WWF Finds Cuba Only Country with Sustainable Development

Washington, Oct 25 (Prensa Latina)

A report published by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) claims that
the only country in the world with "sustainable development" is Cuba.

WWF includes in its report a graph which shows two features: the human
development index (established by the United Nations) and the so-called
"ecological footprint" which shows the per person energy and resources
comsued in each country.

Surprisingly [not surprisingly to anyone who knows anything about Cuba],
only Cuba has passed in both arenas, which is enough to be designated a
country that "meets the minimum sensitivity criteria".

The study's authors credit the high level of literacy, long life
expectancy and low consumption of energy for this success.

The authors also claim that Latin America is the region that leads in
sustainable development, but that generalization is a little bit
far-fetched, comments alternative US website VivirLatino. com

"For 20 years we've lived our lives in a way that far exceeds the
carrying capacity of the Earth," said Carter S. Roberts, President and
CEO of World Wildlife Fund on presenting the report.

The Living Planet Report 2006 was released globally Monday from Beijing,
China, and carries data indices which indicate the Earth's well-being
(the full text of the report is available online at
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_report.pdf).

Violence returns to Mexican city

Demonstrators and riot police have again clashed in the Mexican city of Oaxaca, the scene of five months of protests against the state governor.

Several thousand protesters converged on the main square, vowing to retake the city centre after police moved in at the weekend to restore order.

Striking teachers and leftist activists are demanding that Governor Ulises Ruiz be sacked for abuse of power.

Mexico's lawmakers have urged Mr Ruiz to quit, but he says he will stay on.

Senators unanimously approved a resolution calling on him to "consider resigning from office to help restore law and order" in Oaxaca.

The Senate's motion came hours after a similar measure was approved by the lower house of the congress.

Calls for Mr Ruiz's resignation have been at the heart of a drawn-out protest by Mexican teachers and left-wing activists, who accuse him of authoritarianism and corruption.

Over the weekend, some 4,000 riot police entered Oaxaca, removing demonstrators from the city centre. One man was reported to have died in the operation.

Mexican President Vicente Fox ordered the action on Saturday, a day after unidentified gunmen killed three people, including a US journalist.

Tense stand-off

"Murderers! Murderers!" chanted the demonstrators, as they rallied near the police cordon in the central square of the state capital.

Governor Ulises Ruiz has faced five months of protests

"The mood is very tense. We're standing with the protesters in front of police barricades and they have lit bonfire, are tossing fireworks," Mark Stevenson, an Associated Press reporter, told the BBC.

One policeman was reportedly injured by fireworks and taken to hospital.

Police responded with volleys of teargas and used water cannons to extinguish the fires.

Despite the growing pressure both from the protesters and the federal lawmakers, Mr Ruiz - who rejects the accusations against him - said he would not step down.

"Within the next few hours we expect life will return to normal in the state capital," he told reporters on Monday.

The governor also said the Mexican federal parliament had no control over Oaxaca.

Schools shut

The protests began in May, virtually paralysing the city.

The teachers initially staged the walk-out to demand higher pay and better working conditions.

However, after police attacked one of their demonstrations in June, they extended their demands to include a call for the governor's resignation.

The teachers were then joined in their protest by left-wing groups.

Thousands of schools have been closed since the strike began, leaving 1.3 million children out of school.

Threats to Venezuela's Chavez as December presidential election approaches

by Stephen Lendman

On December 3, 2006, voters in Venezuela will again get to choose who'll lead them as President for the next six years. There's no doubt who that will be, as the people's choice is the same man they first elected their leader in December, 1998, with 56% of the vote and reelected him in July, 2000, after the adoption of the Bolivarian Republic's new Constitution with a 60% total.

They then saw him survive three failed US-directed and funded attempts to unseat him beginning with the aborted two-day coup in April, 2002, followed by the 2002-03 crippling oil strike and the failed August, 2004 recall referendum.

Chavistas must believe the man they revere has at least six more lives and will use one of them in a few weeks to continue in the job the Venezuelan people won't entrust to anyone else as long as he wants the job.

They may also hope he has as much good fortune and as many lives as his friend and ally Fidel Castro who, in nearly 48 years as Cuba's leader, has survived over 5,700 US-directed terror attacks against his country and about 600 US attempts to kill him ... an astonishing survival record against a powerful and determined foe still trying to remove him to reinstate oligarchic rule over the island state.

The Bush administration has the same fate in mind for Hugo Chavez Frias and won't sit by quietly allowing Bolivarianism to flourish and spread ... which it's doing as more people in the region and beyond are fed up with the old order and want the same benefits Venezuelans have.

* It's playing out now in Bolivia, on the streets of Mexico and in the run-up to the December 3 Venezuelan presidential election where the people show up in massive numbers most every time Chavez makes a public campaign appearance.

Since beginning his presidency in February, 1999, Hugo Chavez and his Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) Party have transformed Venezuela from an oligarchy serving the rich and powerful to a model democratic state serving all the people.

From the start, Chavez kept his campaign promise and began implementing his vision for political and social change. He held a national referendum through which the people decided to convene a National Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution that was overwhelmingly approved in a nationwide vote in December, 1999. It became effective a year later, changed the country's name to the Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, and mandated Hugo Chavez' broad revolutionary vision for a system of participatory democracy based on the principles of political, economic and social justice.

Ever since, the people of Venezuela haven't looked back and won't now tolerate a return to the ugly past they'll never again accept willingly.

The Chavez Campaign

Hugo Chavez began his reelection campaign by registering his candidacy at the National Electoral Council (CNE) on August 12, affirming his confidence in the country's electoral process and saying that his campaign "must be above all a debate about ideas, an opportunity to elevate the level of debate and the political culture." Afterwards he addressed many thousands of his red-shirted supporters in a Caracas Square and told them the "Bolivarian hurricane" was beginning with a goal of achieving 10 million votes that would assure a convincing electoral victory in a nation of 27 million people and just over 16 million registered voters according to the CNE as of September 4.

* If he achieves it, he'll have gotten the highest ever vote total in the country's history.

He sounded an optimistic note adding "The Bolivarian hurricane will become a million hurricanes in all corners of the country, carrying forward the Bolivarian project and defending the revolution."

Two polls out in September indicate he may be on track toward his goal although their results show a wide variance. Datanalisis reported Chavez had a voter preference of 58.2% (41% ahead of his closest rival) while IVAD's percentage was 76.9%. And the most recent October University of Miami School of Communication/Zogby International poll shows Chavez with a 59% voter support compared to 24% for his only serious rival, Manuel Rosales (discussed more fully below).

The Zogby poll also gave Chavez an overwhelmingly popular approval rating among Venezuelan voters based on his job performance. If the median between these poll results is closest to the right number on December 3 and the voter turnout is high enough, that would translate to a stunning victory for Hugo Chavez whether or not it's with the 10 million vote total he hopes to get.

Chavez' current overwhelming popularity is consistent with the results of the Chilean firm Latinobarometro interviews conducted with 20,000 Latin Americans in 18 countries in 2005. It found a higher percentage of Venezuelans calling their government "totally democratic" than any other nationality surveyed as well as Venezuelans expressing the highest degree of optimism about their country's future in the region. These results contrast to the pre-Chavez era when the country was ruled by oligarchs ... ordinary people had no political rights and the level of poverty was extreme enough to cause street riots the government chose to violently suppress.

Hugo Chavez changed all that ... and he's campaigning now on his Bolivarian record of accomplishment that made him a national hero to most Venezuelans who only want him as their President as long as he wants the job.

Chavez' plan to continue in office is part of his "Miranda Campaign" to go beyond the traditional party structure by forming local "platoons" of the "Miranda Campaign Command" across the country. It began with the swearing in of 11,358 battalions and 44,698 squads nationwide to mobilize all Venezuelans to vote on election day and to supervise and handle security, logistics, vote tabulation and other aspects of the voting process. Overall the aim is to bring together 200,000 grassroots leaders of the Revolution who then will be assigned the task of convincing 10 others to vote for Chavez that would mean 2 million votes if successful. In addition, other organizations representing social sectors, workers, peasants, women, small business owners and indigenous groups will be mobilized to support the campaign to build the "new socialism of the 21st century."

Chavez also wants to hold a nationwide recall referendum half way through his next term in 2010, if he's reelected, to let the Venezuelan people decide if the Constitution should be amended to eliminate the current two-term presidential time in office limit ... he also announced his Simon Bolivar National Project which includes the following:

-- a new socialist ethic especially against corruption

-- a new socialist productive model expanding the social economy

-- a revolutionary protagonist democracy under which the highest priority would be power to the people including through communal councils

-- the Bolivarian ideal of supreme social happiness

-- a new internal geopolitics (focused on internal development)

-- a new international geopolitics based on a multipolar world focused against US hegemony, and

-- assuring Venezuela is a global energy power by developing its Orinoco Belt extra-heavy reserves and raising its daily oil production to six million barrels daily

Hugo Chavez was greeted on September 1 by tens of thousands of supporters after returning from his international diplomatic tour. He went seeking to establish and solidify alliances and gain support for Venezuela's campaign for the Latin American seat on the Security Council for which voting began on October 16 in the General Assembly but that has been deadlocked since because of US coercive tactics.

Chavez told his supporters: "This is an election (for president) on whether we want to continue to be an independent republic or return to being a North American colony." He added: "For the first time in history, Venezuela is occupying a privileged position in the world, a position of respect ... because we defend with a clear voice the interests of the countries of the Third World and the sovereignty of the peoples."

Chavez has a lot of support to do it from most Venezuelans and the 25 political organizations that nominated him including the MVR's coalition partner Patria Para Todas, Podemos and several smaller parties. But Chavez also knows what he's up against, and said he is "the candidate of the revolution ... and the national majority (and that other candidates are) tools of the US government. In this electoral process there are two candidates only, namely Hugo Chavez and George W. Bush."

On September 9, Chavez's electoral campaign battalions and platoons were sworn in as part of his "Miranda campaign" to confront "North American imperialism." It was done at a huge rally and march of hundreds of thousands of supporters in Caracas. Chavez used the occasion to propose the formation of a single united political party of the Bolivarian Revolution to be formed in 2007 after the upcoming election. In a speech he called for unity to further "consolidate and strengthen" the spirit of Bolivarianism. He said he wanted it to be the "great party of the Bolivarian Revolution (and that) it should represent the republic and the revolution to the world and establish the strongest connections with the greatest revolutionary parties throughout the world."

The Opposition

A final unknown number of the currently 18 or so announced candidates will be on the ballot on December 3 opposing Hugo Chavez, but only one is of consequence because the US picked and backs him -- Zulia state governor (who by law should have relinquished his office to run for president but for whom the CNE made an exception and allowed him to remain in office) and regional Un Nuevo Tiempo party member Manuel Rosales. The other more prominent ones, including Primero Justicia candidate Julio Borges, dropped out to unite behind him as the main standard-bearer of the opposition thus ruling out a primary the US-funded right wing NGO Sumate planned to hold but then cancelled.

It still remains to be seen what strategy the opposition will decide on or even which, if any, of them will show up on election day. Already Accion Democratica, Venezuela's largest opposition party in size of membership, at first refused to back any candidate. The AD's General Secretary, Henry Ramos Allup, said the only option is to abstain from the election and that Rosales, Borges (before he dropped out of the race) and other candidates are "like drunks fighting over an empty bottle." Others in his party disagree though calling for an exercise of "democratic resistance."

Still it's clear to all in the opposition, Chavez is so far ahead in the polls there's no chance anyone can defeat him in a free, fair and open election so it's likely Rosales was chosen to run with something else in mind, and his strategy will show it as the campaign unfolds and especially as election day approaches.

Clearly the US had the final say in picking him for whatever strategy is planned that may have a lot to do with the fact that he's the governor of the state of Zulia that has 40% of Venezuela's oil and where in the past energy elites there supported the state's independence to free it from the government in Caracas.

Rosales also favors this idea (likely with a little coaxing from his US allies) and has called for a referendum to let the people of Zulia decide. He's also very close to the Bush administration and was the only governor to sign the infamous "(Pedro) Carmona Estanga Decree" after the 2002 coup that dissolved the elected National Assembly and Supreme Court and effectively ended the Bolivarian Revolution and all the benefits it gave the Venezuelan people (for two days).

Rosales' electoral plan, with considerable US National Endowment for Democracy (NED)-funded through Sumate support, should become clear close to or right after the December 3 election if he's able to win a majority of the votes in his own state. He may then try to go ahead with an independence referendum, claim fraud in the rest of the country, and make plans to declare himself president of the independent state of Zulia if he, in fact, moves to break away and form it.

The Chavez government, of course, will never accept this ... and the Sumate/Rosales/Bush administration opposition may use this as as justification to confront it violently when any attempt is made to stop them.

* This could provide the US a pretext it may be seeking to intervene militarily for whatever reasons it gives such as protecting the lives of US citizens and "defending democracy" and "human rights."

If it happens, it would be the same kind of stunt Ronald Reagan used to invade Grenada in 1983 and GHW Bush used to do the same thing against Panama in 1989. On both those occasions, the US acted against leaders who never threatened the US or its citizens. They were forcibly deposed solely because they were unwilling to obey "the lord and master of the universe" from el norte.

The same scenario may be planned for Venezuela after the upcoming election.

It won't be long before we find out.

Another possible strategy planned may be similar to what happened in the 2005 National Assembly elections. When it was clear then the major opposition candidates couldn't win, they dropped out claiming fraud that didn't exist. It was a cheap transparent stunt decided on a few days before the vote as a way to avoid a humiliating defeat, but it gave the corporate-run media a chance to trumpet their black propaganda and characterize a free and fair election as tainted. The tone out of Washington is always antagonistic and grabbed on to this and at other times with oxymoronic language like Venezuela under Chavez is an "authoritarian democracy, an elected authoritarianism, a threat to democracy, (and) an elected dictatorship," all of it said without a touch of irony. It also gave the opposition a chance to chime in and say voter turnout was low (mostly because opposition supporters had no one to vote for and stayed home) and the results thus had no legitimacy. So it organized street demonstrations in upscale neighborhoods and suburbs to create a false sense of turmoil and disorder.

There was also evidence uncovered at the time that violence was planned for around the time of the election to create unrest and further de-legitimize the results. This is how an oligarchy puppet regime in the wings allied with the power structure in Washington operates. They have no respect for the law or norms of conduct and will use any means including murder to try to regain the power they lost to Hugo Chavez democratically.

There's no doubt schemes have already been cooked up quietly that will be sprung between now and the election period.

Already on September 2, Caracas Diario Vea reported it learned about a plot involving the right wing opposition. It's called Plan Alcatraz and is aimed at making unacceptable demands on the National Electoral Council (CNE) sure to be rejected so as to allege fraud and then organize street actions in protest including occupying CNE offices.

Manuel Rosales is part of the scheme to lead the protests but he'd have to withdraw from the race to do it, which so far he's unwilling to do. He has been willing to consult with representatives of the Bush administration and met with them recently on a trip he made to south Florida where he reportedly met with the president's brother, Governor Jeb Bush.

Colombian right wing paramilitaries are also known to be involved and would be brought in to commit terrorist attacks along the border and in other parts of the country. If that happens, it won't be the first time as this tactic has been used before and foiled by Venezuelan police when a plot was uncovered and arrests were made.

This kind of state-directed terrorism should come as no surprise to those familiar with the government and ideological position of Colombian President Alvaro Uribe that's hard right and in line with neocon Bush administration policy.

Uribe comes from a wealthy land-owning family, has a history of links to the country's paramilitary death squads and drug cartels, and engaged in state terrorism in the various government positions he held for over 20 years that included kidnappings and assassinations of trade unionists, peasants in opposition groups, social and human rights activists, journalists and others. He's also committed gross violations of Venezuelan sovereignty and apparently still is doing it egged on by his US ally. In spite of it, or maybe in praise for it, the Wall Street Journal calls Uribe "(maybe) the most clear-thinking, courageous ally in the war on terror that the US has in Latin America."

* The Journal writer would have been right if she changed the preposition "on" to "of," and the adjectives "courageous" to "outrageous," and "clear-thinking" to "obedient."

In spite of his dubious background, Uribe was elected and then reelected the country's president (in elections heavily tainted with fraud) and was the only South American leader to support the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. He even invited the US to "invade" Colombia to help it double the size of its military and supply it with weapons and intelligence. He already benefits hugely from the billions of dollars his government gets in "Plan Colombia" military aid that's used to fight the FARC and ELN resistance and has little to do with its supposed aim to eradicate coca cultivation except in areas controlled by those two groups. He's now the Bush administration's strongest and most subservient ally in the region, and thus it backs the right Uribe claims he has to intervene militarily in violation of another country's sovereignty -- with bordering Venezuela as the main target.

Reports are increasing that Uribe is directing his policy of state terrorism against Venezuela by continuing to send Colombian paramilitary hired assassins illegally across the border. They're apparently responsible for a large number of deaths in the countryside, and some have even infiltrated into metropolitan Caracas. High profile figures are also becoming targets as was state prosecutor Danilo Anderson who was killed in a December, 2004 car bombing likely because he headed an investigation of the hundreds of individuals (all from the opposition) suspected of being involved in the 2002 aborted coup attempt. More recently National Assembly (AN) for the Movement for the Fifth Republic, campesino leader, and Chavez supporter Braulio Alvarez escaped a second assassination attempt when his car was attacked and riddled with bullets. Alvarez is working with the government to implement its land reform law that redistributes large, underused land from the latifundistas (large land owners) to landless campesinos that surely is angering the rich landowners who now with Uribe's help are striking back.

One of Hugo Chavez' top priorities when first taking office in 1999 was land reform in a country run by oligarchs including rich land owners. He's been determined to rectify the inequality of land distribution the 1997 agricultural census revealed -- that 5% of the largest landowners control 75% of the land and 75% of the smallest ones only 6% of it. His plan led to the current confrontation, but Hugo Chavez is now responding more forcefully and on August 18 announced the creation of civilian/military security units in the large farms that have been taken over in Barinas, Apure and Tachira states. He's doing it to combat the wave of kidnappings and assassinations especially in areas bordering Colombia that are linked to paramilitary death squads infiltrating into the country. They likely are dispatched by Alvaro Uribe and are employed by the latifundistas.

Tachira has been particularly hard hit by this invasion as the number of killings there rose from 81 in 1999 to 93 in 2001, 212 in 2002 and exploded to 566 in 2005 for a total of 2037 deaths in the last seven years. In addition, the Caracas Daily Ultimas Noticias reported in July that 70% of businesses in Tachira bordering Colombia have to pay the paramilitaries a vacuna (vaccine) as protection money to keep from being attacked.

All this is mounting evidence that Hugo Chavez has every reason to fear the Colombian president and sees his close ties to the Bush administration as part of a greater strategy to provoke a confrontation giving the US a pretext to intervene to try to oust and assassinate him.

This also seems to be Uribe's aim as Colombia and Venezuela share a common border, and he fears for his own survival in a country plagued by poverty and violence. Uribe has an ugly record supporting the concentration of wealth and power while cutting vitally needed social services. He's also allowed his military and paramilitary assassins to displace three million peasants, has one of the worst records of state-directed terrorism in the world, and has a long-term disregard for democracy and human rights. Just across the border his people can see how the Bolivarian Revolution has benefited Venezuelans and many of them have emigrated there to take advantage of it. It's hard to imagine those staying behind don't want the same things and may one day act in their own self-interest to demand them.

Hugo Chavez also needs to be wary of the major new base the US is building in Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay, 200 kilometers from the Bolivian border even though it's far south of Venezuela.

Reportedly the base will be able to handle large aircraft and house up to 16,000 troops. Since July, 2005 small numbers of fully-equipped US forces have been in Paraguay and have been conducting secretive operations there. It's led some military analysts and human rights groups to suspect an interventionist operation is planned, likely directed at Bolivia and its president Evo Morales some of whose policies mirror those of his friend and ally Hugo Chavez. But with enough troops and long-range large aircraft in the region, the base could also be used as a staging area for an operation anywhere within its range that easily could include Venezuela. The human rights group Servicio Paz y Justicia (SERPAJ) in Paraguay believes the US wants the country to be what Panama once was, and to be able to operate there to control the southern cone region of the continent.

It's also been reported that George Bush recently bought a 98,842 acre farm in Paraguay to go along with the 173,000 acres his father already owns there. Both properties border Bolivia and Brazil and comprise 2.7% of the whole country that comprises an area the size of the state of California.

* It's not known what the Bush family has in mind there or whether it may have any connection to a planned US military intervention in the region.

It is known Paraguay has no laws criminalizing money-laundering, anti-terrorism or terrorist financing even though if does have an extradition treaty with the US. It's also important to be mindful of the fact that a dominant US family of two US presidents now owns a sizable piece of real estate in a country able to domicile a large number of US forces. It may only be for whatever personal use they have in mind, but it may not be and we can only speculate on what that may be.

We don't have to speculate that the US also has another major military base in Manta, Ecuador that's much closer to Venezuela on Colombia's southern border and is part of the US's increasing militarization of the southern continent. The Pentagon says it's tasked to carry out a variety of security-related missions, but that's just code language for interventionist ones. Ecuadorian presidential hopeful, Rafael Correa, who'll now face a runoff vote on November 26 after a tainted first round spoiled his victory, responded to a question recently that he'd allow the base to remain in his country provided the Bush administration gave Ecuador the same basing rights in Miami. But even if this base is closed, the US is currently building another new one in the Dutch colony of Curacao (a popular vacation destination that will be tainted by it) that's located near the Venezuelan coast and near the oil-rich state of Zulia.

It remains to be seen if he'll follow through if he wins the presidency, but one positive development to watch is Paraguay's decision not to renew a defense cooperation agreement with the US for 2007 because it's unwilling to grant US troops immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court in the Hague (ICC). The Court was established to assure perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are brought to justice. Foreign Minister Ruben Ramirez announced his country's decision on October 2 saying his government concluded under international treaty law, exceptions to immunity are only permissible for foreign diplomats and administrative personnel. Paraguay is a member of the South American Mercosur trade block that also includes Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela. These countries have also refused to grant US troops such immunity in another sign the US is losing influence in the region as more leaders in it are standing firm against unreasonable demands from Washington as well as its failed policies. Hopefully the spirit and influence of Hugo Chavez is spreading.

US Intervention in Venezuela's Political Process - Again

It's no secret the Bush administration wants to oust Hugo Chavez, has already tried and failed three times to do it ... and is now planning another attempt at whatever time and by whatever means it has in mind. It may be staged in connection with the upcoming December election and likely will be a reworked version of what was tried earlier and failed but this time with some new twists and going further than before.

Hugo Chavez knows it's coming, has taken steps to counter it when it does, and has a hard-to-trump ace in his deck -- the many millions of Venezuelans who've already shown they'll come out in force to support him, especially if the stakes are to keep him as their president. Chavez witnessed some of that support when he spoke at an October mass rally in Valencia in the state of Carabobo and sounded the alarm about the Bush administration's plot to destabilize the election and assassinate him. He indicated to the crowd that "friendly nations" have warned him about this and said: "With God's favor this will not happen, but if it (did) you know what you would have to do; the Bolivarian Revolution at this stage does not depend on one man."

Chavez also said he's preparing for what he expects will happen and "we are going to hit back so hard that they will not stop running until they reach Miami."

* Chavez may not have long to wait to find out if his plan can best the one Washington has cooked up.

In the lead-up to whatever is planned, the Bush administration is relying on the usual kind of covert mischief from the CIA that specializes in it. It's been at it all over the world for nearly 50 years and in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez was first elected. Author and international human rights attorney Eva Golinger obtained top-secret CIA documents through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests showing the Agency had prior knowledge and was complicit in the two-day 2002 aborted coup attempt to unseat President Chavez and that the Bush administration provided over $30 million in funding aid to opposition groups to help do it.

It began in 2001 involving the same quasi-governmental agencies that are always part of these kinds of schemes -- the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), and US Agency for International Development (USAID) which did its work through its Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI). These agencies funded and worked with the opposition staging mass violent street protests leading up to the day of the coup. The documents also showed NED and USAID funded and were otherwise involved in staging the 2002-03 crippling oil strike and the failed August, 2004 recall referendum.

The US State Department, National Security Agency (NSA) and White House had full knowledge of and had to have approved each coup attempt.

Most people have some idea how the CIA operates covertly but few know much about the National Endowment for Democracy that was (in language Orwell would have loved) established to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts." If fact, its very much a part of government and its purpose is to be the somewhat overt counterpart to the CIA, and in that capacity its hands are almost as dirty as the spy agency short of having actual blood on them. The one objective it pursues above all others is the subversion of democracy including supporting the removal of democratically elected leaders unwilling to allow their countries to become submissive US client states.

It's already been learned from information made public, including NED Quarterly Reports, that this agency actively supports anti-Chavez organizations in Venezuela and that removal of Hugo Chavez is one of its top priorities. It will also be reported soon in a new book by Eva Golinger called Bush v. Chavez: Washington's War on Venezuela that the Bush administration since 2005 has increased its (anti-Chavez) "interference by providing funding, training, guidance, and other contacts, and other strategically important ways to support the opposition's presidential campaign here." Golinger also reports the US anti-Chavez campaign includes the use of "psychological warfare within Venezuela, but also in the international arena, and in the United States." It's trying "to make people think that Venezuela is a failed or failing state with a dictator, which is how the US government refers to him."

NED is an old hand at this kind of dirty business since it was established in November, 1982 by statute as a supposedly private non-profit organization. It's hardly that as Congress approves its funding as part of the Department of State budget going to its sister USAID agency. NED also gets some private aid from several well-known right wing organizations including supportive think tanks that provide considerable funding for ultraconservative and business-friendly enterprises.

USAID has considerably greater resources than NED to pursue its activities which supposedly are to function as an independent federal agency providing non-military foreign aid. In fact, however, it's a thinly disguised instrument of US foreign policy able to do its dirty work while avoiding congressional scrutiny. It, like NED, has in the past been an instrument of US efforts to oust Hugo Chavez, and in the run-up to the December election is likely to be working with the opposition again as it was learned it did in the other three attempts to oust the Venezuelan leader. We'll have to wait to learn more about what schemes CIA, NED, USAID and other US-related agencies are planning until they begin unfolding or are exposed in advance and are headed off before any harm is done.

The Role of Sumate

Sumate is a nominal non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 2002 by a group of Venezuelans led by Maria Corina Machado and Alejandro Plaz and now headed by Ms. Machado. It's true purpose and activities belie the claims it makes to be an organization of independent citizens supporting the democratic process and promoting the political rights of Venezuelans under the country's Constitution. In fact, it's a US-supported and funded anti-governmental organization dedicated to the overthrow of the Chavez government and the return of the country to its ugly past ruled by the former oligarchs and the interests of capital.

In the US this kind of activity or any foreign interference in elections would never be tolerated. US election law specifically prohibits foreign nationals or corporations from contributing to any federal, state or local political campaign, and it would be unthinkable to imagine there being any tolerance if it was learned a foreign government attempted to influence the electoral process here.

* None of this, however, applies to what the US does all over the world routinely.

At least post-WWII, this country has a tainted history of meddling in the affairs of other countries almost like we had a birthright to do it. Put another way, according to "Washington-think," what's good for the US "goose" isn't allowed for any other country's "gander."

It's thus no surprise Sumate went on the Bush administration payroll when it first gained prominence in late 2003 becoming involved in organizing and providing support for the 2004 failed recall referendum signature collection process.

Ever since it's been at the center of anti-Chavez activities and is liberally funded to do it by US agencies like NED and USAID. As mentioned above, it cancelled a primary it planned to hold after the main opposition candidates dropped out so Manuel Rosales could run unopposed against Hugo Chavez in the December election. It's now moving ahead with the help of millions of dollars of Washington-supplied opposition candidate bankrolling. This was recently revealed in 132 USAID contracts made public that claimed the funding to be politically neutral but which Hugo Chavez believes is being used overtly and covertly to undermine his government. USAID and NED now admit they're spending (at least) $26 million on the December election, and those organizations never support democratically elected leaders running for office who don't obey US neoliberal diktats.

Chavez has lots of past experience to back up his claim of US interference and an added new one now after the Bush administration named career CIA agent Patrick Maher as the "mission manager" to oversee US intelligence on Venezuela and Cuba. His previous job was as deputy director of the CIA's Office of Policy Support and his background includes having been an architect of the counter-insurgency strategy in Colombia as well as managing the agency's operations in the Caribbean region. William Izarra, a former MVR Party leader and the national coordinator of the Centers for Ideological Formation that organizes grassroots discussions about the Bolivarian Revolution, believes this move elevates Venezuela and Cuba into the "axis of evil" category along with Iran and North Korea, and that heightens the risk of trouble ahead.

The Chavez government knows something is afoot and is taking preventive action by having Venezuelan prosecutors bring conspiracy charges against Sumate leaders. If convicted, Maria Corina Machado could face up to 16 years in prison, and three other Sumate members also face charges.

The National Assembly also intends to require "non-profit" groups like Sumate to reveal their funding sources. In addition, it's recommending Sumate be investigated for currency and tax law violations, and Chavez has threatened to expel US Ambassador William Brownfield whom he accuses of causing trouble as he's done in the past.

All this is playing out in a highly-charged atmosphere of mistrust that's well-founded according to Eva Golinger who wrote "The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela." The book cited clear evidence of the Bush administration's intent to overthrow the Chavez government, and Golinger recently said Washington is "trying to implement regime change. There's no doubt about it (even though it) tries to mask it saying it's a noble mission."

The Prospect for Fall Fireworks in Venezuela

The Bush administration must believe while it's often wrong it's never in doubt.

It's already dealing with two out of control conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and has blood-stained hands from its complicity with Israel on their co-sponsored conflicts against Lebanon and the one still raging in Palestine.

Undeterred, it seems determined to become even more embroiled in the Middle East by planning a possible attack against Iran according to some reliable reports (or at least putting up a good bluff to do it), even though the US public has grown disenchanted with George Bush's wars and it shows in his low public approval rating. He's even now drawing flack within his own party, and many Republican candidates for Congress on November 7 see him as radioactive and don't want him around.

So why would this administration be willing to risk making things even worse by trying to forcibly remove a democratically elected leader revered by his people who will never stand by and allow their Bolivarian Revolution to be taken away from them.

Here's why...

Soon after the Bush administration came to power, Vice President (and de facto head of state) Dick Cheney said the US must "make energy security a (top) priority of our trade and foreign policy." The Iraq and Afghanistan wars followed what, in fact, was "boss" Cheney's diktat with control of energy and its security one of several key reasons why we're now embroiled in the greater Middle East.

Now fast forward to June, 2006 and it gets more chilling. The US Southern (military) Command in Latin America (that has no business meddling in affairs of state) concluded that efforts by Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador to extend state control over their oil and gas reserves threatens US oil security.

A study it conducted states: "A re-emergence of state control of the energy sector (in those countries) will likely increase inefficiencies and ... will hamper efforts to increase long-term supplies and production."

* Even though the region produces only 8.4% of the world's oil output, it accounts for 30% of US consumption, and most of that comes from Venezuela and Mexico with each of these countries supplying about an equal percentage of our needs.

A secure supply and firm control of oil from the region is crucial to the US, but most of all from Venezuela because of its vast reserves (including its immense untapped amount of Orinco Basin super-heavy tar oil) that potentially are even greater than what's now available from Saudi Arabia - although that's debatable and merely suggesting it will open up a torrent of disagreement that may be right.

Still, Venezuela, by any measure, has the greatest hydrocarbon reserves in the hemisphere, and that makes the country and Hugo Chavez target number one in this part of the world for US energy security importance and second only after the greater Middle East that includes the Caspian Basin in Central Asia.

Couple that with the fact that the US sees Hugo Chavez as the greatest of all threats it faces anywhere -- a good example that may and is spreading throughout the region threatening US dominance over it and you have a recipe for a determined effort to oust him by any means including assassination and armed intervention.

Chavez, of course, knows the risk and so do the Venezuelan people who proved in 2002 they will rally en masse as they did then to restore their president to office after the US-staged two-day April coup that year briefly removed him. It's certain any attempt to oust him again will be met with the same resistance, and it's hard to imagine how intense it may be if the US succeeds in killing him.

* There's no question Washington wants to avoid six more years of Chavez rule and officials there have said it in so many words.

They call Hugo Chavez "a clear and present danger to peace and democracy in the hemisphere (and) US strategy must be to help Venezuela accomplish peaceful change (before 2007)."

Heinz Dieterich, a Chavez consultant, believes, as does Hugo Chavez, the Bush administration is plotting to assassinate him to prevent his serving another term in office.

So far there's been nothing more dramatic than the usual US Chavez-bashing especially after his September 20 tour de force at the UN General Assembly when the Venezuelan President had the courage to say what most other world leaders think but only speak about privately. The Bush administration responds claiming the Chavez government is a dictatorship that supports terrorism. It also unjustifiably accuses him suppressing the media and repressing his opposition, and it's guaranteed a Chavez victory will be challenged with outrageous accusations of electoral fraud arranged by a state-controlled CNE.

The truth on all counts is the opposite of the rhetoric, yet the vitriol continues unabated from Washington and is heard over the corporate-controlled media in both countries. What should be reported (but never is) is that the fairness of the Venezuelan electoral system shames the corrupted one in the US that's now run by corporate-owned and controlled electronic voting machines manipulated to assure enough business-friendly candidates win even when they're not the choice of the majority of US voters.

Venezuela has real democracy, while what's called that in the US is just a shameless mirage of one -- an illusion the public hasn't caught onto yet.

The Venezuelan people know the difference between that and the real thing and will fight to keep it. Sadly, most people in the US are kept uninformed, don't know what they've lost, and can't even imagine the kind of country they'd have if they had an enlightened leader like Hugo Chavez instead of the appalling one they're stuck with for two more years.

Things are certain to heat up in Venezuela between now and December 3 as the Bush administration tries to impose on the Venezuelan people what's it's already done here at home, and it will be relentless and ruthless about the way it does it. And if covert efforts are afoot, as almost for sure they are, we'll likely see them unveiled during the election period and they may be ugly.

Hugo Chavez expects them, is surely ready to confront them when they're sprung, and it now remains to be seen how the latest chapter in the Bush administration vs. Hugo Chavez will play out.

Stay closely tuned ... it won't be long before the fireworks begin.
*
Related:
Opposition Candidate Manuel Rosales Outlines His Plan for Government

Correa Objects OAS at Ecuador Vote

Quito
Oct 31

Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate Rafael Correa rejected the presence of the Organization of American States mission head Rafael Bielsa, in the November 26 second electoral round.

"Bielsa is guilty of inexcusable actions and omissions, leaving doors open for any kind of election fraud" in the October 15 first electoral round, Correa, from Alianza Pais party, highlighted.

The applicant accused OAS representative of adopting a partial position and closing his eyes before the irregularities that took place in the elections.

Corrrea came in second place, when at the beginning surveys revealed the other way around.

Argentine ex chancellor Bielsa, violated his condition as observer by giving his opinion concerning Alianza Pais party, and when predicting a dark future for the country in case Correa won, he pointed out in statements given to local TV channels.

For this reason, he warned, we cannot allow him to participate again. Bielsa has also been criticized by social and political movements.

Correa reiterated that the second electoral round is due to an electoral fraud, organized by the social Christians and the national oligarchy.

Bike Rides for Oaxaca!

Bike Rides for Oaxaca!, 9www.friendsofbradwill.org)

If you are in New York City,
join the Friends of Brad Will
this Wednesday, November 1st for a Bike Ride
in Solidarity with the People of Oaxaca!

We are meeting this Wednesday at 1 pm at 40th St & West Side Highway (12th Ave)
and will be riding to:
1. Expose the commercial media’s distortion of the current situation in Oaxaca.
2. Raise awareness about the capitalist forces in our city that are benefiting from the continued repression of the people’s movement.
3. Highlight the hypocrisy of the Mexican government holding a seat on the Human Rights Council of the United Nations.

If you are not in New York City,
we are calling on people from around the world
to join the Zapatista call for November 1st actions
in solidarity with the people of Oaxaca
by organizing a Bike Ride for this Wednesday
or As Soon As Possible!

I wonder how many USAers know the truth about their own country...

...
Venezuela is not a nation of barbarians, like the USA is, where 76% of the states (the people) believe in executing criminals for their crimes. Venezuela, at least under Chavez, does not want to be like the USA, and rightly so.

While the USA is killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and innocent US soldiers, while 76% of the USA is assassinating its criminals, the USA and people like the letter-writer arrogantly and erroneously elevate themselves above the rest of humanity.

After all, according to Toro’s article, at least 58% of US Christians believe in Armageddon and only 25% of the US population believes in evolution. Hey, that makes for a society which bases its notions on logic, right?

No!

If only 25% of the US population believes in evolution (which is evident to any healthy, non-ignorant, thinking person), then 75% of the people of the USA are irrational , to put it mildly (and I don’t mean it as an insult).

If 75% of the people of the USA are irrational, then whatever decisions are taken as a society are probably quite irrational as well. Look at Iraq … only one of the many examples that could be provided.

No wonder the letter-writer is so denigrating when it comes to Muslims … she probably doesn’t know the truth about her own country’s "chopping of heads" in 35 of 50 states! Perhaps she also believes in Armageddon and perhaps she does not believe in evolution. Perhaps she believes the Bible literally (as some Christians, Creationists, believe), perhaps she is a born-again Christian … perhaps she believes in a physical and real Heaven with great weather (not too hot and not too cold), five-star hotels, no-limit credit cards (payable only at the end of eternity) and exclusive "for US Christians only" beaches?

(Heaven to me would be a place where the daytime temperature is 35- 40 degrees centigrade (95 - 104 degrees Fahrenheit) and 30-35 degrees centigrade at night. I wonder how Heaven's administrators (or God herself) would deal with me? Would they send me to Hell? I'll take southern Zulia in Venezuela instead!)

Maybe she, like so many Christian USAers, believes that Hell really exists and that all "evil" people, such as Muslims (because they are "all" "terrorists") will burn in a USA-designed oil-powered furnace forever. (Whose gonna pay for the fuel? Where are they gonna get the fuel from? Iraq? Iran? Venezuela?).

These people can believe in Heaven and Hell … yet they cannot believe that what the USA is doing in Iraq (and planning to do against Iran and Venezuela) is wrong.

Now, who deserves to go to Hell?

Oscar Heck

Uruguay pleased with its debt swap

Creditors tendered US$1.17 billion of eligible bonds in Uruguay’s debt swap, in line with government expectations, in the country’s bid to scrap lightly traded bonds and extend debt maturities.

On October 19, Uruguay launched a bond swap for up to US$2.2 billion on 20 bonds due on or before 2019 and one series due in 2027, in exchange for dollar-denominated bonds maturing in 2022 and 2036, or a cash payment.

The bond swap attracted about 52 percent participation, the Economy Minister said yesterday. Some analysts had expected subscription of as much as 70 percent.

“The results have been very successful,” Economy Minister Danilo Astori told reporters. “Participation was nearly 60 percent in the 2011 and 2015 bonds, which worried us the most because during the next government’s term the country faced very significant payments” on them.

“The financial urgencies of this term have been completely cleared away,” Astori said.

Center-left President Tabaré Vazquez has a five-year mandate, which began in March 2005. His government has paid off US$1.55 billion in debt owed to the International Monetary Fund this year and next, thanks in part to nearly US$3 billion in dollar-denominated debt issues.

Uruguay said in a statement it will issue US$602 million in reopened 2022 global bonds and US$277 million in 2036 bonds as part of the swap. Uruguay had priced its global bonds due in 2022 and 2036 at 106.75 and 100.75, respectively.

Uruguay’s 2022 bonds changed hands in early evening trade at a bid of 108.25, with a yield of 7.128 percent. The global 2036 bonds traded at a bid of 100.50, with a yield of 7.581 percent.

UN agencies censure U.S. blockade of Cuba

UNITED NATIONS
Oct 27

At least 20 UN agencies have condemned the U.S. blockade of Cuba as "a unilateral policy" that is blocking economic and social cooperation with the island, according to an official report by the secretary general published October 27.

In that document the agencies state their disagreement with Washington’s imposition of coercive measures against Cuba over more than 40 years.

These international bodies have demanded the annulment of the blockade of Cuba on account of its violation of international law.

The report, which also includes considerations from 100 countries opposed to the blockade, confirms a universal consensus on ending that hostile policy.

The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) particularly censured Washington’s decision to intensify the blockade of Cuba in order to make economic, political and social life on the island more difficult.

The ECLAC refers to a report from the Cuban authorities, according to which the accumulated direct and indirect damage to the economy of that underdeveloped country amounts to $82 billion.

For its part, UNICEF cited as a concrete example of the prejudicial effects of the blockade the serious problems in acquiring cytostatics for child suffering from cancer.

Pharmaceutical laboratories that had contracts with Cuba had to suspend supplies of those medicines after they were bought up by U.S. transnationals, UNICEF notes.

For the UN Conference on Trade and Development, the extra-territorial effects of the blockade imposed by Washington have significant consequences for Cuba due to the influence of U.S. interests in transnational enterprises.

In its turn, the UN Population Fund highlights in its report the efforts made by Cuba to contain the spread of HIV/AIDS over close to 20 years in the quality of the a country blockaded by the United States.

In the UN secretary general’s report the UN Development Program (UNDP) reiterated the impossibility of acquiring equipment and other supplies manufactured by the United States or protected via patents held by that country.

According to UN-Habitat, the blockade imposed on Cuba restricts that nation from having access to low-cost chemical products and equipment for the treatment of water and waste water, which has negative impact on the environment and public health.

"The UN system in Cuba has come up against difficulties and limitations for technical cooperation projects, above all acquiring equipment and other supplies manufactured in the United States or with components produced there," the UNDP notes.

The Secretary General’s report is circulating among UN members as part of the procedures prior to the annual debate on the "The need to end the economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed on Cuba by the United States."

According to the official program, the 61st General Assembly is to discuss the issue on November 8, for the 15th year in succession.

On the 14 previous occasions the General Assembly passed by an overwhelming majority a resolution calling on Washington to end the blockade of Cuba.

Last year the vote reached the record figure of 182 votes in favor.

Interview with historian Judith Ewell: "Challenging the United States is positive"

by ROBERTO GIUSTI, EL UNIVERSAL

According to scholar Judith Ewell, the US media do not say anything good about Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez because they may be biased by the State Department

After some years of absence, Professor Judith Ewell walks down the streets of downtown Caracas with the feeling of being in a city different from the formerly familiar place. A historian focused on Latin America, she worked in Venezuela for some years. Recently she came back from Virginia to introduce the Spanish version of her book "The Indictment of a Dictator."

Q: Based on Venezuela's political evolution, did you anticipate a government such as the administration of President Hugo Chávez?

A: I think not. Obviously, the failure of the Punto Fijo Agreement was the reason for Chávez' taking office. If the democratic system and political parties had kept their strengths, that would have not happened. Neither (political parties) AD nor Copei transferred successfully the power from founding generations to the younger ones.

Q: (Rómulo) Betancourt quit after his second term in office, but (Rafael) Caldera wanted re-election, like (Carlos Andrés) Pérez, and now Chávez indefinitely.

A: This is politicians' standard sin. Sometimes they refuse to step down.

Q: You suggested some similarities between Betancourt and (Marcos) Pérez Jiménez. I think that these same similarities can be found between Chávez and Carlos Andrés Pérez in their attempt at establishing what some Venezuelan analysts label as sub-imperialism. Therefore, there is some continuity both in words and actions. Don't you think, however, that at bottom there is a basic difference between current players and those who, notwithstanding the warts of representative democracy, observed fundamental guidelines, such as turnover?

A: It is possible. However, I view polarization as a serious problem. This did not occur in the past. Chávez does not trust at all in the opposition. Nor the opposition trusts in Chávez. The relationship between Caldera and Betancourt was quite different. Regardless of being foes, they agreed on fundamental issues.

Q: How is Chávez viewed in the United States?

A: Very badly. Newspapers never say anything good about Chávez. It seems that they are permeable to the influence of the State Department and there is no major effort to understand the situation as a whole. If Chávez says that (US President George W. Bush) is the devil, then Bush says likewise about Chávez. Journalist James Reston stated once: "In the United States everything can be made for Latin America without reading a single line." There, people do not know much about Latin America, and our media are worse than most of the Venezuelan media. The international information is terrible and superficial.

Q: Do you think that Chávez represents a threat for the United States?

A: I do not think that he can change things much. Rather, it seems that his influence in Latin America is falling down. I view as positive the existence of a leader who criticizes and challenges Washington once in a while. Better still, if he does it in a rational manner instead of making nonsense.

Q: Is Chávez right when denouncing "the US imperialism"?

A: Since (Liberator Simón ) Bolívar's times, most Latin Americans think that the North, -rather than helping- harms, stages interventions where they are not needed and eludes them when they are. Now, therefore, I am not sure if Chávez has played this role successfully. His way to relate with the United States, in an attempt at building an alliance in the South, has been rough and steep.

Q: Do you mean, therefore, that he will not be successful?

A: That depends a lot on Washington. While at the present time they are not very interested in Latin America and are facing a lot of problems, perhaps Chávez will not gain much influence.

Q: In spite of his relations with Iran?

A: The United States looks on it with disapproval, even though the links between two oil countries, members of (the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) OPEC, are reasonable. It is just that Washington does not view it this way.

Translated by Conchita Delgado

Why A Book About Hugo Chavez Touched A Nerve at The New York Times

by Nikolas Kozloff

Summing Up: The Times’ Belief System

Lowenstein’s discrediting of Chavez is not surprising in light of the overall economic philosophy at the Times. For years, the paper has been touting the so-called virtues of free trade and hemispheric integration, tendencies which Chavez has successfully challenged through anti-poverty programs and promotion of a regional initiative called Bolivarian Alternative of The Americas (known by its Spanish acronym ALBA). Chavez’s own trade initiative is a challenge to Washington, which has long pushed its own corporately friendly FTAA or Free Trade Area of the Americas.

The issue of the Times’ historic support for free trade was analyzed in a thorough 2001 report by the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). Though the Times reported on the contentious FTAA summit at Quebec in 2001 which drew thousands of anti-globalization protesters, the paper “tended to focus more on the politicking and ‘challenges’ that Bush must navigate to seal the deal than on the particulars of what might happen if he succeeds.”

As I point out in my book, Chavez was critical of the FTAA in Quebec, and his antipathy towards the agreement only increased with time. In this sense Chavez shared some common ground with anti-globalization protesters, who were also vilified by the Times. According to FAIR, Times columnists Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman led the charge in seeking to discredit FTAA critics and the anti-globalization movement. Friedman in fact went as far to say that protesters were “choking the only route out of poverty for the world's poor."

Krugman agreed with Friedman, remarking that "many of the people inside that chain-link fence [hemispheric politicians supporting the FTAA] are sincerely trying to help the world's poor. And the people outside the fence, whatever their intentions, are doing their best to make the poor even poorer."

In a telling aside, FAIR remarked: “Perhaps the most startling thing about these editorials was their failure to acknowledge that the ‘world's poor’ have in fact themselves been taking to the streets to protest globalization.”

Fast forward now from 2001 to 2006, and it’s not surprising that the Times would carry on the torch and seek to criticize Chavez. The fact that the Venezuelan leader has been able to successfully resist some of the tenets of “neo-liberal” economics, in line with the thrust of the earlier anti-globalization movement, is disagreeable to the paper of record.

Chavez will most certainly win the December 2006 presidential election. The question is now just a matter of how wide the margin shall be. George Bush and whomever his successor may be will almost certainly try to further destabilize Venezuela in future.

In light of Lowenstein’s piece, it seems likely that the mainstream media will take its cue from the Times, over generalizing and misrepresenting the truth on Venezuela until the public starts to become obsessed with Hugo Chavez.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of the recently released Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics, and The Challenge To The U.S. (St. Martin’s Press)
*
Why A Book About Hugo Chavez Touched A Nerve at The New York Times

Cuba: Peaceful Nuke Energy Is A Right

United Nations
Oct 30

Cuba stated Monday that all the countries in the world have the right to the pacific use of nuclear energy, and rejected all attempts on the margin of the International Atomic Energy Agency to certify those programs in some countries.

"IAEA is the only competent entity that can certify fulfilment of the obligations under the respective agreements for security of the IAEA member countries," declared Cuban Ambassador to the UN Rodrigo Malmierca.

Malmierca spoke before the 61st UN General Assembly s debate of a report presented by IAEA General Director Mohamed El-Baradei.

This report noted a growing expectation in relation to the future role of nuclear energy, particularly among many developing countries, because of its productivity, economic advantage, and less damage to the environment.

Official UN statistics note 16 of the 28 new reactors now being built in the world are in underdeveloped countries.

Stating that nuclear power should not be a monopoly, Malmierca called it unacceptable that some countries are attempting to increase the relevance of the IAEA s verifying role instead of its encouragement of nuclear technology.

The head of the Cuban diplomatic mission descried that, although the Cold War was proclaimed at an end, there exists some 32 thousand nuclear weapons in the world, 12,300 of them ready to be used immediately.

"The only secure and effective way to stop proliferation of these weapons of mass destruction is to eliminate all of them," he said and added that Cuba reaffirms the position of the Non-Aligned Movement that disarmament is of highest priority in the world.

Victory in Oaxaca!

[MANY THANKS TO TONI FOR THIS NEWS!]

Mexico's Lower House of Congress has called on Ulises Ruiz to step down from office.

The Congress Chamber of Deputies voted overwhelmingly in favor of a
motion calling on Ruiz to step down.

PRI members of the Chamber of Deputies failed to support Ruiz, with
most abstaining and few voting against the motion.

At this very moment, confrontations between Riot Police and
Protestors still continue in the streets of Oaxaca.

A Call from the Zapatistas: Oaxaca Is Not Alone

Shut-Down of Roads, Highways and the Media on November 1; General Strike Called for November 20

By the Sixth Commission of the EZLN
The Other Mexico

October 30, 2006

Message from the
CLANDESTINE REVOLUTIONARY INDIGENOUS COMMITTEE-GENERAL COMMAND
of the
ZAPATISTA ARMY OF NATIONAL LIBERATION
MEXICO.

October 30, 2006.

To the people of Mexico:
To the people of the world:
To the Other Campaign in Mexico and the other side of the Rio Grande:
To the entire Sixth International:

Compañeros and compañeras:
Brothers and sisters:

It is now known publicly that yesterday, 29th of October 2006, Vicente Fox’s federal forces attacked the people of Oaxaca and its most legitimate representative, the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO).

Today, the federal troops have assassinated at least 3 people, among them a minor, leaving dozens of wounded, including many women from Oaxaca. Dozens of detainees were illegally transported to military prisons. All this comes in addition to the existing total of deaths, detainees and missing persons since the beginning of the mobilization demanding that Ulises Ruiz step down as Oaxaca’s governor.

The sole objective of the federal attack is to maintain Ulises Ruiz in power and to destroy the popular grassroots organization of the people of Oaxaca.

Oaxaca’s people are resisting. Not one single honest person can remain quiet and unmoved while the entire society, of which the majority are indigenous, is murdered, beaten and jailed.

We, the Zapatistas, will not be silent; we will mobilize to support our brothers, sisters and comrades in Oaxaca.

The EZLN’s Sixth Commission has already consulted the Zapatista leadership and the following has been decided:

First: During whole day of November 1, 2006, the major and minor roads that cross Zapatistas territories in the southwestern state of Chiapas will be closed.

Consequently, we ask that everyone avoid traveling by these roads in Chiapas on this day and that one make the necessary arrangements in order to do so.

Second: through the Sixth Commission, the EZLN has begun making contact and consulting other political and social organizations, groups, collectives and individuals in the Other Campaign, in order to coordinate joint solidarity actions across Mexico, leading to a nationwide shut-down on the 20th of November, 2006.

Third: the EZLN calls out to the Other Campaign in Mexico and north of the Rio Grande, so that these November 1st mobilizations happen wherever possible, completely, partially, at intervals or symbolically shutting down the major artery roads, streets, toll booths, stations, airports and commercial media.

Fourth: The central message that the Zapatistas send and will continue sending is that the people of Oaxaca are not alone: They are not alone!

Ulises Ruiz out of Oaxaca!

Immediate withdrawal of the occupying federal forces from Oaxaca!

Immediate and unconditional freedom for all detainees!

Cancel all arrest warrants!

Punish the murderers!

Justice!
Freedom!
Democracy!

From the North of Mexico.
For the Clandestine Revolutionary Indigenous Committee-General Command of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation.
For the EZLN Sixth Commission.

Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos
Mexico, October, 2006.

Translation: Radio Pacheco

APPO denounces rebellion against the police

“Nos desvinculamos de los actos vandálicos que se están haciendo en nombre de la APPO” - César Maeto, vocero de la coordinación provisional de la Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca

"We disavow the acts of vandalism that are being made in the name of APPO" - César Maeto, spokesperson of the provisional coordination committee of the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca

(El Universal, Oct. 29, 2006)

After calling for peaceful resistance to yesterday's violent invasion of Oaxaca City by the Mexican federal police, after calling for the people of the city to not fight against the police (describing such actions as "provocations", as if the police were not the people doing the "provoking"), the leadership of the Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca (APPO in Spanish) denounced acts of "vandalism" (one wonders what they refer to specifically, the burning of police vehicles or the puncturing of their tires?), according to the corporate media webpage El Universal. In one of the APPO leadership's statements, posted on the internet, they claimed that the violent resistance of many people to the police was the work of police infiltrators who are trying to justify the cops' violence against the people (as if the cops needed a justification, as if the violent resistance of the people against the the police raid in June hadn't given life to the current rebellion). ( The above mentioned statement by APPO can be found here: http://codepappo.wordpress.com/2006/10/29/urgente-la-pfp-en-oaxaca )

From June on, rebels in Oaxaca City have used all manner of simple weapons to resist the police. When the federal police invaded yesterday, rebels used slings and slingshots, Molotov firebombs and rocks against the police. This is not a peaceful rebellion. This rebellion is not just APPO or its representatives.

Many "ordinary" people, without connections to the APPO, are in resistace in the streets, with violence, with simple weapons and burning barricades. Calling the rebellion peaceful does not make it so. The violent rebellion of the oppressed is justified by the violent and systematic oppression carried out by the ruling class and their minions.

As the Oaxacan revolutionary anarchist Ricardo Flores Magón said: "Preaching peace is a crime". Peace allows the ruling class to preserve their loot. The President of Mexico declares that there is now peace in the center of Oaxaca City (now that the police have taken it by force, causing more injuries and death). There is peace in the graveyard.

The following reports by James Daria in part describe the rebellious people of Oaxaca acting independently from APPO:

( Chronicle of the Battle of Oaxaca: Stage Three, Day One
http://narconews.com/Issue43/article2259.html )

( Two Days in the Life of Oaxaca's Revolution
http://narconews.com/Issue42/article2021.html )

Solidarity with the rebellion of the oppressed, not with those who represent and attempt to control the rebellion!

Window Smashed at Mexican Consulate in Sacramento