s the first time in 90 years that the city has been graced with a snowfall and people made the most of it. Spontaneous parties broke in the streets all around the capital with people gathering to make snow balls, sing songs, and just take it all in. For most Porteños this was the first (and likely the last) time they have seen snow. Unless you can afford a holiday to the southwestern part of the country, where the peaks of the Andes bring snow and South Americas only skiing, it is pretty safe to say that this was a once in a lifetime event.

Of course the winter weather brought chaos to the city as well. Both airports were closed for a couple of days because there is no de-icing equipment here. The roads were even worse than usual and it resulted in countless accidents for drivers not accustomed to the slippery conditions. The public bus system, the absolute life-beat of public transport here, was reduced to slow and sporadic service leaving many people without a way to get home in the evening after finishing up at the job. Most didn’t seem to mind though as they were captivated by the falling flakes.

Needless to say the snowfall wasn’t quite as magical for me as it was for my Argentine friends. When I decided to move to South America last year snow was probably the last thing on my mind. Well not quite, I was thinking about escaping the winter in Duluth, I just wasn’t expecting to find it here. I can’t really complain too much though. The snowstorm (about 3/4 of an inch fell) did remind my of MN and all the good people there. I always find a bit funny when an Argentine complains to me about how cold it has been here this winter. “You should visit Minnesota in the winter sometime,” I tell them, “then you can complain about the cold all you want.”

As much fun as the night of the snow was for people here, there is also a much more serious side of the story. Argentina is currently in the midst of an energy crisis that leaves thousands without a reliable source of power to heat their homes. Those that feel the effects the most are inevitably the poor, but the crisis is affecting every strata of Argentine society. The energy crisis is not the only major problem that Argentina is facing at the moment. Inflation has been on the rise in recent months and people are feeling the squeeze. Remember, this is a country whose economy collapsed in 2001 and most people were left to fend for themselves. Anyone who had money in a bank here lost 70% of what they had been saving. These traumatic events are still very much on people’s thoughts.

The fact that the snowfall came at just this time has made the problems here clearer than ever. As a foreigner it has been interesting and sad to watch what is unfolding. I say sad because after all that these people have been through it is almost painful to see the political establishment following the same path that led to the 2001 collapse. But Argentina isn’t alone in reliving history; I see the same thing mirrored in the US, repeating a policy today that has failed in the past. Unlike the US though, there is a shimmering prospect for hope here. Ordinary people are coming together to form independent political and social movements to challenge the establishment and the current direction the country is going. I gathered the following information from talking with many Porteños, and believe me the all have an opinion on it, but most of it comes from talks I have had with our comrade Fede Castagnet, local university student and a member of the MST (Socialist Workers Movement). This is their assessment of the problems I mentioned above and what they think needs to be done about it.

To say that the energy crisis is a new problem confronting Argentina is a bit deceiving. In reality the crisis can be traced back to the mid 90’s when then president Menem began privatizing the energy companies. The oil, gas, and electricity sectors all went from state control to private hands. The crisis has been exasperated because of the growth in population and industry in the country since the 90’s without corresponding investment in the energy infrastructure. The power plants are working to the absolute limit now, but there just isn’t enough to meet demand. The privately owned companies have actually shut down two hydropower plants, Atucha I and II, because they were not making a suitable profit from them. This is the problem when crucial sectors of the economy come under private control; profit takes precedence over social needs.

The current government has only added to the mess by providing subsidies to the private companies to encourage them to keep expanding their operations here. The only problem is that the companies are not investing in country. They use the subsidies to expand their extraction operations, not to add the crucial infrastructure to bring the energy to the cities. They are certainly making a profit, but that windfall is then taken out of the country.

So what is happening in Buenos Aires is this; due to the energy shortage different areas of the city are subject to random power cuts for hours at a time. These are planned cuts by the government, but no one knows when or where they will occur until the lights go out. This has been going on for about 10 years now. Now this is being combined with rising inflation. The Argentine economy is based on exports and as international prices for goods rise compared to national prices the businesses are forced to raise the cost for things locally. Unfortunately salaries are not going up with inflation leaving people struggling to make ends meet. There is actually a law here to deal with just this situation, Ley de Abastecimiento, that says basic necessities for life can be subject to price control so that they do not become more expensive than what people can afford. The current government, under president Kirchner, is choosing not to enforce the law, favoring big business instead. The people end up being the losers in this situation.

I asked Fede what was up with this and he gave me a pretty straight forward answer, “Well there was this guy named Karl Marx, perhaps you have heard of him, who said that the desire for profit under capitalism is something that makes capitalism move, but is also the same thing that undermines capitalism.”

Well that’s fine as a critique of the situation, but I wanted to know what could be done now to solve the problem. So I asked Fede to if had any thoughts. “Of course there are things that could be done right now, if there was the will to do them. We don’t need to have socialism before we address these problems. The first thing is we need to renationalize the oil and gas sectors or at the least ask the companies to make an investment in country, in accordance with current laws. The second thing we can do is have democratic and consumer control over the resources. The people are the ones that need the resources and it does them no good to have a company making a profit off of oil when the are sitting in there house freezing their ass off.”

As you can all see there are many hurdles to overcome before Argentina meets the basic needs of its citizens. Right now a struggle is being wagged by the people to reclaim what should have been theirs all along. A lot of hard work lies ahead, but the will to fight is there. We could all learn a valuable lesson from the Argentines on what it really means to have a participatory democracy.

The coming War

A new war is coming and its coming soon. The question is where. The answer is easy enough: Gaza. The aggressor: Israel. It will happen within a months time. The justifications will be to prevent the rise of "Hamastan" on Israel's southern border; a belligerent state committed to the destruction of Israel. Of course in reality it will be the other way around, a Jewish state committed to the destruction of a Palestinian prison territory. Not even a state. More lie a cage that people are kept locked in without any chance to for employment, peace, or safety. Israel will strike hard after their defeat last summer to Hezbollah in Lebanon. They want to reestablish the perception of Israeli military dominance in the region and what better place to do it than in Gaza. It should be like shooting fish in a barrel. There is an X-factor in all this, when people have nothing to lose (and those in Gaza literally have nothing) what is to stop them from fighting to the last even if their families and homes are destroyed all around them. Hell, they are use to it by now, bomb the shit out of Gaza and it probably won't look that much different than it does today.

The new defense minister for Israel, Ehud Barak, will be the one to demand it politically and he will not be disappointed. The US will back the war and the US media will give little to no coverage, certainly less than the Lebanon war last summer. Why? Because its against the Palestinian people and the democratically elected Hamas, because the Palestinians have been confined in the Occupied territories for over 40 years now, by far the longest running military occupation in the world, because these people are somehow considered not to be worthy of the standards given to Israelis and US citizens in their countries. Mark my words this war is coming. And when you wage a war with a completely modernized army against a lightly armed impoverished people, people who are forced to live in continual poverty, people who have no place to escape to because they are fenced in, you aren't just waging an aggressive war, you are waging a genocide.

Venezuela and RCTV

So what is happening in Venezuela? A private TV station did not have their broadcasting license renewed by the Chavez government and all of a sudden democracy, freedom of speech and press are all under assault. We have heard this story before about Chavez, but this case needs to be given a closer examination before we pass judgment on it. The major media outlets in the U.S. and Europe have been doing a pitiful job in covering this event. Any semblance of objectivism was long ago disregarded as ‘irrelevant’ when it comes to discussing Chavez. Nevertheless the facts are there for all to see, it simply takes a small amount of effort to uncover them.

Lets begin with a brief overview. RCTV (Radio Caracas TV) did not have their broadcasting license renewed on the 27th of May by the government. This was not an unexpected or rash act; Chavez had made it perfectly clear he did not intend to renew the license for many months. It its place a public TV station Tvez would be set up allowing literally thousands of independent producers access and a platform in which to broadcast to the country. RCTV would not lose its cable or satellite licenses, nor would it be subject to any penalties or criminal charges.

Chavez decided to shut the station down because of its role in the 2002 coup the temporarily ousted him from power. Indeed RCTV is an opposition-aligned company but there is a difference between supporting the opposition in a democratic country and supporting a military coup to overthrow a democracy. RCTV, along with the other privately owned media companies, launched a propaganda effort backing the coup and timed to coincide with it. RCTV failed to report on the mass popular demonstrations that brought Chavez back to his elected office, failed to report that Chavez was back in power after the coup failed, and later portrayed Chavez supporters as killing peaceful anti-chavistas, which was in fact later disproved. RCTV actually went as far as supporting the military coup before it became apparent that the people of Venezuela would not stand for it.

Chavez has sited all this as the reason for not renewing the license. It is worth noting that Chavez has waited 5 years until the current license expired before acting, in complete accordance with Venezuelan law. He refrained from punishing not only RCTV but also other supporters and even members of the military that were complicit in the coup once he was swept back into power.

Can we imagine this happening in the U.S.? If a leading general overthrew the president for a few days and NBC was completely backing the military in this, could we expect that the president would just let NBC be after he regained power? The answer is no. I would expect some sort of treason trials to be initiated or perhaps something to a lesser degree. In Venezuela this did not happen although Chavez clearly had the power and mandate to do such a thing.

So where does that leave us. The Chavez government has acted accordingly in regards to Venezuelan law by removing a private company from public broadcasting frequency for actively supporting an attempt to overthrow the democratic government and establish a military dictatorship. It has left the company free to have its programming on cable and satellite channels.

There has been a lot of coverage of the protests in Caracas against the move by Chavez, but what often is not mentioned is that the pro Chavez rallies taking place at the same time are many times the size of those protesting against. Once again popular support is on the side of the government. Perhaps that is what is the most threatening to the U.S. and Europe is that there is an elected leader actually doing the bidding of the vast majority of the population in his country and not the other way around. In this context in is not surprising to see these countries denounce the move as an attack on democracy and freedom. For example lets look at Condoleezza Rice’s recent statements.

"Freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience are not a thorn in the side of government... Disagreeing with your government is not unpatriotic and most certainly should not be a crime in any country, especially a democracy."


She also described the move as “undemocratic.” Never mind the fact that Venezuela has NOT charged RCTV with any crimes, and that RCTV supported the overthrow of a democratically elected government. Rice seems like she is a character straight out of 1984, Newspeak and Doublethink come out of her a bit to easily for comfort.

We only have to think of one simple example to see how hypocritical this all this, although we have many to choose from. Just imagine if tonight on the news NBC or CBS or ABC (take your pick) said we all should support Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace and help him overthrown the government. That’s it, nothing more need to be said, that station would be finished instantly. It’s as simple as that people.

Why the Democrats will continue supporting the War

It has become very apparent in the last month or two that the Democrats who took control of Congress in the last election cycle have no intention of putting a stop to one of the wars the U.S. is currently fighting. I am referring of course to Iraq, but let us not forget there are still troops and combat operations going on in Afghanistan and even less mentioned is the situation in Somalia, a country that has been attacked by the U.S. on at least three occasions in 2007.

But I digress; the focus of this article is the situation in Iraq. It was widely recognized that the elections of the Democrats was a in its essence a demand of the people to put an end to the war. Political analysts and people on both sides of the political spectrum acknowledged this. The voters were not asking for a Democrat version of the war, rather they were saying we want to stop this and bring the troops home as soon as possible.

I remember the feeling excitement and the expectation for change that many felt on that night in November when the Dems won control of both Houses. I remained very skeptical about the situation and I feel, unfortunately, that I have been proven right. The Democrats are not taking any steps to end the war. They are funding it without restrictions. This is nothing more than a week capitulation to Bush and the Republicans and a complete disregard for the will of the people. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me, business as usual one might say, but it seems to many others that it has come as a shock. I continually read about the failing of the Dems of the dashed hopes that people had. All I can say is “Wake up people”. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people are dying, not to mention thousands of Americans (whose lives seem to be worth the equivalent of a hundred lives of people of color) doesn’t come into consideration in the minds of politicians.

How can I say such a thing? Simple, look at the situation and draw the only reasonable conclusion you can from it. Political consideration and comfort are the most important thing most of these elected leaders. This war could be stopped right now if the Dems hadn’t provided the funding. So why did they? Here is my answer. They don’t really want to end this war just yet; they need to get closer to Election Day in 2008 so they can use it as an issue against the Republicans. Is this a cynical view of things? Of course it is, but I don’t see how one can’t be cynical these dark days we are living in.

The Dems say, “we want to stop this war and bring the troops home”, and yet they do otherwise with their actions. Let us not forget this when it comes time to vote in 2008 and they position themselves as antiwar and say they will put a stop to it if elected to the presidency. This war will certainly still be ranging on at that point and the reason why is because the Dems will have allowed it to. They do not deserve our support anymore than the Republicans do. In the politics of war it’s not the people suffering and dying that come first in the considerations of the politicians, nor is it the supposed safety or protection of the American people. Rather it is their own political survival that holds the supreme place in their thoughts and considerations.

Mayor of Buenos Aires Part 1

Well the election is drawing ever nearer here for the Major of Buenos Aires (Jefe de Gobierno). Voting day is on June 3rd and the campaigns have all kicked into overdrive. Although this is only a local election there is the potential for national ramifications.
The mayor of Buenos Aires is a national figure and the post can be a springboard for a future presidential run. That is of course if the time in office was a success, which is by no means assured. The Federal Capital of Buenos Aires is a city within a city; in the States the closest comparison would be D.C. This is where all the big decisions get made for the country, the seat of the national government, the most technologically advanced area, the most populous and the wealthiest. It is home to about 3.5 million people, but it surrounded by a huge sprawl of mostly less well off Argentines totaling all together about 13 million. This election is just for the Federal Capital though and that’s what I want to talk about.
The one major difference that strikes me between campaigns here and in the U.S. is the dearth of candidates. There are literally 10 or 11 people that are running for Mayor. It’s an important position and national figures have been throwing support behind their favored candidates. Even the President, Nestor Kirchner, has stepped in on his party’s behalf. Despite the size of the field I think there are only 3 or 4 with a real shot of winning, but with that many people running you never know what the results will be.
With all the differences between Argentine and U.S. politics there seems to be one common factor, most of the politicians here are pompous assholes. I guess some things just transcend any cultural barrier. It didn’t take me long to figure this out after listening to a few of them speak or reading their platforms. They talk a lot but they aren’t saying anything. Wait a second, is that a Talking Heads lyric? I don’t remember for sure but if it is its spot on.
Not that all of the Candidates here are full of it, there are a few bright spots to speak of. One of these is Patricia Walsh, the MST candidate. I say this because the program she is advocating is a departure from traditional politics and policies. I don’t have the space to lay it all out here, but one point I find very encouraging is her willingness to listen to the people and give not only a voice in the governance of Buenos Aires, but rather the voice. The whole MST party is structured this way; it’s a bottom to top approach that is a very refreshing departure from what I am used to coming from Minnesota.

Wolfowitz Isn't A Lone Soldier

Does it seem a bit ironic to anyone that Paul Wolfowitz resigned as president of the World Bank earlier among charges of corruption? I mean this is the man who upon taking up his position at the bank declared an anti-corruption campaign. Does it really surprise anybody though? Just look at where Wolfowitz came from before heading to the World Bank, the Bush Administration. Granted just being a member of the Administration doesn’t automatically qualify a person as corrupt, incompetent, or dishonest, but it certainly doesn’t help your case either.

Corruption is nothing new when it comes to politics and indeed one would be naïve to think otherwise. The pomposity of this Administration lies in its hypocrisy. The example of Wolfowitz is just one example, but there are plenty more. Of course there is the recent example of Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most notorious terrorists in the Western Hemisphere over the past 25 years, walking freely in the U.S. Another example is the infamous No Child Left Behind policy,

“President Bush's No Child Left Behind law requires public schools to lower the number of dropouts. Failure to do so results in unfavorable actions being taken against local schools, school districts, and individual teachers.

In his latest budget, President Bush cut the federal money for dropout programs to ZERO. The requirement stays in place. The punishments stay in place. The money to help schools reach the goal and avoid the punishments no longer exists.”1

Do I even dare get in the nuclear proliferation debate? Yeah, I have to. This Administration loves to pretend it is against it with a lot of tough talk to Iran and North Korea, yet at the same time the Administration has pulled out of or weakened every major international arms agreement. Meanwhile they tell Iran that they cannot have the technology while India, Pakistan, Israel (all U.S. allies and not signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) as well as Russia and China surround them with thermonuclear weapons.

So the policies are obviously hypocritical to a large extent. Now lets move on to the people. Randall Tobias, former AIDS Czar, got busted patronizing the services of an escort service. Or course he was only using it for the ‘massages’ and I could really care less what he does in his free time, except that the program he was in charge of wouldn’t give aid organizations that help prostitutes and made much of the aid available only if they went to abstinence programs. What a jackass. I believe the appropriate word in Buenos Aires is boludo.

Since we are on this topic we might as well bring up Ted Haggard. While not a member of the Bush Administration, he was a staunch supporter and powerful evangelical preacher who spoke with Bush or his advisers on a weekly basis. I say was because it came to light that Mr. Haggard also used the services of an escort service, this time a male one, as well as dabbled in methamphetamines on the side. This coming from some one who preached against homosexuality and drug use.

The list goes on and on, but I think the point is made. It has gotten so bad that when I heard about Wolfowitz’s problems at the World Bank my response was, “Yeah, that sounds about right”. Being surprised or shocked at how low these people can sink is no longer even an option, it is just taken for granted.

bio fuel/bio foe

A new report by the US Department of Agriculture has projected that the growing biofuel industry will use 27% of this years U.S. corn crop. Even though it is also projected that the crop will be a record 12.46 billion-bushels there is significant concern that stockpiles will be running low going into next, when biofuel demand is expected to continue its rise. Who cares right? I mean you don’t even really like corn so we might as well use it instead of buying oil from those pesky Arabs. Well let me lay out what is wrong with this picture, because there is definitely something wrong.

First of all biofuel itself is a tricky thing. It sounds so much better than petroleum and yet when you burn it, especially when it is made from corn, it isn’t cleaner. So there goes your ‘its better for the environment’ theory.

Well it might not be that green but at least it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. This is indeed true, it puts the U.S. in a more strategically secure position, at least as far as energy supplies go. When you can grow fuel instead of importing it from potentially hostile regions you are, at least in theory, spared from having to fight wars for control of resources. Of course in practice it is advantageous for the U.S. to control as many resources around the world as possible, regardless if it consumes them or not.

So a point for and a point against. Here is what tips the scale. Turning corn (food) into a fuel when people go hungry everyday in that same country doesn’t seem right to me. In the richest society in the history of the world many millions of people go to bed hungry every night. And it doesn’t stop there. Much of U.S. corn has, since the implementation of NAFTA, been exported to Mexico where it is turned in to tortilla. Tortilla is the staple of lower classes in Mexico and the main source of calories for many millions in that country. With more and more of U.S. crops been set aside for biofuel purposes the price of tortillas has been on the rise in Mexico, sparking widespread protest earlier this year. The Mexican government was forced into the position of setting a price cap so people could afford to eat. Is this really something we should be powering our cars with at the expense of so many peoples lives?

And here is the real kicker, cleaner and more efficient biofuels can indeed be made, not from potential food crops, but from others such as sugar cane or even switch grass. Look at Brasil for more encouraging approach to biofuel. It is developing the sugar cane option, I see no good reason why the U.S. should not as well. Of course I would prefer no biofuels at all and a move towards a much cleaner technology, but the U.S. seems incredibly reluctant to do this. And by the U.S. I mean the government. The population in general is clearly behind reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but since when does it matter what the people want?

Beware of those touting biofuels as some sort of response to global warming. We can and should do much better than that.

Not all terrorists are created equal

The U.S. is often accused of double standards and hypocrisy in its foreign policy, human rights, and pro-democracy hubris when it comes to pursuing its own interests. This can easily be seen when one of the justifications for the Iraq war was to bring to democracy to the people of Iraq, while at the same time the U.S. enjoys rather cozy and lucrative relations with China. The fact that China has horrible human rights record and an authoritarian government doesn’t seem to matter when it boils down to the ‘important’ issue: trade. The China case is just one of a number of hypocritical stances taken by the U.S. and for that simple reason it doesn’t even stand out that much.

One recent case though seems to me to go head and shoulders above a lot of this hypocrisy, the situation surrounding Luis Posada Carriles. Some of you have heard of him before, others have not so I will give a little background information. Carriles is an anti-Castro Cuban militant that was once employed by the CIA. He has been tied to numerous bombings and terrorist plots over the years, most often funded by the CIA (this was apparently before the U.S. considered terrorism a bad thing, how the tables have turned). The most notorious crime he is connected with though is the 1976 bombing of Cuban plane that resulted in the death of all 73 people on board.

Sounds bad right? Well unfortunately it gets worse. He was jailed in Venezuela and was undergoing trial for the bombing when he escaped in 1985. After trying his hand in a few more plots over the years he ended up being jailed in Panama in 2000 for plotting an assassination attempt, but he received a Pardon and left the country 4 years later. He made his way into the U.S. at some point after that and was rightly detained by U.S. authorities.

But not on terrorism charges, rather on charges about lying to immigration officials upon his entry into the country. Both Cuba and Venezuela demanded that he be extradited to them to continue facing trial for his alleged crimes or that he be tried for them in the U.S. as is laid out in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation, a UN international agreement.

Pretty straightforward, right? Well the U.S. has refused to hand over Carriles or try him on terrorism charges, preferring to simply pursue the immigration charges in blatant disregard for international law. The fact that international law is being ignored is of course nothing new to the U.S. but the fact that a world recognized terrorist is the beneficiary of it should something rather disturbing to all U.S. citizens.

And to top it all of the judge in Carriles’ immigration case dismissed yesterday leaving Carriles a free man within the U.S.

At this point the question has to be: why? Granted the U.S. certainly doesn’t like or approve of the governments in Cuba or Venezuela so I can at least understand the reluctance to hand Carriles into their custody. But why let a known terrorist walk free in U.S., I mean at least give him trail here. Perhaps I am being cynical, but the only other reason I can think of is that in for about a year, from Jan 30 1976 to Jan 20 1977 George H. W. Bush served as Director of the CIA. If Carriles was brought to trail on terrorism charges he would inevitably bring to light many details of that agencies policies and secrets, probably putting George senior in a bad light. The fact that his son is in the White House and this administration has repeatedly rejected bringing Carriles to justice is just a bit too much for me.

It brings me to the conclusion that the U.S. hypocrisy only continues to spread. Terrorist are evil and bad when they come from the Mid East, but when they come from Cuba and are anti-communist not only do they escape punishment, they get a welcome into our country. Don’t think the rest of the world isn’t paying attention. They certainly are. This Orwellian double-speak can only go on for so long before it catches up with us.

Why I will vote for a third party

I found myself the other night stuck in the middle of another heavy political talk. My counterparts in this were a fellow norteamericano and a Swedish traveler I recently met. And I use ‘stuck’ in the loosest of possible ways, for in reality I seemed to be pursuing the debate as hard as the others. In fact the Swede’s role mainly consisted of being an attentive listener. I can understand that, the world of US politics is baffling enough its own citizens let alone foreigners. So what issue had delved so whole-heartedly into you might be asking. Voting. Specifically using voting as a means of changing the present two party structure dominant in U.S. Politics. We had earlier dismissed the idea of revolutionary overthrow of the existing order as an unlikely scenario for the time being so we where pretty much left with voting as the only alternative.
Basically it came down to this; the system desperately needs a change. This involves new groups coming into power. This is accomplished by replacing this the exiting powers (democrats and republicans). The next step, well that’s where we diverged. I advocated voting for a third party while my friend favored the Democrats. The Swede didn’t understand the problem.
Well my friends the problem is like this. The argument for voting for the Democrats often follows the logic of it’s the lesser of two evils, that the Dems aren’t really giving the people what they want or even offering a divergent alternative in most cases, but that is still better than letting the Republicans run things.
I hate that argument; it misses the whole goddamn point. We are electing these people to represent our interest and us and yet they consistently do not. They show no sign of beginning soon. They show every sign of continuing on the same old course as they always have, following an agenda that, while it obviously reflects somebody, it clearly is not the majority of U.S. citizens. This is reflected over and over in multiple public opinion polls on many issues. Just to give one, nuclear disarmament.
These people do not deserve our votes and will not receive mine barring drastic changes in party politics in the future. I am voting for a third party. “But voting for a third party is like a vote against the Democrats” often goes the rebuttal. I got some news for you, voting for a Democrat is like voting for a Republican, they are the same thing. Two wings of the same party, a right wing and a central wing. Think I am wrong on this? Who’s the one always telling you that voting for a third party is a waste of a vote: the Dems or Republicans. Who controls campaign finance reform and public campaign finance power: the Dem and Republican controlled Congress. And what two parties have historically teamed up to prevent a third from gaining a foothold: you guessed it, the Dems and Republicans. (For a perfect example of this see Hunter S. Thompson’s Fear and Loathing ’72)
It’s clear to me that these two parties have a very strong interest in remaining in power together and only together. In this way they can pursue their own agenda without fear of a challenge, for even if the people are dissatisfied and vote them out at the next election it is assured that another will take their place. And since it is congress and not the President that has the power to change the financing rules we can be assured that no change will be forthcoming soon. Just look at all the money Obama and Clinton have raked in already, $25 million plus and we are still 1 1/2 years from the election.
Any expectation that the stranglehold the two parties have on the system is going to come from with in is pure fantasy. It will clearly have to come from without and this can only be accomplished with the rise of other parties into the legislative branch and hence congress. This is why voting for a third party is not a waste. It is essential if there is to be a change. It will not happen at once, but it must start from somewhere and build momentum. The main point is it must come from the outside the current parties.
I will leave you with a quote from Trotsky I recently came across that seemed to capture the spirit of my feelings well. He was writing about the growing unrest in Spain the1930’s before civil war erupted there, but it still is relevant today.
“It is needless to say that the democratic slogans under no circumstance have as their task to draw the proletariat closer to the republican bourgeoisie. On the contrary, they create the basis for a victorious struggle against the bourgeoisie of the Left, making it possible at every step to disclose it’s anti-democratic character. The more courageously, resolutely and implacably the proletarian vanguard fights for the democratic slogans, the sooner it will conquer the masses and undermine the ground beneath the feet of bourgeoisie republicans and socialists reformists, the more faithfully their best elements join us, the sooner the democratic republic will be identified in the mind of the masses with the workers’ republic.” – Revolution in Spain (1931)

Empowering the People

I recently spent a weekend helping out the people of Santa Fe, a city about a 7-hour bus ride to the northwest of Buenos Aires. Recent torrential rains have caused widespread flooding across much of the area and the city of Santa Fe was one of the hardest hit areas. When I saw the pictures of homes almost completely submerged in the newspapers I knew I had to do something to help. I asked my buddy Fede, a local student at the University of Buenos Aires and activist, if there was anything I could do. Two short days later I found myself on an overnight bus to Santa Fe with a group of UBA students.
The city of Santa Fe proper is pretty sizable with a population a little of 500,000. Although the whole city was affected by the flooding it was particularly bad on the outskirts of town in the barrios where most people live in an impoverished condition. It was to these barrios that we were heading. Our goal for the trip, or at least what I understood to be our goal, was to distribute clothing, food, medicine, shoes, mattresses and other sorely needed materials to the local impoverished peoples. Students or other residents of Bs As donated everything we brought. We ended up having so much that we couldn’t fit it all in the holds below the bus and were forced to fill up the vacant seats and isle.
As we pulled into Santa Fe in the early hours of Saturday morning I was excited to get to work distributing the aid goods. Little did I realize that our trip had a much larger purpose that simply handing out goods. We filed off the bus and into a small building that turned out to be the local MST (Socialist Workers Movement) party HQ. The MST had cosponsored the trip from Bs As and it was only now that the real meaning of the trip was becoming apparent.
We had an hour-long briefing before heading to the barrios. I listened patiently, not really understanding much of what was being said, but luckily I had Fede close by to translate for me (I was the only foreigner there, probably the only foreigner in all of Santa Fe at that point). Basically Fede broke it down like this: we are here to organize the people so that the can stand together with one voice and demand from the government what is owed to them. I also found out at this time that a similar but even worse flood had happened four years ago. All the promises by the provincial and federal government to provide measures to prevent another flood, like dikes, pumps, drainage systems, had all come to nothing. And now the people were being left to rot once again.
The rest of the day was spent in the barrios going door-to-door handing out flyers for a popular assembly meeting to be held later on that day. I say door to door, but the truth of the matter is that many of the places we went to had no doors, windows or much else. Forget about doorbells, without doors you can’t even knock. I quickly learned that clap of the hands was the accepted way to inquire if someone was inside. Most people took the flyers but were a bit puzzled about why we were there and what we were doing. Although we explained our intentions to give the people themselves a voice you could see that these people had been burned many times in the past and were skeptical about any improvements happening. It was a disheartening to see this, but it was very inspiring when we talked to someone and a passion was ignited within them.
At 5:30 the assembly met in front of the local grade school in the only place available in the barrio, the middle of a dirt street. About 40 people showed up, mostly women, but also some older men and youths. Clearly a chord had been struck as all these people came to see what was going to take place, but there was a deep sense of skepticism as well. The assembly opened with a MST leader explaining the situation about the flooding and the absolute lack of government action. He explained that the people deserved much better and it was indeed possible if they stared to act together on a community level so that their voice would be heard.
A fierce debate ensued between those who agreed that it was time to come together and those who felt that it was a waste of time because the government would never help them out. At first the latter of the two groups held the edge in the argument. On man in particular was really pessimistic about any influence the people could have on the government. By the end of the assembly the mood had drastically changed thanks to a few passionate voices, including a few from the UBA students. The man that was so pessimistic at the beginning offered to put his small kiosk at disposal of the community as information and distribution center. It was as stunning and inspiring turn around.
The assembly decided to meet the following week and the hope was that the number of people attending would increase. The issue we came to raise was that of flood protection, but with the people given a chance to talk of their problems other concerns arouse such of lack of any public transport in the barrios. Already the people were developing a common and popular consensus on social needs. It was a great sight to see these people who earlier in the day had seemed so down and condemned to poverty leave the assembly with a glimmer of hope for change in the future.
After distributing the clothing and other aid we all headed back to the MST HQ to talk about the positive and negative experiences of the day, ways we could improve in the future, and how we could apply the lessons of social organization back in Bs As and beyond. All the students got back on the bus for our ride back to Bs As a short 24 hours after originally departing. It was a productive day though, one that has given me a new outlook on the power of social and popular assemblies and the power that it gives to those who otherwise have very little. All of the intellectual and theoretical efforts that go into socialist thought are very important to the cause, but it is only through direct action that reality is shaped. That is perhaps the most important lesson I learned in Santa Fe.

Responible research and cannabis

Ok, so I was just reading an article on the BBC website about how "cannabis disrupts brain centre" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6606931.stm. Basically it tells how recent research has shown that THC in cannabis have a direct correlation with increased activity in "area of the brain called the inferior frontal cortex, which keeps inappropriate thoughts and behaviour, such as swearing and paranoia in check." This is contrasted by the substance cannabidiol (CBD), which has the opposite effect of dampening the potential for psychotic symptoms.
So far so good right? Well here is where we run into a problem. The BBC sites rises in the THC content in cannabis in recent years, going from 6% to 12%. This has the affect of canceling out any positive benefits from CBD. So ok, fair enough. It seems like there has been enough research done to back up this conclusion. The report in itself doesn't bother me so much as an analogy that is drawn at the very end.

Professor Murray also warned that the high potency cannabis now widely available was likely to pose a much bigger risk to health than the significantly weaker formulations of previous years.

"It is similar to comparing the effect of drinking a glass of wine at the weekend with drinking a bottle of vodka every day."

Is that really appropriate? I have seen a person who drinks a liter of booze a day and I know plenty of people who smoke the 'new potent pot' regularly. I have to say that makes no sense to me if the goal is to compare the effects of smoking pot 15 years ago with smoking pot today. It makes perfect sense if the goal is to distort scientific findings and scare people. Just think for a second, a glass of wine = 100 ml total with about 10g of pure alcohol. A bottle of vodka = 1000 ml total with about 330g of pure alcohol. So right there 330/10 is 33 times the alcohol. but we aren't done yet. Notice its a glass of wine once a week compared to a bottle of vodka everyday, so lets just multiple 330 by 7 to get 2310. Now lets divide 2310/10 and we get 231. So, according to the professor interview by the BBC the rough doubling in THC content in cannabis over that past couple decades is similar to upping a once week drink 231 times. (By the way I got all my drinking statistics from the good people at www.alcohol.org.nz)

This concern about rising levels of THC in cannabis have been echoed elsewhere in the media in recently, most notably and predictably on Fox news. It is certainly something to be studied and examined, but without the filter of rhetoric that almost always surrounds the issue. I think people can handle the truth on this issue and make a reasonable decision for themselves without facts being misrepresented, don't you agrees?

Ecuador's New President

Ecuador’s new president Rafael Correa has been taking a lot of heat in the media, both in Latin and North America, for his supposedly authoritarian tendencies. Let’s all take a deep breath and a step back from this one so we can look at it with a somewhat clear head. The main charge against Correa is that he is showing similar tendencies to Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia. This is based on the fact that Correa has plans to, as he promised in his election campaign, to set up a constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution. Left at that I would have to agree that it seems a bit shady. Unfortunately for his critics all one has to do is take a closer look to see the reality of the situation.
First of all I would like to note that Correa has only been in office for a few months, so any charges of authoritarianism leveled against seems a bit premature to me. Secondly he is following in the footsteps of Chavez and Morales. Here’s the thing though, those footsteps have a distinctly democratic pattern to them. I will explain. Ecuador just held a nation wide referendum on whether or not to call a constituent assembly to rewrite the existing constitution. It passed with about and 80% yes vote, while only 12% voted against. The next step will be for the Ecuadorian people to vote locally for representatives to be seated in the assembly. The assembly will then have a set period of time to draft a constitution, which will have to again be approved by a majority of the Ecuadorian people before it is ratified. This is the same exact process that was followed in Venezuela and Bolivia.
Hum, that doesn’t seem very authoritarian to me. In fact it actually seems like the people are having a say (and with an 80% vote more like a demand) in their own governing. Far from the power grab it is being presented as in a lot of the media, just as the popular reforms in Venezuela and Bolivia were/are, this is clearly a case of a leader letting the people of his nation have the loudest voice as to which direction the country should take. Let us not forget that Ecuador has had 8 presidents in the last 10 years, a country where corruption at governmental levels is an expected reality. The fact that a president is trying to make a radical change from his countries checkered past with the massive support of the people should be taken as a sign of democratic and social progress, not an ‘authoritarian power grab.”
Time will certainly tell which direction Correa’s presidency will take. At least in my opinion it seems to be starting out on the right foot.

U.S. versus Al Jazeera

I was recently watching a video clip from Fox News about the recent trip of the U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria to meet with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. First of all let me explain that I like to check in on what fox is reporting in a bid to keep in touch of what the main stream right in the U.S. thinks and is being fed. I can usually only take a couple of minutes of ‘news’ Fox style before I feel like I am going to throw up, but on this particular occasion I noticed a somewhat interesting point that was raised.
The pundits predictably took their turns bashing Pelosi for defying the President’s stance on relations with enemies, with undermining the U.S. foreign policy, by making herself a tool of anti-U.S. governments, and a long list of other complaints. Then Sean Hannity, the Fox News commentator, went on to say that groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and Al Jazeera all had voiced their support of the Pelosi trip, only further proof that she was making a mistake. I was taken aback at the list of he names provided. To the casual viewer of the program I am sure that all the names sounded familiar enough. A sinister group of organizations with what the U.S. has labeled as terrorism that have all engaged in militant action against Israel at one point or another, all that is except for Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera is the Arabic language satellite news station that operates out of the Arab country of Qatar, an ally of U.S. I was intrigued at the inclusion of the news channel’s name with the groups that are so often called terrorist organizations by the U.S. government and mainstream media. What justification could be given for such an erroneous association of independent foreign media outlet and groups known more for suicide bombings in the West than anything else? I decided to look into the matter a bit further to see what I could find out.
It turns out that the hostility towards Al Jazeera isn’t limited to the good people at Fox News, but it also extends to the Bush Administration and neoconservative circles (surprise surprise). The station has been the target of much criticism from the current Administration and multiple strategies have been employed to weaken or destroy the capabilities of Al Jazeera to provide a voice in the region and the world that is different form the official byline emanating out of Washington. It is interesting to note the US has ‘accidentally’ bombed Al Jazeera stations 2 times now in different locals around the world, permanently detained Al Jazeera personal without charge, and contemplated attacking Al Jazeera Headquarters in Doha, Qatar. HUM, what is going on here?

Prior to Sept. 11 the U.S. government had been supportive of the role al-Jazeera played as an independent media outlet in the otherwise autocratic Middle East. This all changed after the terrorist attacks on the U.S. when Al Jazeera played videos featuring Osma bin Laden and Sulaiman Abu Ghaith defending and justifying the attacks. The U.S. government claimed Al Jazeera were engaging in propaganda on behalf of the terrorists, while Al Jazeera claimed it was simply making information available without comment or endorsement. Several western TV stations followed Al Jazeera'a lead and later showed the videos.

On Nov. 13, 2001, a U.S. missile strike destroyed the Al Jazeera office in Kabul. No one was killed but the office was destroyed and employees’ homes were damaged. This was followed on April 8, 2003, with a U.S. missile strike that destroyed the Al Jazeera office in Baghdad, killing reporter Tareq Ayyoub and wounding others. In both instances the U.S. military had precise information of the coordinates of the stations prior to the attacks, provided by Al Jazeera itself in order to prevent such destruction from happening. Both strikes have been dismissed as accidents by the U.S. government.

Al Jazeera cameraman Sami Al Hajj, a Sudanese national, was detained in Pakistan on transit to Afghanistan in Dec. 2001 and remains to this day to being held without charge as an 'enemy combatant' at Guantanamo Bay. The reason for his detention remains unknown; he simply falls into the same category as all other detainees that they constitute a 'security threat'. Although Al Hajj had a valid visa to enter and work in Afghanistan at the time of his detainment his documentation was disregarded.

On November 22, 2005 the British publication the Daily Mirror printed a story stating that the U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair had persuaded Bush from conducting bombing raids on Al Jazeera world headquarters in Doha, Qatar and other locations. The information reportedly is a record of a meeting between the two leaders that took place on April 16, 2004 at the height of the U.S. Marines and Iraqi Security Forces assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah. Both governments have denied that the conversation ever took place but the British government refuses to publish the memo and has threatened to prosecute anyone that does. A civil servant and research assistant have thus far been charged in the U.K. for unauthorized disclosure of the memo and wait trail. The unwillingness to make available the information contained in the memo to the public is not a very convincing means of backing up the line that the conversation never took place.

Meanwhile the U.S. government in 2004 founded Al Hurra, literally 'the free one' to be a competing Arabic-language satellite TV station. This was to counter the 'bias' of al- Jazeera against the U.S. Al Hurra is forbidden to be broadcast in the US. This is because it is simply a tool of propaganda by the U.S. government and as such as it falls under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. The act prohibited domestic distribution of information intended for foreign audiences. This measure is included in the act for a specific reason. Information intended for foreign audiences in necessarily of a propagandic nature and it is therefore dangerous to allow the Executive Branch to have its own propaganda station operating within the U.S. At the same time this leaves the U.S. citizens in a situation where they have no idea about what kind of slanted information and content is being funded and produced by tax dollars. This originally was the focus of the VOA or Voice of America during the cold war, but has since been extended to other propaganda campaigns such as Al Hurra.

When the facts have been examined in greater detail it becomes clear why Fox News lumped in Al Jazeera with the other groups mentioned above. The U.S. government feels that Al Jazeera is a threat to it aims of conquest in the Middle East and the establishment on friendly client states in Iraq and across the region. Fox News has clearly aligned itself with the far right on many issues ranging from religion and the environment to war and terrorism. The fact that they are jumping on the government bandwagon in an attempt to incriminate and silence all voices of opposition to the brutal realities of the U.S. war machine certainly is not a surprise. What it does represent is a deliberate attempt to control and distort information for both U.S. citizens and the world in general. When media distorts what is really happening in the world and at home we are all in trouble.

Not So Blue Skys

I knew there was a reason why so many people have a negative view of the U.S. around the world. At first I thought they were all just jealous of us because we stand for life, liberty, and freedom. Then I realized it probably has something to do with all the people the U.S. has killed, injured, displaced, or repressed over the past half century. Of Course killing and repression are not only limited to last 50 years, but the rate and range of this period is of unprecedented scope. Its pretty simple logic, for all the people that were killed or adversely affected in some way they were survived by family, friends, and loved ones. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that those survivors might harbor some resentment towards the U.S. Take a close look at the following list. It represents the air strikes of U.S. war planes, just part of the larger military assault on humanity.

List of Countries the U.S.A. has bombed since WWII


China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Belgian Congo 1964
Guatemala 1964
Dominican Republic 1965-66
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Lebanon 1982-84
Grenada 1983-84
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1981-92
Nicaragua 1981-90
Libya 1986
Iran 1987-88
Libya 1989
Panama 1989-90
Iraq 1991-2002
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1992-94
Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)
Bosnia 1995
Iran 1998 (airliner)
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001-2007
Iraq 2003 - 2007
Somalia 2007

Iraq Study Group

Iraq Study Group
James Baker, Lee Hamilton Report on the situation in Iraq.

The report consists of two parts: the assessment of the current situation, and the proposed way forward. The report, while not having much in the way of proposals, did contain some interesting features. It is towards these that I will turn, for I feel they demonstrate the situation that we are facing, not just in Iraq and in the Middle East, but in the U.S. itself.

The report contained some opinion poll figure from Iraqis, including Kurds. The U.S. Government and U.S. polling agencies keep pretty good records on these areas. Recent polling in Iraq showed 79% of Iraqi had a mostly negative view of the influence the U.S. has in their country, 61% approve of attacks on the U.S. forces. This is bad news for the U.S. Supposedly it calls for a change of tactics to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, to show them we are on their side and against those who hate freedom or something to that affect. Then they will stop attacking us….Ok, I am not really sure that I buy into that, but that’s what the report suggests. But lets take a step further. The same polls that were cited contain some other interesting findings not reported in the Iraq Study Group. About 2/3 of Baghdad citizens want foreign troops out immediately and 3/4 of country, again including Kurds, want a firm timetable for withdrawal. But since when did what the people want really matter when the U.S. is doing its mission to spread democracy and protect the world. If the U.S. Government is not prepared to listen to what the people want of a country it just invaded “to bring democracy” why should it be expected to listen to what the American people want either. And indeed the American people are receiving the same treatment. A majority wants the troops to be withdrawn and have for some time. A timetable has been favored even longer. And yet the people are not being listening to. I am just going to briefly go over the concept of Democracy just if case someone forgot. It’s a very simple principle to grasp, the governing of the people by themselves. When we have the word democracy thrown in our faces constantly by those in charge it’s probably a good signal to examine if democracy is being carried out. Well the people in the U.S. and Iraq are against what is going on, so clearly democracy is not being carried out.

The report also deals somewhat with the Arab-Israeli conflict. It places the issue as the cornerstone of a lasting peace for the Middle East, in my opinion correctly. It calls for the U.S. to engage in a more active roll with Israelis and Palestinians, but only those who accept Israel’s right to exist. This has been a key demand of both the U.S. and Israel but it worth a closer examination. No one seems to be mentioning Palestine’s right to exist. The term ‘right to exist’ itself is indeed somewhat unique to this case. Do states have rights to exist as they are today? Where does this concept come from? It is certainly worth taking a minute to think about a bit more. This is simply an attempt to legitimize the seizure of land and the expulsion of the Palestinian people. No people should be expected to accept terms on these grounds, just think of numerous historical examples. Should Austrians, Danes, Czechs, French, and Poles have accepted Germany’s right to exist in the same parameters of former Reich’s after their countries were occupied and colonized by the Germans? I would certainly think not. How about another example a little closer to home. In the Mexican - American war, a war you probably didn’t learn too much about in school. The U.S. conquered about half of Mexico, all that land that now makes up of the southwestern U.S. Today Mexico recognizes the U.S. but certainly doesn’t recognize the legitimacy the conquest. I would think you would be very hard pressed to ever find an official Mexican declaration declaring the U.S.’s right to exist where it now does. So, even if the issue is reduced to just recognizing Israel, does anyone even recognize Palestine? The U.S, or Israel? No, these countries do not recognize Palestine. Peace in Palestine and any justice for the Palestinian people are clearly not in the plans.

The last point I will touch on is what the report has to say about Iran. It says that we must somehow engage Iran, but this will be problematic because of the current state of US-Iranian relations. The report is in favor of opening a dialogue with Iran in the reasoning that the U.S. can only gain from an exchange and does not have to give anything up. The current problem in relations stems back the to 1979 popular revolution and overthrow the Shaw, a dictatorship that the U.S. supported. I can see why the Iranians could be a little agitated towards the U.S., since they were repressed for a quarter century due to direct U.S. support of the regime, but it is the U.S. that has apparently taken greater offence to the 1979 overthrow of the dictatorship. A popular uprising of the people against a repressive regime friendly to the U.S. interests is not something to be forgotten. I say this because it has become known recently that Iran offered and actively sought out a reopening in diplomatic relations, cut off between the two countries since 1979, in 2002 and 2003 before the Iraq invasion. Washington rebuffed them. Today the same polls as above indicate 75% of U.S. citizens favors diplomatic engagement with Iran as a means of settling any disputes as opposed to using military threats, the exact opposite of the current US policy. In fact the policy of using military threats of attack and invasion is a central long-term strategy of this administration. This just further illustrates my point about the absence of democracy. The system we have in place now is certainly called democracy but that term does not seem to appropriately reflect the reality of the situation.


Its time to start paying attention people; demand a change. Sitting around and being passive about it isn’t going to work. We are going to have to stand up and take what is ours. As John Lennon once said, ‘Apathy isn’t it and we can do something.’ Solidarity is the key; we need to come together to do this

Hugo Chavez en vivo

I attended my first South American political rally a few days back. Hugo Chavéz, the president of Venezuela, was here in Buenos Aires meeting with the president of Argentina, Nestor Kirchner, before holding a large rally in a football stadium in the city. The purpose of his visit was part of a larger tour of Latin America in direct opposition and protest to a similar tour the president of the U.S., G. W. Bush, was undertaking of allies in the region. I will get into the details a bit more later, first let me tell you how I found myself in the middle of such an interesting spectacle.
There I sat, sharing a beer with Fede and talking politics at some street side parrilla, the local grills found everywhere in Buenos Aires. It doesn’t take much to get Fede going on politics; he always has something to say no matter what the topic is. A local Porteño with a passion for politics, revolution, history, beer and grass, Fede has become a good friend of mine in the few months that I have been here in his city. He is incredibly involved within the local scene, an avid activist and member of the MST (Socialist Workers Movement); he is pretty much my window into the world of Argentine political movements. Eventually our conversation turned to Bush and his pending visit to Montevideo, Uruguay on Friday. As we took turns seeing who could come up with the best criticisms of Bush’s failed and failing policies around the world and domestically, Fede suddenly had a question to ask of me. “Che, what are you doing on Friday?”
“Well I am moving into my new pad in San Telmo around 5. Do you want to come check it out?”
“Oh at 5, that’s to bad, Chavéz is coming to town to hold a big rally, I was going to see it you wanted to go.”
“You mean Hugo Chavéz? What is the rally for?”
“It’s, you know, a big rally. He is going to speak and people will be there to support it.”
The vagueness of Fede’s description only left me more intrigued. I have followed the Chavéz story for some time now with a great deal of interest. His path from former military man attempting to topple the government of Venezuela in 1992, to his subsequent conversion to democratic means, to his winning of the presidency, to himself being ousted in a coup supported by the USA, to his subsequent regaining of the office is a story filled with all the drama and suspense of Hollywood movie. And that’s just one side of his story. An incredibly charismatic leader, his own brand of populism has gained him the support of a majority of the Venezuelan people and has allowed him to begin to implement radical reforms in what he calls the ‘Bolivarian Revolution’. To top it all off he has been a constant thorn in the side of the Bush government and has been a vocal critic prompting harsh responses from Washington.
I wondered what was going to happen when all those people converged on a stadium to hear the very popular president of a foreign country give a speech? I mulled it over in my head and decided that this was an opportunity not to be missed. To read about the exploits of a government that has been condemned by the Bush administration as a ‘threat to democracy’ in the U.S. is a tough proposition. Whether you like it or not most news coverage is going to be heavily jaded against Chavéz and his program, if you even want to call it coverage. The chance to see him for myself in his own environment would hopefully provide the perspective I had been looking for. I told Fede I would try to postpone my move until Saturday.

A few phone calls and a couple of days later I found myself waiting to meet Fede on the corner of Avenida Avellaneda y Segui in the Barrio of Caballito in central Buenos Aires. Fede had made it very clear beforehand that I had to meet him at 4 pm sharp so that we wouldn’t be late. Chavéz was due to speak at 7 pm so I wasn’t quite sure why we needed to be three hours early, nonetheless I made sure I was there on time. Now for all of you who don’t know the Argentine conception of punctuality, let me just make it clear that I had made a mistake in showing up at the agreed upon time. This was far too early, as I should have known, and I found myself alone in a continuously growing crowd of demonstrators, drummers, chanters and communists (as displayed by the various emblems and logos on their respective clothing). I don’t have anything about communist, its just that you often see large crowds of them in the U.S. and its only natural to be a bit apprehensive about the unknown. Not really knowing what to expect from the crowd and speaking shaky Spanish, I was feeling a bit out of place to say the least, but I soon realized that the vibe coming from the crowd was a positive one and I had nothing to fear. I simply had to bide my time and watch as the spectacle grew until Fede showed up.
After 45 minutes and a couple of cell phone calls in vain I was beginning to contemplate heading into the melee on my own, when I finally saw Fede approaching from the opposite direction.
“Che, you made it,” he said followed by the mandatory kiss on the cheek and slight embrace.
“I made it? I was getting worried that you weren’t even going to show up,” I replied. Fede simply looked at his watch and made a face as if to say he didn’t even realize he was late. I decided not to pursue the matter any further. He led me over to a group of youths that were busy unrolling banners and signs under the direction of a middle-aged man in sunglasses. I was to find out from Fede later that the man in the sunglasses, nicknamed ‘Maradona’, was part of the central committee of the political party that Fede belonged to, the MST, and that the youths were all members of the party as well. The MST itself is broken into 3 different divisions; youth, workers, and unemployed movements all coordinated under the banner of the national MST party. Fede introduced me to the party members as his comrade form the U.S. Everyone received me with a kiss on the cheek and went back to what they were doing.
I took the moment to glimpse around to see what I was getting myself into. More and more people were pouring into the street from all directions and a constant flow of buses seemed to bring bringing more people towards the stadium and me. Wait a second, towards the stadium? A few minutes ago the traffic had been going away from the stadium and this was a one-way street, what was going on here? I quickly found the cause. The street was being blocked by the police and being used as one of 3 main corridors heading to the stadium. “Police lending a helping hand in a demonstration, that certainly is a novel idea” I thought. It suddenly dawned on me that these buses that kept coming in where bringing people from the partidos, the areas of Buenos Aires that fall outside the Federal Capital limits. It is in the partidos that most of the Greater Buenos Aires residents live, about 9.5 million or more than 80% of the total. It is also where the poorest of the people live. Chavéz’s appearance was clearly a big deal for these people; he was a hero and inspiration to them and they were coming out in droves to show support.
Meanwhile the MST crew had got most of there signs set up and were beginning to stake out strategic positions in the street close to the lane carrying all the buses. Fede had taken up the central pole of the main MST banner and beckoned me to come over. Noticing that I was still trying to figure out what was happening all around he said, “Che, this is time when you ask me the questions.” So I did. I asked him about what was going to happen exactly, what his party stood for, what the other parties stood for, what he thought of Chavéz and so on. Basically I gathered that the streets would eventually fill with parked buses and people gathering into different groups. We would then commence to march to the stadium and take our places on the field in front of the stage, each group having its own little space sort of like a delegation at a convention. The MST is a communist party that follows the ideas of Trotsky and advocates revolution, a radical change of the system, not a reform from within it. Fede and the MST both supported the Bolivarian Revolution begun by Chavéz in Venezuela, but were not necessarily for Chavéz himself. “It’s important to show solidarity”, Fede explained to me. “The process that’s going on in Venezuela is a true democratic revolution and we have to support that even if we don’t always agree with what Chavéz is doing. If the revolution continues as it is going now it will soon be beyond any one persons control.” The various other groups came from the left and central spectrum of Argentine politics. Even supporters of President Kirchner’s party were there, although strongly at odds ideologically with many of the groups. It just goes to show the kind of appeal that Chavéz has here.
All of a sudden the call ‘vamos!’ ran out among the people and the procession started to march forward. It was already about 6:30 at this point and we weren’t even in sight of the stadium yet, but having just learned my lesson about Argentine punctuality I wasn’t too worried if we didn’t make inside by 7:00. I had a sneaking suspicion that although Chavéz was Venezuelan he probably wouldn’t be a stickler about being on time either. As we marched down street the people joined together in various chants such as ‘Bush facista, vos sos un terroista’ – Bush you fascist, you are the terrorist, and ‘out of Iraq, out of Palestine, and especially out of Latin America!’ ‘No to terror, no to imperialism, forward with socialism, power to the people!’ Of course the were all in Spanish, you are just going to have to trust me that it sounded much better in the original than in my translations.
The march periodically stopped and started as we waited for different groups to enter the stadium and take up their place in their designated position. The MST members seemed a little annoyed about the wait but I didn’t mind. This way I got to see all the different groups as they walked by. The atmosphere reminded me of a parade of sorts, the feelings of outrage and anger directed at imperialism were easily overcome by the feelings of jubilation and solidarity in support of giving power to the people. In this sense it was different than any sort of large rally I have ever attended. The essence of the spirit wasn’t one of protest; it was one of support and approval. I can’t remember the last time there was such a public showing of support for government actions in the U.S.
As we continued to wait to enter the stadium Fede explained to me why seemingly everyone was entering before us. “We are the trouble makers for the government,” he said with a smile, “We don’t agree with them and we stick to our principles, for that they disapprove of us. Che, just watch, we will go in last and get the worst spot, of this I am sure.”
Sure enough the MST contingent was the last group to enter the stadium and our spot was at the very back of the field. It was going to be impossible to see Chavéz through the sea of people and banners in between the stage and us. If the music blasting through the speakers was any indication though, we were certainly going to be able to hear him. As I looked around the stadium I thought that this could easily be a rock concert instead of a political rally. The stands were filled with people standing, clapping, dancing and singing. Huge banners in front of the sections indicated where the people had come from and I realized that this was more that just Buenos Aires affair. Certain sections had come from hours away and they were determined to enjoy themselves. Vendors walked through the crowd selling roasted peanuts, coke, and beer. People sat on the ground in small circles and brought out their mate gourds and thermoses of hot water. “Hey man, we should come to more of these, this is kinda fun,” I said to Fede.
“Chavéz is a showman,” he said, “that’s part of the reason people come out to see him.”
The crowd reached a fevered pitch when the loudspeakers began to play the Argentine national anthem. Behind me in the stands people were shooting off fireworks and had flares going and were literally bouncing up and down in unison. ‘This isn’t a rock concert,’ I thought, ‘this is a goddamn football match, these people are going nuts.’ (That’s soccer for all you back in U.S. by the way.) The Venezuelan national anthem came next, followed by a role call of all the political groups in attendance. The MST got snubbed by the announcer and was left out of the role call. Some of the members around me took it as badge of pride. “They don’t want to recognize us, but they can’t ignore us forever,” Fede confidently explained. “We are here and nobody can deny us that.”
Finally all the festivities came to an end and just like at a boxing match a speaker came on stage to introduce the main event for the evening, President Hugo Chavéz. The crowd erupted once again as Chavéz made his appearance and greeted the crowd. “Hola y buenos noches mi hermanos y hermanas,” he roared and was greeted back by the enthusiastic crowd. He proceeded to speak about the similarities and connections of the Argentine and Venezuelan people, emphasizing his close relationship with President Kirchner. This went on for a good 15 minutes, and to tell you the truth I really wasn’t that impressed. Where was the fiery orator that had captured the admiration and hatred of millions around the globe? I mean was this really the same man that hosts his own 6 hour-long TV show in Venezuela every single week? I was feeling a bit disappointed in the whole affair when Chavéz switched the topic from Latin American brotherhood and cooperation to imperialism and Bush. Building in a slow crescendo Chavéz worked himself and the crowd into a wild frenzy. Now I don’t profess to understand all or even most of what he said, but just by listening to the man speak I could feel the immense attraction that his voice held. This was clearly a man born for stage and public arena.
He was careful not to but at blame the American people, but rather made a quite clear distinction that the ones to blame were in the government, namely Bush and his followers. Chavéz denounced the policies of war and imperialism that Bush favors, the long standing history of U.S. imperialist involvement in Latin American affairs, and the failed social policies of the U.S. There were more than a few jokes shared at Bush’s expense. Luckily I had Fede close by to translate for me. One of the better ones was saying how Bush must have the lowest IQ of any president ever. Chavéz also brought up that Bush had recently compared George Washington to Simon Bolivar, the liberator of South America from Spanish rule. I think Bush was somehow trying to equate a common history and ideal in U.S. and Latin American history, one that is and has always been at the heart of U.S. actions in the region. Chavéz took particular offence to this seeing as Bolivar is a personal hero of his. After ridiculing Bush about not following the ideals of Washington, let alone Bolivar, he uttered his one and only phrase in English during the whole night. “Yankee, go home!” The people loved it and I have to say so did I.
The entire speech lasted a good hour and a half, well into the darkness of a late summer evening in Buenos Aires. I left the stadium with a new understanding about Chavéz, Argentina, and the Americas in general. The Bush administration has repeatedly criticized Chavéz, calling him a threat to democracy and stability in the region, a ‘negative force’. Well that certainly wasn’t the man I saw. If calling for greater social justice and inviting the masses of poverty stricken people to have a say in how they are governed is a ‘negative force’ it only makes me wonder what is considered positive. The solidarity I saw on that night between people from all over the social spectrum, young and old, poor and wealthy, white and native, city and rural, foreign and local, was unprecedented in my experience. Never have I seen so many people come together to support something so positively. It begs the question, whose stability is Chavéz a threat to? Is it that of the peoples of the Americas or is that of the narrow band of leaders in Washington? You can decide for yourselves, but I am confident that I now know the answer.