If there is one quality that Latin American leaders share it’s paranoia. Unfortunately, their paranoia is justified by historical fact. For more than a century the United States has influenced Latin American governments, supported its wealthy elite, and exploited it while the majority of its inhabitants have endured severe economic hardships and, in many cases, abuse by regimes supported by the United States. In truth, there is a laundry list of precedents regarding US political interference in Latin America that, in many cases, resulted in not only the diminishment of freedoms, but the support of regimes responsible for mass killings.

While justified by many as Cold War necessity, US actions in Latin America have always been more about ensuring the survival of economic exploitation and the small influential blocks that locally benefit from it that thus work to ensure that Washington’s influence remains steadfast. Those that support American backed regimes are largely, if not entirely, represented by the wealthy, who commonly receive support from US organizations such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy to fund anti-government operations. Such was the case when an attempt was made to oust Hugo Chavez, and then again when pressure was brought to bear to hold a referendum on his Presidency. After winning it, and realizing that the forces arrayed against him were receiving support from the United States, he succumbed to the sort of paranoia shared by many Latin American leaders and began systematically dismantling those apparatuses used by his detractors. He also took steps to cripple the stranglehold of foreign corporations, such as nationalizing large swaths of Venezuela’s oil industry. He was, of course, condemned for such actions by the North American media and the US government, who, as is always the case, denied any involvement in aiding those looking to remove him.

Moving to Bolivia, where protests against the government of Evo Morales have been occurring, producing numerous deaths (and it should be noted that they were committed by those protesting), we find another very possible example of US interference, though the United States has, again, denied it.

The protests are occurring in five of Bolivia’s eastern provinces, which also happen to be home to Latin America’s second largest natural gas reserves. Those protesting are opposed to Morales’s plan to share natural gas revenues with the country’s remaining four poorer provinces, as well as the redistribution of land to some of the nation’s indigenous majority who largely live in poverty. Added to that, the province of Santa Cruz, one of the resource richest of the five eastern provinces, held a vote in May of this year in which 80% of its population backed a resolution aimed at giving the province more control over its resources. That said; considerable voting abstention was reported and the vote itself was organized by wealthy landowners in the region.

Bolivia is the poorest country in South America, with the majority of its wealth belonging to a small minority of land owners, many of whom have ties to US corporations. To dismiss, out of hand, the Bolivian government’s assertion that it possesses information regarding possible US interference is a stretch. If anything, it reads like as play out of a very storied playbook.

Was Morales justified in expelling US Ambassador Philip Goldberg? That depends on what Morales’s government knows, and they’re sure as hell not going to tip their hand by gifting details and thus allowing the US to spin it by employing some of the world’s most powerful media outlets.

In solidarity with Morales, the paranoia engrained in other Latin American leaders has led to the expulsion of the US ambassador to Venezuela and a refusal by the government of Honduras to accept the credentials of the new ambassador to that country.

As for US culpability in Bolivia, one need only examine their involvement in the two attempts to remove Chavez from power to determine whether or not Morales is acting out of turn.

First up this morning, two quick film reviews…

Redacted

Based on the rape and murder of a teenaged Iraqi girl in Mahmoudiya (and the execution of other members of her family) by US Marines manning a nearby checkpoint, the film is a wake up call that received little to no attention in the United States. While the crime is one of the major focuses of the film, another important aspect is the pressures faced by the individual that finally came forward and revealed that it happened.

Into The Wild

Great cinematography, great performances. Didn’t like the story.

Worth Your Time To Read

An op-ed by Seumas Milne published by The Guardian today is one that should be read if you have the time. An excerpt…

“The attempt by western politicians and media to present this week’s carnage in the Gaza Strip as a legitimate act of Israeli self-defence - or at best the latest phase of a wearisome conflict between two somehow equivalent sides - has reached Alice-in-Wonderland proportions. Since Israel’s deputy defence minister, Matan Vilnai, issued his chilling warning last week that Palestinians faced a “holocaust” if they continued to fire home-made rockets into Israel, the balance sheet of suffering has become ever clearer. More than 120 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces in the past week, of whom one in five were children and more than half were civilians, according to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. During the same period, three Israelis were killed, two of whom were soldiers taking part in the attacks.

So what was the response of the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, to this horrific killing spree? It was to blame the “numerous civilian casualties” on the week’s “significant rise” in Palestinian rocket attacks “and the Israeli response”, condemn the firing of rockets as “terrorist acts” and defend Israel’s right to self-defence “in accordance with international law”. But of course it has been nothing of the kind - any more than has been Israel’s 40-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, its continued expansion of settlements or its refusal to allow the return of expelled refugees.

Nor is the past week’s one-sided burden of casualties and misery anything new, but the gap is certainly getting wider. After the election of Hamas two years ago, Israel - backed by the US and the European Union - imposed a punitive economic blockade, which has hardened over the past months into a full-scale siege of the Gaza Strip, including fuel, electricity and essential supplies. Since January’s mass breakout across the Egyptian border signalled that collective punishment wouldn’t work, Israel has opted for military escalation. What that means on the ground can be seen from the fact that at the height of the intifada, from 2000 to 2005, four Palestinians were killed for every Israeli; in 2006 it was 30; last year the ratio was 40 to one. In the three months since the US-sponsored Middle East peace conference at Annapolis, 323 Palestinians have been killed compared with seven Israelis, two of whom were civilians.

But the US and Europe’s response is to blame the principal victims for a crisis it has underwritten at every stage. In interviews with Palestinian leaders over the past few days, BBC presenters have insisted that Palestinian rockets have been the “starting point” of the violence, as if the occupation itself did not exist. In the West Bank, from which no rockets are currently fired and where the US-backed administration of Mahmoud Abbas maintains a ceasefire, there have been 480 Israeli military attacks over the past three months and 26 Palestinians killed. By contrast, the rockets from Gaza which are supposed to be the justification for the latest Israeli onslaught have killed a total of 14 people over seven years.

Like any other people, the Palestinians have the right to resist occupation - or to self-defence - whether they choose to exercise it or not. In spite of Israel’s disengagement in 2005, Gaza remains occupied territory, both legally and in reality. It is the world’s largest open-air prison, with land, sea and air access controlled by Israel, which carries out military operations at will. Palestinians may differ about the tactics of resistance, but the dominant view (if not that of Abbas) has long been that without some armed pressure, their negotiating hand will inevitably be weaker. And while it might be objected that the rockets are indiscriminate, that is not an easy argument for Israel to make, given its appalling record of civilian casualties in both the Palestinian territories and Lebanon.

The truth is that Hamas’s control of Gaza is the direct result of the US refusal to accept the Palestinians’ democratic choice in 2006 and its covert attempt to overthrow the elected administration by force through its Fatah placeman Muhammad Dahlan. As confirmed by secret documents leaked to the US magazine Vanity Fair - and also passed to the Guardian - George Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Elliott Abrams, the US deputy national security adviser (of Iran-Contra fame), funnelled cash, weapons and instructions to Dahlan, partly through Arab intermediaries such as Jordan and Egypt, in an effort to provoke a Palestinian civil war. As evidence of the military buildup emerged, Hamas moved to forestall the US plan with its own takeover of Gaza last June. David Wurmser, who resigned as Dick Cheney’s chief Middle East adviser the following month, argues: “What happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen.”

Yesterday, Rice attempted to defend the failed US attempt to reverse the results of the Palestinian elections by pointing to Iran’s support for Hamas. Meanwhile, Israel’s attacks on Gaza are expected to resume once she has left the region, even if no one believes they will stop the rockets. Some in the Israeli government hope that they can nevertheless weaken Hamas as a prelude to pushing Gaza into Egypt’s unwilling arms; others hope to bring Abbas and his entourage back to Gaza after they have crushed Hamas, perhaps with a transitional international force to save the Palestinian president’s face.”

Throwing around the word genocide is not a light matter. It is a word that should not be employed unless its existence, or planned existence, is proven beyond any doubt. Genocide is the premeditated, systematic destruction of a people, thus it is not a term that should be employed for the sake of shock value or political grandstanding.

Today, that is precisely what the President of Colombia has done. He has accused the government of Venezuela of aiding FARC rebels and plans to ask the International Criminal Court to bring charges of genocide against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, even though those suspect actions of FARC do not really constitute a systematic genocidal agenda. In fact, what the Colombian government has deemed genocide is, in comparison to Darfur, like a single drop of water in the ocean.

Now, that is not to say that the severity of murder should be viewed as excusable simply because of mathematics, but as I have said, there is a vast difference between the murderous actions of a militant group and genocide. Was, for example, 9/11 a genocidal act, or an act of terrorism?

That said, and not surprising in the least, the United States is backing Alvaro Uribe’s play, even though they themselves refuse to adhere to the authority of the ICC with regards to the conduct of their own military personnel – though their support shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise given US military training assistance to Colombia – and let us also not forget that the Colombian government is also complicit in tolerating what is known as “The Sixth Division”, which are Paramilitary groups that receive assistance from the Colombian military and have been equally responsible for human rights abuses.

I’m not going to defend FARC. Given their modern reliance on the cocaine trade and kidnapping to bolster financial sustenance it is impossible for me to view them, in their current form, as a legitimate populist movement that is seeking to overthrow what they view as a corrupted government greatly influenced by a foreign power. And while the Colombian government may be guilty on both charges, the use of such methods to fund a struggle against them is, to me, simply counter to any decent principles that such a group might profess to promote.

But are they guilty of genocide, and is the Venezuelan government complicit in aiding them to that end? Or is President Uribe’s threat one that was simply made to isolate Chavez by attaching to him the stigma that comes with the employment of the word itself? Thus, the possibility that a well-constructed psychological operation may have just been initiated cannot be overlooked. Evidence of that is present in the fact that, according to the Colombian government, the government of Ecuador is also complicit in aiding FARC, but no such statement regarding Rafael Correa has been made.

There are numerous things to touch on this morning. Here are some of the stories that I have been following…

Chavez Says He Will Step Down At End Of Term

After last week’s defeat of proposed constitutional reforms, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said that he will step down when is term is up in 2013. Chavez has vowed to keep fighting to have the reforms passed, requiring a petition of 15% of voters to secure the possibility of a new referendum.

Vancouver Airport Reforms Announced

The Vancouver International Airport will spend $1.4 million dollars a year to “improve service for international travelers”. The measures include the following…

Had such measures already been in place, Robert Dziekanski would still be alive today.

Canada Fourth Worst In Climate Change Performance

Based on emissions produced over the last year, climate change policies, and emission level reduction efforts, Canada has ranked fourth to last in the world behind Australia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia.

Canada is currently rated 53rd out of 56 countries, a drop from 51st place a year ago. Well done, Mr. Harper.

$1 Billion Worth Of Military Equipment Missing In Iraq

According to CBS News…

“Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit. Auditors for the Inspector General reviewed equipment contracts totaling $643 million but could only find an audit trail for $83 million.

The report details a massive failure in government procurement revealing little accountability for the billions of dollars spent purchasing military hardware for the Iraqi security forces. For example, according to the report, the military could not account for 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons, including pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns.”

I’d say something witty, but it depressingly doesn’t come as a surprise.

In a referendum held yesterday in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms were rejected. The measures were defeated by a narrow margin of 51% to 49%. It is believed that some 40% of Venezuelan’s didn’t vote, many of them Chavez supporters that disagreed with the reforms.

In truth, the result is a victory for Venezuelan democracy, though it should be noted that the result will most certainly create an atmosphere of possibility in Washington. US interference in Venezuelan affairs has been significant, and covert US support to those that oppose Chavez should not be overlooked, nor discounted, especially with regards to exploiting this event.

The real test of Chavez’s government will be how it handles this defeat. If he is the tyrant in the making that some believe him to be, he will obviously look for a way to subvert the result. He has already stated that he will not give up attempts to pass the reforms, but the real test will be how he goes about it – democratically or autocratically.

Obviously, those that oppose him were overjoyed at the outcome. Washington was also quick to respond, claiming it a sign that Venezuelans did “not want any further erosion in their democracy and their democratic institutions”. It’s a bold statement given the fact that the reforms only failed to pass by 2%. It is also a bold statement given the fact that a democratic referendum was actually held to decide the outcome. One would think that if Chavez were inclined to simply seize outright power he would not have left it in the hands of the people, even given the fact that his base represents the majority.

I’ll not disagree that many of the proposed reforms were extremely troublesome, but, for the time being at least, even the man that attempted to have them instituted seems to be willing to abide by the people’s resolution. And if that isn’t an example of the democratic principle then I have been adhering to an entirely different definition of the term for some time now.

All things considered, only time will tell.

Last night, various major news agencies ran headlines that were shocking. They declared that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, was attempting to alter the constitution of his country so that he could remain in power indefinitely. There was, at the time, no mention of the fact that the actual alteration being proposed would only allow Chavez to run for re-election without term limitations. Most of them had simply jumped the gun before bothering to read the details, having since amended their reports. This morning, there is barely a mention if it anywhere to be found on the front pages of major news websites.

After reading those initial reports, I wrote an entry yesterday that lambasted the move, exclaiming that there is no excuse for tolerating the diminishment of the people’s power in any nation, be it socialistically based or not. To my discredit, having read those initial reports, I reacted before waiting to read, in detail, what was being proposed.

When it comes to Hugo Chavez, there is, quite obviously, going to be heated debate. Some believe that he is a dictator in waiting, looking only to usurp Venezuelan democracy. Others argue that he is trying to ensure that external influencing does not lead to upheaval in Venezuela and that the landslide majority that he gained in the last federal election, which was overseen by international observers, speaks volumes about the democratic support that he enjoys from the populace. Then there is the matter of the closing of RCTV, a television station that was complicit in the coup that attempted to oust Chavez from power. Human Rights Watch called the closing of the station a blatant attack on freedom of speech and the press, while others pointed to the fact that were RCTV to exist in any Western democracy that it would have been shut down long before RCTV’s license expired given that it had acted in conjunction with those known to be supported by foreign interest groups seeking the deposition of Chavez.

The underlying reality here is that we are talking about a man, and a country, that has to deal with factors that most do not. When Canadians go to the polls they don’t have to wonder whether a certain party is being bankrolled by foreign interests whose goal is to secure a government friendly to their economic interests. In fact, were it discovered that a major Canadian political party were being covertly financed by, for example, the National Endowment For Democracy, the wrath of the Canadian media and people would be incendiary. It must also not be forgotten that if such a thing occurred, that party would be banned from the process and thoroughly investigated.

Like other Latin American statesmen in the past, there is no doubt that Chavez has become paranoid to some degree given the external forces arrayed against him. While it is vitally important that political opposition parties are allowed to freely exist and partake in the political process, there can be no excuse for accepting covert support from the likes of the United States to help them in their bid to oust another party from power. Because that is also entirely undemocratic and wholly abusive of the Venezuelan people’s trust and belief in the process itself.

But that is the reality of Venezuela, and there are precedents stretching back to the early 50’s that support the growing paranoia that is displayed by men like Chavez.

Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia – these are but a few examples of countries that have endured external foreign influencing. Some of them fought against it, others were led by individuals backed, and often put in power, by foreign powers, and others simply endured high crimes committed by groups covertly funded and armed by the likes of the CIA. Like it or not, that is the reality of 20th Century Latin American history.

When I think of the funding of Venezuelan opposition groups by organizations like the NED, the first word that comes to mind is ‘bananas’. The reason? Because if a democratically elected leader, in this case Jacobo Árbenz, can be removed from power and replaced by an American puppet and strongman (Carlos Armas) to protect the interests of a US fruit company (now Chiquita Brands International), then there is only one world that is applicable – and that’s ‘bananas’. (Investigate Operation PBSUCCESS for more information of the subject).

It is easy enough for us to paint the actions of Latin American leaders as suspect because we have never been in their shoes, nor had to deal with the ramifications of other nations seriously interfering with our political processes to such a degree that they would go so far as to train murderers to intimidate and kill innocents to preserve or strengthen their influence.

As for Chavez, Venezuelan oil, the belief that he wants to emulate Castro, the nationalization of various Venezuelan industries, changes to the constitution, the championing of the Bolivarian movement, and a whole host of other matters – ask yourself one simple question. Do you believe that it will lead to his government arming death squads to quell political opposition? Do you believe that Venezuela is on the brink of disaster, and that Chavez is a tyrant in disguise waiting only to paint the streets of Caracas red with the blood of his political adversaries? If that is the case, and you do believe that that is a possibility, place into context what took place in El Salvador at the hands of those backed and trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Put into context the assassination of Monseñor Romero and others that dared to speak out against those that worked to secure the interests of a foreign power while selling their own people out.

Hugo Chavez’s government’s human rights record makes that of Saudi Arabia look demonic by comparison. In fact, the same goes for Castro’s Cuba. And yet nary is a word said about what transpires in Saudi Arabia. The United States is on the brink of gifting the Saudis, and several others in the region, some $20 billion dollars in military aid, and yet their human rights record is abysmal. In Venezuela, women can vote, hell, they can even drive cars. The same cannot be said of Saudi Arabia, where no one can vote. Venezuela does not represent a military threat to the United States, while the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis, not to mention that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

In the last Venezuelan federal election, Chavez received 62.84% of the vote. His closest rival, Manuel Rosales, received 36.9%. In all, 75% of eligible voters participated in the election, which, by comparison, puts us to shame with regards to our own participation in the last federal election. And yet our outlook on what transpires in Venezuela is always suspect.

I’ll not sit here and say that Hugo Chavez is by any means perfect, or that democracy in his country needs to be safeguarded and transparent to ensure his legitimacy and the legitimacy of Venezuelan democracy itself. But that said, I will also not condemn the man out of hand given what he’s been made to deal with as it pertains to not only campaigning against political opposition that is bankrolled by a foreign power, but the very real breach of national security that such a reality represents.

As far as I am aware, and if you have information to the contrary please do feel free to provide it in the comments, no one in Venezuela is being dragged from their bed at night and ‘disappeared’. While there are real human rights concerns to consider, let us not forget to apply context to them with regards to our own actions, especially to do with the War On Terror. Unlike the United States, Venezuela does not run numerous facilities where individuals are held outside of the auspices of international law or tortured. They also are not guilty of rendering individuals to countries know for their use of torture and then lying about it. Unlike the United States, Venezuela is a signatory of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, which was ratified while Chavez was in office.

The truth is that what is currently transpiring in Venezuela with regards to constitutional amendments is a slippery slope. Then again, it must not be overlooked that we adhere to a political system in which there are no term limits and that any person, even if they have already held the office of Prime Minister, has the right to run for, and hold, that office again. Obviously, Venezuela’s political construct differs from ours, and as I said yesterday, it would do Chavez a world of good to perhaps look at the reformation of Venezuela’s political system to better enact the changes that he is seeking rather than doing it in such a way that raises suspicions.

Dictator? Revolutionary? Neither? I found this article on the BBC’s website quite interesting. What are your views on Hugo Chavez, the RCTV shut down, and Venezuelan politics? Comment away.

I feel like a beanbag. It’s the drinking and the medication I think. My hands shake. When I hold a telephone it bounces all over my ear, near and far, beeps and whistles. I used to rush to the doctor because of things like that, but not so much anymore. Coughed this morning and something along the top, inside of my leg started to hurt. I stood there for a while and it went away. It’s come and gone a bit today, but.

The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Everyone sits around until 4am and talks art and Nadia sings country songs and we laugh at each other’s bad jokes and the dogs race around and the candles burn out. So everyone moves towards the door and things get hazy and I pop my pills and pull the fan out and turn off the lights and push Casey off my pillow and lay on my side wondering what to wonder. And before I come up with something I fall asleep and dream of murder and love and distances too immense to convey.

Someone emailed me the other day and asked where all the Dear San Diego stuff went. That’s a good question. If anyone out there has it, send it to me and I’ll post it.

I meant to write something today, something about Chavez and the 18 months of rule by decree he was just granted by Venezuela’s national assembly. Something about how Latin American leaders have to exist in permanent states of paranoia thanks to the unending transgressions of Johnny Apple Seed. I’ll get around to it, just not tonight. Tonight an old friend that I did a video with once is coming to town to sleep on my couch.

Like a secret river flowing below the headlines, US actions regarding Somalia have garnered little attention since they began. As Eric Margolis reported in a piece on the 16th…

“In a striking irony, F-18 fighter-bombers from the carrier “USS Eisenhower,” deadly AC-130 gunships from the US base at Djibouti, and Special Forces units attacked Somalia from sea, air and land. Other US units and FBI agents deployed on the Kenya-Somalia border. As America’s latest foreign war began with air strikes from the giant carrier that bears this great president’s name, no one seemed to recall President Dwight Eisenhower’s magnificent farewell address in 1961 to Americans in which he warned against foreign entanglements and the growing political influence of the military-industrial complex.

Very few Americans understood their nation had just invaded another in an act worthy of the late, unlamented Chairman Leonid Brezhnev.

Much of Somalia has already been occupied by Ethiopia’s powerful, US-financed army which invaded that defenseless nation, with Washington’s blessing, under cover of the Christmas holiday.

It is an open secret in Washington that the Somalia operation is to be the Bush/Cheney Administration’s new model for war against recalcitrant Muslims. The White House failed to convince India or Pakistan to rent their troops for occupation duty in Iraq, but it has succeeded in using Ethiopia’s army in Somalia. Ethiopia’s repressive regime was only too happy to invade Somalia and received large infusions of aid from Washington. The Administration is duplicating the British Empire’s wide scale use of native troops (”sepoys” in India; “askaris” in East Africa) in colonial wars.

But is Somalia really a “hotbed of terrorism” as Washington claimed? The US-Ethiopian invasion of Somalia was sparked by last fall’s defeat of corrupt Somali clan warlords. They had recently been armed and financed by the CIA to fight the growing popularity of local Islamists.�?

[…]

“A handful of African Al-Qaida suspects in the 1998 bombing of US Embassies in East Africa may have been in Somalia, but going to war against a sovereign nation to try to assassinate or capture a handful of suspects is like using a nuclear weapon to kill a gnat and is sure to generate more anti-US violence. Air strikes by carrier-based US F-18’s and AC-130 gunships killed between 50 and 100 Somali civilians but, apparently, no al-Qaida suspects. The real aim of the US air attacks was to destroy remaining fighting units of the Islamic Courts and clear the way for the US-imposed Somali figurehead government.�?

There isn’t anything surprising in Margolis’s piece with regards to the funding of suspect governments to act as regional proxies. It’s as old as the crucifixion, really. And the United States certainly isn’t the first world power to employ lateral tactics to assert their influence. They are, though, the only world power to unilaterally invade another country in contravention of the UN Charter of late, not to mention setting a massively dangerous precedent with regards to the declination of human rights standards on a global scale.

In the shadow of The War On Terror, initiatives elsewhere are routinely overlooked and massively propagandized. Colombia, for example, continues to receive considerable US military assistance, aiding in the training of forces that have committed serious human rights abuses.

When Jean-Bertrand Aristide made a bit of a fuss regarding the privatization of Haitian industry, drug lords and thugs from the Dominican Republic dubbed “freedom fighters�? were armed and used to help mask the coup d’état that removed him, one in which Canada was wholly complicit.

Likewise, fearing the nationalization of the oil industry and a spark that might engulf Latin American in a new, democratically elected, socialist wave, the United States used a variety of organizations, among them the National Endowment For Democracy and USAID’s Office of Transitional Initiatives, to help fund the campaign that attempted oust Hugo Chavez by way of a public referendum. It failed, of course, but it’s simply another example of external influencing gone largely unnoticed and unchecked.

Then again, it is somewhat difficult to keep your eye on the ball when, as was the case yesterday, over 230 Iraqis violently lost their lives in what has become the preeminent disaster of this decade and (thus far) millennium.

One waits with bated breath to see how Iran’s piece of the puzzle fits and if, in the end, the natural world itself will actually out strip us all and simply cast us off into the deep like so many rats from a doomed ship.

Last night I made the unfortunate mistake of responding to a blog entry about my thoughts on Augusto Pinochet’s death by a Canadian Conservative blogger. Somehow, by some bizarre turn of events, I have since been labeled pro-Communist, anti-democratic, and a historical revisionist (among other things). Perhaps, because of some momentary lapse in reason, I decided to fire back, and most likely should have sat down for more than ten minutes to do so. That said, in the future when I am emailed links to such detritus I will do my best to remember the lessons learned over the numerous years that I have publicly written online, and that entertaining those seeking attention under the guise of supposed intelligent discourse is perhaps the worst of ideas.

I have, of course, since been branded a coward for removing my response, which I did for no other reason than giving someone like that the attention that they so desperately desire leads to nothing more than my inbox being flooded with moronic attacks and, more importantly, results in being a massive waste of my time. Thus, I will not link to said website again, even in referencing it.

When it comes to blogging, especially when dealing with well established blogs, it’s always in the best interest of those attacking the position of another to actually delve into the beliefs of those they are attempting to discredit. For example, I can’t remember how many times I have claimed the Constitution of the United States to be the most revolutionary document written since the Magna Carta, and yet am routinely cast as anti-American by those that claim my understanding of US foreign and covert policy history one dimensional. These same individuals rarely comment on a variety of subsequently important issues to do with the American landscape, such as the partisanship that has all but crippled the effectiveness of the American intelligence community, not to mention produced the biggest American mess since Vietnam. By the twisted logic of some, I suppose a great many Americans are, in fact, anti-American, among them some of the most respected thinkers on the planet today.

But instead of pointless, personal innuendo, and the reality that anything written in response could simply be an absolute fabrication, such as trips to dreaded Communist enclaves by Right-Wing capitalists who, while there, bothered to actually stop to supposedly interview those that, in their own country, they’d probably step over or refuse to give spare change to, I’d prefer to start right back where all of this began – with the death of Augusto Pinochet. The truth of the matter is, basic human rights, which I am devoutly committed to, are not something that can be hijacked by partisanship. They are entrusted to our humanity, no matter our politics. Because in the name of human rights countless innocents have perished because those that have claimed to be championing them have simply used them as context for the promotion of agendas that, in the end, have nothing to do with equality or human rights whatsoever.

Democratic Hydras

What is democracy in practice? Is it a political model that can be championed by a people seeking change who then implement it and use its base ideals to create a new democratic dynamic that is unique to a specific political environment? Because there is nothing to infer that with a democratic state comes, for example, the need to open ones doors to proven exploitative economic practices, oft masked by happy terms such as ‘globalization’, or anything that established Western democracies would infer as quintessential to the existence of democracy itself.

That being the case, in Chile in 1970, Salvador Allende became the first democratically elected Marxist in history, all be it by a narrow margin. That narrow margin is often sighted by his detractors as evidence of week support for his platforms, many of which were actually shared by one of his Presidential rivals, Radomiro Tomic. What is rarely discussed is the role played by the CIA in the election and the effect that it had on the electorate, and that Allende’s win in 1970 was viewed as a massive setback for US business interests in Chile. It should also not be overlooked that the CIA was actively involved in ensuring Allande’s defeat in the 1964 Chilean Presidential election as well.

First, the CIA spent some $1 million dollars in anti-Allande propaganda scare campaigns and aided his opposition, much as modern proxies, such as USAID and the National Endowment For Democracy, have done in recent years in Venezuela. The favoured US candidate was the conservative Jorge Alessandri, whom the CIA funded through companies such as International Telephone and Telegraph. Allande was, of course, painted as a pro-Soviet Communist, a tactic that had proven successful in CIA operations since PBSUCCESS, which removed Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, and Operation Ajax, which was responsible for removing Mossadegh in Iran, both of whom were democratically elected in the 50’s and dared to challenge Western business interests in their respective countries.

During his short Presidency, Allande attempted to launch programs similar to those now sweeping numerous Latin American countries with massive approval, such as the repatriation of land, the nationalization, or partial nationalization, of large industry, the institution of socialized healthcare systems, and so forth.

While Allande’s first year as President saw a rise in the GDP and a decrease in unemployment, the economy did not sustain and problems began to plague his initiatives as the federal deficit began to sharply increase. His friendship with Fidel Castro was also seen as suspect by his political opponents.

The Tracks

After Allande’s win, the CIA attempted to influence Chile’s Congress to confirm Jorge Alessandri as President who would then resign, allowing the outgoing President, Eduardo Frei of the Christian Democratic Party, to legally attempt to run for office again. But Track 1 was scrapped when Frei refused to go along with it.

Track 2 was a much harsher plan, one that involved influencing Chilean military officials to help stop Allande from assuming the Presidency in exchange for assurances that the CIA would support them, the point being that a short-lived military junta would hold power long enough to call for new elections in which Allande would presumably be defeated. The assassination of General René Schneider was a part of one failed attempt in 1970 by General Roberto Viaux, whose killing of the Constitutionalist military commander only sparked an increase in support for Allande.

Direct Administration Approval

In 1970, the Nixon administration authorized the spending of $10 million dollars to ensure that either Allande did not assume the Presidency or that he was removed from power.

The Coup That Worked

Ironically, despite three years of ground work, little is actually know as to whether the CIA was directly involved in the military coup that led to Pinochet assuming power. Most assert that they had little to do with the coup itself, though were obviously pleased with the outcome. Of course, despite publicly criticizing Pinochet’s regime, the Nixon administration secretly supported it and maintained contacts within Chile’s secret police, including Manuel Contreras, it’s chief, who was a paid CIA asset until the late 70’s.

Reality, Fantasy, And Equality

How many deaths justify championing the growth of an economy and free markets? Ten? Fifty? A hundred? In this case it was 3,000 known deaths and 30,000 victims of state torture.

While glancing a website recently I read in its comments…

“3,000 people is a small price to pay for economic prosperity.�?

Given the author’s obvious lack of morality, would it not then be acceptable for those who planned the attacks of 9/11 to use the same logic with regards to plunging the United States into domestic and foreign chaos?

Who, exactly, gets to play God?

The fallacy of modern economics is steeped in the now antiquated belief that each person gets paid based on what their hard work and expertise dictates they deserve. Unless, that is, you happen to be working in some sweat shop in Bangladesh where you’re making pennies for what a Canadian wouldn’t show up to do for less than $10 dollars an hour, or you happen to be a Croatian Aeronautical Engineer working for a carpet cleaning company because no one in this country will recognize your degree. It is a tired rouse hoisted upon billions of people on this planet that, through Western indoctrination, believe that there exists a land of milk and honey somewhere out there where everything is going to be okay, and that an exact mirror of our system of government is the key to unlocking that chest. But in the meantime, keep pumping out clothes and sporting goods and electronics so that we might continue to enjoy the exploitative nature of our relationship with you. Democracy, as we see fit, will find you eventually.

The truth? Were India and China to assume the same standard of living that we enjoy, the planet would not be able to support human life. So what is it to be? Do we take a step back, or do those that we daily use for our own gain remain as they are?

If we’re to take a step back, if we are to re-examine our own way of life and come to the realization that more partnerships based on equality are essential for our shared futures, then we enter a realm of thought that many claim socialist.

To quote the blog of the person to whom I responded last night…

“Maybe its because some people (read: doctors) would rather be free to practice medicine somewhere they choose instead of working under the North Korean-style regime that is the Canadian health care system. But you don’t really care about them, do you. You just care about the collective: doctors are just tools of the state for you to deploy, like tractors or cranes, to build your little social project. Individual freedom? Over your dead body!�?

You see, I was under the impression that individual freedoms within the scope of our society weren’t necessarily based on your earning potential but rather the decision one makes to become something that helps benefit the society in which they live. Doctors, ironically, are a prime example of this.

Why does one become a doctor? Is it to get paid and spend weekends at a country club? Or is it to help people? Is that not the essence of the oath that all physicians take? Do we become what we truly feel we must or what we believe will provide us the greatest ease in life?

Economics is a tool of repression when applied to most of the world, not one of emancipation. Those who control the world’s wealth also tend to control its military might, its valued natural resources, and in such places the foul practices that occur are routinely overlooked because of those realities. It doesn’t matter that the US has covertly involved itself in Latin America for decades, supporting the Death Squads in El Salvador to Nicaragua’s Right-Wing paramilitaries. It doesn’t matter that the Russians are in and out of Chechnya, that China is still in Tibet, or that the United States has in excess of 700 military instillations worldwide. It doesn’t matter that Israel has a nuclear arsenal - only that Iran doesn’t.

Hugo Chavez recently won Venezuela’s Presidential elections with a landslide majority. There are those that believe that the elections were rigged and that the judiciary has been bought off - the very same people that back his opposition, which has been funded in the past by US proxies. Like Allande in Chile decades ago, the information spread about those that refuse to conform to the economic desires of the West is never suspect while those who dare address it as propaganda are deemed lunatics.

In this case, Chavez is a totalitarian in the making whose government is routinely guilty of human rights abuses. I will not suggest that Venezuela is not without its problems. Here, for complete transparency, is Amnesty International’s 2006 Report on Venezuela. Here, for sake of comparison is the same Report’s assessment of The United States and Canada. I would pay particular attention to the findings regarding the United States in comparison to those of Venezuela.

But the US is fighting the war on terror, it’s not the same! Comes the hue and cry.

Were you Hugo Chavez, who I am by no means claiming perfect, would you not feel threatened by the fact that US groups had funded your opposition and, given their history of funding armed paramilitaries in Latin America, that your removal might be something under consideration in Langley? After all, selling cheap oil to all five Burroughs of New York isn’t going to get you off.

I’m Tired Now

How many democracies have been bought and paid for by the assassins of pious men? We talk of Pinochet and Chavez and yet how many still defend the actions of the President of the United States? Or are we to chalk the blackened enterprises of his tenure up to the deliverance of freedom as well?

If one is for the plutocratic, then let them not be false. Let them state it openly and without pause instead of hiding behind accusations of bias on my part, as if I am behind some massive internet conspiracy aimed at silencing all those who dare disagree with me. Before civil debate can take place, respectability of intent must first exist, and I’m afraid that immature self-aggrandizing is not an equal substitute.

In the future I’ll do my best to be more careful when clicking links in emails.