Venezuela, Panama pledge to relaunch diplomatic ties

Venezuela, Panama pledge to relaunch diplomatic ties
May 06,2014

CARACAS, May 5 (Xinhua) -- Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and Panamanian President-elect Juan Carlos Varela have pledged to waste no time in normalizing relations and relaunching diplomatic, economic and trade ties cut off two months ago, Venezuela's Foreign Ministry said Monday.

Maduro spoke with Varela late Sunday, just hours after the Panamanian presidential challenger was declared the winner of a close race, the ministry said in a statement.

Both reiterated "their firm commitment to continuing to promote Latin American and Caribbean integration within the framework of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC)," the ministry said.

The ministry underscored that Maduro telephoned Varela within minutes of his declared victory to congratulate him and Panama on behalf of Venezuela.

More:
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=216527

The Wipe-Out of Canada’s First Nations

Weekend Edition May 2-4, 2014
Genocide on the Northern Plains

The Wipe-Out of Canada’s First Nations

by CHARLES LARSON


The sad, depressing reality chronicled in James Daschuk’s tour de force, Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life—describing the extermination of Canada’s First Nations—is the mirroring American readers will observe the same situation in the United States. The clichéd expression of “the vanishing American Indian” is no figment of one’s imagination but the result of centuries-old policies of racism, greed, and the march of Western civilization into the North American continent, with little or no regard for indigenous peoples, the rightful owners of the land. Perhaps the most startling figure in a book replete with shocking details is the speculation, made fifty years ago, that “the indigenous population of North America at contact with Europeans might have been 90 million people.”

That’s actually part of the opening sentence of Daschuk’s book and although he admits that there are many people who question that figure, even if it was half that number, we are talking about a truly horrendous Holocaust. Again, although the figures are not precise, the United States has 2.9 million Native Americans today and Canada’s Indian population is one million, but people counted today in both of those categories include many with mixed-ancestry. Ignoring the ninety million figure, Daschuk adds in that opening paragraph of his book, “scholars would probably agree that the severity of population decline and the suffering unleashed on the indigenous people of America were unprecedented….”

Most of us are familiar with part of the story: disease, starvation (game depletion), broken treaties, alcohol—not a pretty list of causes. Nor does Daschuk deny the fact that North America was a “disease-free paradise before the arrival of Europeans.” It wasn’t. There was even an indigenous form of TB likely to bring death to native peoples, but not the virulent form they encountered after European arrival. But the list is much more extensive than TB: smallpox, whooping cough, measles, syphilis, influenzia, scarlet fever, and, of course, alcohol which is not a pathogen but did its own number on people with horrendous results. What Daschuk provides in his study is specific examples for given locales, such as the initial infection of smallpox in some communities: seventy percent. One lengthy paragraph will explain the context:

“Arrival of the French in (Portage la Prairie), the transportation corridor east to New France, and contact through cooperation and conflict over access to resources created the ecological conditions that sparked the virgin soil epidemic of smallpox along the boundary waters and interlaces of Manitoba. Within a decade, the regional map would be fundamentally and permanently altered in the aftermath of disease. Historical geographer Paul Hackett traced the origins of the epidemic to a ship that unleashed the pathogen in Boston in 1729. From there, it spread through the English colonies, eventually arriving in Montreal, where it killed 900 people. For smallpox to have spread halfway across the continent, certain criteria had to be met. Without large urban centres in the interior, and with vulnerable populations dispersed across a vast region of the eastern and central woodlands, the virus needed speed to remain viable; the human hosts who served as unwitting carriers of the virus must have travelled swiftly. The incubation or prodromal stage of the disease lasts from nine to sixteen days after infection. Those who carry the germ become infectious between thirteen and twenty days after inhalation of the virus, and the disease is spread through the exhalation of infected individuals. According to historian Steadman Upham, ‘The total infection period can last a little more than three weeks (a mean of 26.75 days) and terminates with either the patient’s recovery or death.’ It has long been recognized, however, that the smallpox corpse is a potent and continuing source of infection.”

Here's a good explanation for those who insist the US doesn't have a blockade on Cuba:

From The US Blockade of Cuba: Its Effects and Global Consequences
Nicholas Partyka I Geopolitics I Analysis I May 2nd, 2014

~snip~

In the US, this set of economic warfare policies is commonly called the embargo against Cuba. In the rest of the world, and especially in Cuba itself, this same set of policies is called the US blockade of Cuba. This is not simply a semantic quibble. The US specifically chooses to label its policies an embargo to avoid the moral (as well as legal) complications involved in a blockade. The same kind of geo-strategic (as well as domestic policy) considerations go into deciding whether or a nation has a "civil war" or mere "sectarian conflict". If one looks to technical definitions, an embargo is a full or partial prohibition of trade with a particular country imposed by another country. A blockade, on the other hand, is an attempt to prevent food, medicine, and or other kinds of war materials from entering a particular country. In this light, the US has a policy both of embargo and blockade.

From the point of view of international law, the US blockade policy is illegal. The terms of the so-called embargo run entirely contrary to explicitly stated clauses of several of the most foundational documents establishing modern international legal norms. For much of the history of the US blockade, the US government has prohibited sales of food and medicine to Cuba; this is expressly declared illegal in the Geneva Convention. It was only towards the end of the Clinton administration that the ban on US food exports to Cuba was partially lifted. The Bush administration tried to reverse this decision, but was not successful.

According to international law, a blockade is illegal in peace time. Unless war is declared between two nations, it is illegal for one to blockade the other. This much is made very clear in documents to which the US is signatory. That such a policy is illegal, or at least to be frowned upon, can also be seen in the legal wrangling that occurred within the US during the initial enforcement of the blockade. The only way President Kennedy was able to legally impose the provisions of the blockade policy in the first place was by invoking the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917. This law allowed the government to prohibit US citizens from doing business with citizen or firms of nations with which the US is at war. The legal structure of the blockade policy applied to this law through a technicality. The Kennedy administration made use of the fact that the Korean War was not technically over, and so there was still a state of emergency in effect. The fighting in the Korean War was terminated with an Armistice, and not a Peace Treaty, and thus the two nations were still technically at war.

Rather strikingly, the voice of the international community is clear and highly united on its view of the blockade. Every year, for the last twenty years, the UN general assembly has voted to pass a resolution condemning the US blockade (not "embargo" mind you) of Cuba. For the majority of these two decades of votes, the outcome has been rather lopsided against the US. This is to the point now that, for many years in a row, 185 or more countries have voted to condemn the US blockade policy. The only nation consistently voting with the US is Israel. This should not be surprising since the Israelis are the only other nation in the world currently imposing a blockade on another nation, i.e. the Palestinians.

The blockade policy is not just enforced against Cuba, but it is also enforced against 'third-party' nations that trade with Cuba. For decades, each successive US administration has applied strong arm tactics to foreign governments, foreign firms and banks, and foreign subsidiaries of US firms and banks in order to get them to cease commercial relations with Cuba. Over the years, and continuing on today, this is a very expensive practice; both in terms of real money expended on enforcing compliance, etc., and in diplomatic capital. It is an accepted norm of international law that foreign-owned subsidiaries are subject to the law of the country that hosts them. This is seen as an important component of national sovereignty. It is thus perceived as an affront to the desired national sovereignty of many nations when the US government uses coercive methods to impose compliance with its blockade policy on those governments, domestic firms and banks, and foreign-owned subsidiary firms and banks.

In one typical instance of how the US imposes its blockade on third parties, the US uses access to its markets in order to force foreign firms and US-owned subsidiaries to comply with its embargo. French and Italian firms that export metal goods to the US market must be able to prove to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) that none of the items they want to import contain more than 10% of Cuban-made products. In the case of the metal suppliers this product is typically Cuban nickel. Cuba has rich nickel deposits, and in a different world, would make good money exporting this resource. Technically, these exporting firms are free to buy whatever inputs they desire, and no one is going to force them to buy from this supplier or that. However, in order to import the goods made with those raw materials, they must meet the conditions set forth - which each sovereign nation can lawfully impose - that the US dictates. So, if you are a metal products exporter in Europe, your choices are as follows: Buy Cuban nickel and try to prove to the satisfaction of the US that none of the things you're exporting to the US contain any of that Cuban nickel. Or, as is what usually happens, stop buying Cuban nickel, because if you don't use it in production, then the US won't give you a hard time when you try to export your products to the US market.

A Crossroads for Socialism: Cuba in Transition (Introduction)

A Crossroads for Socialism: Cuba in Transition (Introduction)
Nicholas Partyka I Geopolitics I Analysis I April 24th, 2014

The following is Part One of a multi-part project entitled, "A Crossroads for Socialism: Cuba in Transition." This series of analyses, observations, and dispatches of Cuba focuses on the country's unprecedented, post-Fidel transition. With a heavy reliance on macroeconomic, geopolitical, and foreign policy analysis, Hampton contributor Nicholas Partyka seeks to pinpoint the nuanced economic, political, and social changes that are occurring on the island nation, and how these changes are impacting everyday Cubans.


Given the coverage (or maybe, more correctly, the lack thereof) of Cuba in the US media today one might be forgiven for offering the following as mildly shocking news to some readers; the Cuban revolution has not been defeated, and it is not over. Cuba garners little attention in the US media, and has for some time been something of an off-the-radar topic in US foreign policy discussion; save perhaps a few perfunctory lines in a party platform every four years. The times when Cuba does grab attention are either in the role of foil for US espionage, aka "development" efforts (see the recent ZunZuneo case), or as "a rouge state run by a power-mad tyrant" (see the case of the North Korean-owned and bound ship loaded with Cuban ex-Soviet weaponry and sugar). In light of this context, it seems like Cuba today is mainly forgotten by the American public, hostage to a few extremists in congress, and an easy target for politicians scoring political points. The public might have this misconception that the Cuban revolution has failed, and that its transformative project has run its course; and most would likely believe that it has little to show for itself after fifty plus years. However, let me assure you at the outset: The Cuban revolution has neither been defeated, nor is its work over. The series of analyses and dispatches in this forthcoming project will elaborate on what I mean by this.

Along these lines, let me give an important disclaimer before getting into anything substantive. This will not be a travel blog where I present an image of the "stereotypical Cuba" - of the Cuba you think you know, and are comfortable with. I am going to pass over, save these few lines, in silence the tropical splendor of Cuba. I'm not going to spend time talking about how Havana is full of old American cars from the 1950s. First of all, I don't care at all about cars, and as I'm not a baby boomer, I don't get nostalgic about them. Second, there is a very good reason why these cars are still on the road - the Cubans have had little choice but to keep them running. This series will not be about beaches, restaurants, and cool little places to hear and dance to lively Cuban music.

I should add to my disclaimer that I do not know everything about Cuba. I don't even speak Spanish terribly well. What I present here are my impressions, analysis and insight based on my experiences in Cuba and with the Cuban people, as well as my studies of its history, economy, and society. I would not be comfortable calling or presenting myself as a Cuba expert. Nonetheless, the serious attention I've given to the study of Cuba's political and economic history - as well as my personal experiences from within the country - provides a good enough reason to be allowed serious consideration.

At this point, I should say something about who I am so that the reader can have some context for the views and analysis I give, and also to give the reader some insight into the basis of the claims and arguments I will advance. I am a PhD candidate in the Philosophy Department at University at Albany SUNY. I am finishing up my dissertation on the political consequences of capitalist work organization. My specialty in philosophy is political-economy. I have studied (for more than twelve years at the graduate and undergraduate level) economic and political institutions and their interactions, both contemporarily as well as historically, in the US and many other countries. Related to this work, but not officially, I have been a life-long student and avid reader of history, with special interest in geo-politics and US foreign policy.

More:
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/cuba-project-introduction.html#.U2XvEmcU_mQ

The US Blockade of Cuba: Its Effects and Global Consequences

The US Blockade of Cuba: Its Effects and Global Consequences
Nicholas Partyka I Geopolitics I Analysis I May 2nd, 2014

The following is Part Two of a multi-part project entitled, "A Crossroads for Socialism: Cuba in Transition". This series of analyses, observations, and dispatches of Cuba focuses on the country's unprecedented, post-Fidel transition. With a heavy reliance on macroeconomic, geopolitical, and foreign policy analysis, Hampton contributor Nicholas Partyka seeks to pinpoint the nuanced economic, political, and social changes that are occurring on the island nation, and how these changes are impacting everyday Cubans.


It is not possible to discuss almost any aspect of life in Cuba without talking about the US blockade of the island. That the US has an 'embargo' against the island is one of the few things that Americans might know about Cuba. This policy of economic warfare against our hemispheric neighbor has been in place for more than five decades now. In this dispatch, I want to focus on the US blockade policy. We will look briefly at why it exists, its aims, its status under international law, and what its main effects are. Though many Americans may know that there is an "embargo" (though "blockade" is more accurate), few likely know how it works and what its costs are. Attempting to remedy this situation will be the point of this part of the series.

On New Year's Eve 1958, Fulgencio Batista fled Cuba. The next day, the revolutionary government took control of the country. For the better part of a year, the US foreign policy establishment did not know what to make of Fidel Castro and his revolution. Relations remained cordial until Fidel announced the implementation of a set of Agrarian Reform laws. These laws aimed to put land in the hands of poor farmers who had been largely excluded from land ownership under the old regime. Many of the lands nationalized under Fidel's measures belonged to US citizens or companies; e.g. King Ranch. Other nations also had property nationalized in Cuba in the wake of the revolution, but only the US refused compensation, which the Cubans offered.

In a somewhat ironic twist, the Cubans offered compensation for nationalized property on the basis of the property's value as determined by the most recent pre-revolutionary Cuban tax assessments. Now, this would only be a problem for US owners of Cuban property to be nationalized if those owners felt that there was too large a discrepancy between the value of the compensation offered and the market value of that property. This kind of situation would be likely to come about if US owners had massively underreported the value of their Cuban property to Cuban tax officials (perhaps with official blessing of the regime at the time). The response of the US to these compensation matters also has nothing to do with the fact that the then-sitting CIA Director, Allen Dulles, sat on the Board of Directors for at least one large US firm to have property nationalized in Cuba, namely the infamous United Fruit Company.

Before the revolution, underreporting taxable value saved money in taxes and thus put more of it back in the owner's pocket. After the revolution however, this meant that those owners would lose out in a compensation package offered by the new Cuban government as the value of the compensation offered would be substantially less than what the property would be worth on the market. US owners of Cuban property wanted to both receive the real value of their property, but also not thereby tacitly admit what Castro and the Cuban revolution had accused them of, namely taking advantage of Cuba and Cubans for their own private gain. This is a classic example of one not being able to have one's cake and eat it too. The refusal of the US to acknowledge this had lead to the lion's share of the trials and tribulations that have arisen as the US and Cuba attempt to normalize relations.

More:
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/cuba-project-part-two.html#.U2XsNmcU_mQ

Racism Sin Vergüenza in the Venezuelan Counter-Revolution

Racism Sin Vergüenza in the Venezuelan Counter-Revolution
By Arlene Eisen - Venezuelanalysis.com, March 27th 2014

It’s late morning in Caracas. February 12. From the restaurant inside the hotel around the corner from Plaza Venezuela we can hear chanting, but it’s too muffled to understand. Are they yelling “Maduro Salida” or “Maduro/burro Salida”[1] or something else? From the window, we can see people, almost all smiling white people, streaming down the street to join the first huge anti-government demonstration that signaled the onset of the current outrages in Venezuela.

Olga, the restaurant’s manager, has tan skin, died blond hair and brown eyes. She is one of the 42% of Venezuelans who self-identified as white in the latest Census.[2] From behind the counter, she usually greets people without a smile. She barks orders to the Indigenous woman in the kitchen. Today she is laughing as she glances at a cartoon in one of Caracas’ many virulently anti-government newspapers. I ask her if there are any interesting stories in the paper. She shrugs but the question unleashes a tirade about how she hates Chavismo.

“Why?” I try to sound neutral.

Olga explains that Chavismo has brought the “riff raff, brutes, thugs and criminals into the city.” She is emphatic. “Caracas is now flooded with uncultured animals who make life miserable for civilized people.” She concludes, “Afterall, look at the crime, the insecurity, the murders!” It’s likely that Olga is one of the many Venezuelans influenced by cartoons like this one by Kiko Rodriguez. It is one of the more repulsive depictions of Chavez that not only expresses time-worn racist contempt for people of African descent, but it also foments fear and hatred.

[center][/center]
The title is “Miko Mandante”, meaning “Ape Commander” to mock the affectionate title “Mi Comandante” used by masses of Venezuelan people.[3]

During her rant, Olga never mentioned the race of Venezuela’s poor, or the extreme poor, who in 2003 were 30% of the population and by 2011 were only 6.8%.[4] Chavismo’s accomplishments, especially in reducing poverty, are significant because of the near total correlation between class and race in Venezuela. That is, nearly all the wealthy and bourgeois people are phenotypically European, while nearly all those in poverty who live in the countryside or shacks on the sides of hills in the city are Black and Brown. Demonization, animalization and criminalization of people of African and Indigenous descent are themes both deeply embedded and flagrantly visible in the culture and institutions of Venezuelan society. White supremacy endures in Venezuela often resembling the United States and other settler colonial countries founded on conquest and slavery. [5]

More:
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10547

On edit:

If this opinion article, which is defined as "opinion," not news, is standard for this publication's editorial capabilities, I am most certainly interested in keeping a much closer eye on it, as it allows things to be witnessed by readers who have had only pre-digested, carefully manipulated corporate bilge for their "news" diet.

The darker side of the US-Colombia war on drugs (Part 1/3)

The darker side of the US-Colombia war on drugs (Part 1/3)
Mar 24, 2014 posted by Diego Melo

Anti-drug trafficking and production policies are a hot topic these days. On March 13th, several Latin American countries spoke at the United Nations about the need for a new framework regulating anti-narcotics strategies and moving beyond supply-reduction policies. In Colombia, President Juan Manuel Santos spent much of last year advocating new ways of conceiving the War on Drugs in the Americas and the issue is currently being negotiated at the Havana peace talks between the government and the FARC.

Despite this latest clamor for a new framework, the United States pushes for continuing the old ways of dealing with drug production and trafficking. The Department of State released this March a report describing “the efforts of key countries to attack all aspects of the international drug trade in Calendar Year 2013” in which it gave US Congress a snapshot of what countries are doing “right” and “wrong” in their fight against illegal narcotics.

As expected, the report is not receptive to alternative strategies. The US is extremely judgmental of Bolivia’s defense of coca leaf for medicinal purposes and a related UN anti-narcotic’s body recently condemned Uruguay’s decision to take over the weed business. The UN tends to praise countries when they follow US-formulated strategies and scolds others for failing to reduce the supply of drugs. The United States Administration, after all, sees itself as the victim of an uncontrollable flow of drugs into its country, a fact that negatively affects its population and reduces its economy’s productivity.

But the “War on Drugs” logic is proving harder and harder to substantiate as a legitimate policy. From a human rights perspective, a supply-reduction strategy has simply caused disproportional damages to local communities. From a policy perspective, the US sponsored “War on Drugs” has created perverse incentives among various high government officials. Since it allows government actors to extradite top paramilitary and guerilla members involved in drug trafficking, the policy reduces the country’s chances of reconstructing truth –about serious human rights violations and government officials’ responsibilities in the bloodshed.

This is the first of a series of articles tackling the reasons why the US anti-narcotics strategy for Colombia is at once depraved, draconian and outdated. This entry addresses extradition, which legitimizes the US prison industrial complex and creates perverse incentives for Colombian government officials. Not an easy task, unpacking the “War on Drugs” demands that we look into the darker side of US-Colombia relations.

More:
http://colombiareports.co/darker-side-us-colombia-war-drugs-part-13/#prettyPhoto

Has justice been done after Guatemala genocide trial?

Has justice been done after Guatemala genocide trial?
By: CNN Wire
Posted: 10:33 AM, May 3, 2014
Updated: 1 hour ago

The courtroom erupted in cheers after former Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios Montt was found guilty of genocide in May 2013 for allegedly allowing massacres of more than 1,700 indigenous Ixil Mayans in the early 1980s.

Hundreds dressed in traditional ethnic "hupils," crossed their arms over their chests in a sign of gratitude to the tribunal for being the first in the world to try a head of state for genocide in his own country's judicial system.

But the verdict would only stick for 10 days.

Guatemala's Constitutional Court annulled the conviction and ordered a retrial in 2015, a move critics considered politically motivated.

As the one-year anniversary of the Rios Montt trial nears, many -- including U.S. officials -- are sounding the alarm over recent judicial moves they say threaten the country's weak justice system.

More:
http://www.abc15.com/news/national/has-justice-been-done-after-guatemala-genocide-trial

Sánchez Cerén Says He Will Deepen Social Changes Initiated in El Salvador

Sánchez Cerén Says He Will Deepen Social Changes Initiated in El Salvador

Havana.- Salvador Sánchez Cerén, elected president of El Salvador, announced here that during his administration he will continue and deepen the economic and social changes initiated by his predecessor Mauricio Funes after the 2009 election victory.

“That first governmental term of the Farabundo Martí Front for National Liberation (FMLN, the Spanish acronym) led by president Funes begun to give answers to the expectations of the most deprived sectors”, stated the elected head of State in an exclusive interview for Tricontinental magazine.

Sánchez Cerén, who will take up next June 1 after defeating the candidate of the oppositional right Norman Quijano in the second election round last March 9, said that in scarcely five years poverty in El Salvador was reduced from 40 to 28,9 percent.

The social investment is the highest in the history of the country. All of it has been achieved despite the world crisis and a domestic political situation in constant change. We have advanced in these initial five years and the population has endorsed the continuation of our government, he pointed out.

More:
http://tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/es/node/14488

(English translation in the lower part of the page at the link)

Additional info. from article:

Sánchez Cerén, first guerilla fighter in winning the presidency of El Salvador and fourth in Latin America to assume the leadership of a government after Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), José Mujica (Uruguay) y Dilma Rousseff (Brazil), likewise announced that he will carry out an inclusive foreign policy.

Venezuela shows that protest can be a defence of privilege

Venezuela shows that protest can be a defence of privilege

Street action is now regularly used with western backing to target elected governments in the interests of elites

Seumas Milne in Caracas
The Guardian, Wednesday 9 April 2014 16.30 EDT

If we didn't know it before, the upsurge in global protest in the past couple of years has driven home the lesson that mass demonstrations can have entirely different social and political meanings. Just because they wear bandannas and build barricades – and have genuine grievances – doesn't automatically mean protesters are fighting for democracy or social justice.

From Ukraine to Thailand and Egypt to Venezuela, large-scale protests have aimed at, or succeeded in, ousting elected governments in the past year. In some countries, mass protests have been led by working class organisations, targeting austerity and corporate power. In others, predominantly middle class unrest has been the lever to restore ousted elites.

Sometimes, in the absence of political organisation, they can straddle the two. But whoever they represent, they tend to look similar on TV. And so effective have street demonstrations been in changing governments over the past 25 years that global powers have piled into the protest business in a major way.

From the overthrow of the elected Mossadegh government in Iran in the 1950s, when the CIA and MI6 paid anti-government demonstrators, the US and its allies have led the field: sponsoring "colour revolutions", funding client NGOs and training student activists, fuelling social media protest and denouncing – or ignoring – violent police crackdowns as it suits them.

More:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/09/venezuela-protest-defence-privilege-maduro-elites