Regarding "Chile's Aggressive Military Arms Purchases Are Ruffling the Region, Alarming in Particular Bolivia, Peru and Argentina"

Dear COHA,

The article is obsolescent and badly informed. Long gone are the days when military purchases through the copper fund were "autonomous", and the "military establishment" has long been "confronted" and has to negotiate for months with Hacienda to buy an extra box of ammunition if it is not already in the budget.

It is amazing that an institution of the prestige of COHA can come up with such utter rubbish, unless it is inspired by one of Chile's neighbours, or more likely, the ineptitude of its "research fellow".

As readers of my own reports would know, and those who are not that lucky could easily have found out if they read anything else than 15-year old papers by academics who do not know one end of a barrel from another, the military have not just lost political power (including the 4 designated senators inherited from the Pinochet constitution), and had their right to call the National Security Council and immunity of the commanders in chief from dismissal revoked, but their personal incomes are now one third of their civilian life equivalents (they were on par in 1990), their ordinary budgetary resources have not increased in real terms for years (contrary to expenditure in general which has been going up at up to double inflation), and several hundred of them have been prosecuted for human rights violations. The "bonanza" from the Copper Fund may be real on paper, but in practice the decision to spend it has been formally taken away from them by the Comtroller-General's office and de facto handed to Hacienda, which is sitting on decisions to the point of catching hemorrhoids. All this under the wrongly described "Socialist".

The only correct thing in the analysis is the existence of shortfalls in other areas and the risk of social unrest, but this has nothing to do with the Chilean military. There is no "guns or butter" debate or dilemam in Chile. There is money to spare for both.

Regards,

Armen Kouyoumdjian
Country Risk Strategist
Chile Member, SIPRI Defence Expenditure Network

Regarding "Immigration Compromise too Little too Late"

Dear Mr. Birns,

Racheotes's piece on immigration to the USA is prologued by a caution paragraph tating that it "does not have the official imprimatur of either COHA or a number of the author's colleagues who feel that its thesis will be considered to be too controversial." (http://www.coha.org/2007/07/26/immigration-compromise-too-little-too-la
te-the-gates-should-be-opened-to-all-who-wish-to-come/)

Although it is not mentioned in the text, the article best epitomizes an attitude that many COHA readers would like to share with others. Mr. Racheotes's article makes us think of a world without frontiers, borders, passports, custom officers and migration restrictions. What would happen in such a world with arms and drugs trades, nationalist policies, and global trade? This is perhaps a too idealistic vision for diplomats, political leaders and bureaucrats who would be jobless in a borderless world (not to mention arms and drugs dealers). Therefore, the "real war on terror" proposed by the author would not only have an enemy on the fear strategists but also, and more important, an ideological goal.

Congratulations to Mr. Racheotes and your team for an excellent publication.

Kindest regards,

Edmundo Murray

Regarding Immigration Compromise too little too late

Dear Alex,

You have offered an interesting thesis, and I would like to comment. I believe that your opinion – that the borders of this country should be totally open and immigration be legalized is shared by a certain segment of the American populace. However, the fact that this issue has remained in limbo is not related to any lack of intelligence or attention on Washington’s part. With American foreign policy going the way it is, perhaps less may be more with regard to the immigration issue. Clinton has been the latest and best example of this kind of diplomacy. He did not aggressively push NAFTA through congress, he asked the leaders of Latin America to come to Washington to address their new integration. He did not force Chile into NAFTA’s accords, he was respectful of the entire process as well as the interests of the American people. As we have seen here, America does not need another forceful policy endeavor, instead it would be more sensible to coordinate slower and more measured diplomacy to take the heat of Washington’s back and show the rest of the region that this is not an issue confined to Washington’s interests.

I do agree that opening the borders would be a positive move for the American market. America could soon see our economy stagnate given our dependence on foreign oil and the fact that our exports are not on par with Asia and the EU. If we could use immigration to help boost productivity we could move toward a more effective export model, which will probably be very important in the near future. Immigration therefore has the potential to keep us competitive in the case of devaluation while simultaneously helping to mend relations with Latin America.


Kai Smith

Regarding "Is Paraguay Set to be the Next Latin American Country to Lean to the Left?"

Dear COHA People,

Here are some comments on the Paraguay article (attached), written in the heat of the moment so please don't get offended!

It is a pity that COHA did not have the chance to interview Lugo during his recent visit to the US. This would have helped to avoid some of the clangers in the piece, notably the incorrect assertion that Duarte continues to be close to the Bush administration because of US troop deployment in the country. In fact he has ended the agreement.

Regards

Andrew Nickson

Regarding COHA's Series on Illicit Drug Trade

Dear COHA, Can I point you to two publications of mine on the illicit drug trade in the Caribbean. They are: “Cocaine and Heroin Trafficking in the Caribbean The case of Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica and Guyana.” and “Cocaine and Heroin Trafficking in the Caribbean Volume 2 The case of Haiti, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic.” Thanking You,

Daurius Figueira.

Regarding "School of the Americas: A Black Eye to Democracy"

In response to Eliana Monteforte's recently published piece on the School of the America's, Lee Rials of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, engages in a "point-by-point refutation" of the artilce and challenges COHA to prove him wrong.

Mr. Birns,

You should have known I couldn't resist commenting on this magnificent work of fiction, but I am truly surprised that you can call it 'analysis.'

I'll just do a tedious point-by-point refutation, and challenge you to prove me wrong on any point. This kind of absurdity reminds me of the Flat Earth Society, clinging to beliefs long proven wrong.

The institute was established in law, which means the Congress had to pass the bill and President Clinton had to sign it to make it the law of the land. You can call it a public relations stunt, but that belittles the Congress, not the military, and I could characterize it just as validly as a determination by a majority in Congress to see similar military education, training, and cooperation continue when it might have been lost altogether if the SOA had been allowed to remain in operation. The opponents were just as dishonest then as now, completely disregarding what the school actually did in favor of blaming it for the acts of a few who had attended some course there.

Note that while the Army started courses in Panama in 1946, only US soldiers attended until 1948, which indicates the original purpose was simply part of the normal continuing education our soldiers enjoy. If you look at the titles of courses throughout, you will see a great variety of professional education, very little of it 'counterinsurgency techniques, etc., and absolutely none of it 'interrogation tactics.' It is not surprising that in recent years most of the students in most courses have been from Colombia, because Plan Colombia gives them more resources to buy training.

I would like to know where it has been 'revealed' that torture techniques and coup procedures had 'become part of the curriculum.' That is a flat falsehood with no basis. And please tell me just one person who can be shown to have used what he learned from the school to commit a crime. No one else has, you can be the first. And tell me what Roberto D'Aubisson's planning of the murder of the archbishop had to do with his learning how to use military radios and telephones in 1972? Have you ever read that 93 UN Truth Commission Report? It points out crimes and makes determination of individual responsibilities in a number of incidents. Not once does it refer to any previous schooling or experience of the individuals. It
follows our own standards and holds individuals responsible for their own acts. If you follow that logic, then you can blame instructors at the school--if you can show that they taught anything illegal, immoral or unethical. Good luck.

Maybe your writer would like to inform me how an Engineer Operations Course in 1949 when Leopoldo Galtieri was a 23-year-old lieutenant in the Argentine Army led him to be a junta leader 30+ years later? And that UN report talks about the murder of the Jesuit priests and mentions about 29 people involved, although only seven were directly part of the act, the rest either knew about it and did nothing, or helped cover it up later. Several had attended some course or courses at SOA, at different times and different courses, apparently totally irrelevant to the crime. SOAW is not a 'human rights initiative,' but a political action group with a fraudulent agenda, and the primary fraud is against those sincere people who want to do good in the world, yet are diverted from any worthwhile activity to protest. Perhaps most egregious is getting people to trespass onto Fort Benning for no purpose except to garner publicity for the organization.

I will offer a challenge to this ridiculous contention that 'students undoubtedly will continue to march away from the institution having learned the wrong kind of skills.' Just name one of those 'wrong kind of skills.' Is it perhaps the counterdrug techniques taught to military and police? or maybe the medical assistance course that gives medics the ability to save lives and even deliver babies? or are you referring to the Peace Operations classes that give students the ability to function in the multinational forces in UN peacekeeping missions? (I don't think it a coincidence that Latin American countries are contributing almost 6500 soldiers and police to all 15 of the current UN missions around the world.)

Again, the institute is a separate organization from the SOA by law, and thus has no responsibility for acts by its predecessor or any other organization. And the reason we talk about the democracy and human rights component of every course is that the Congress mandated that education. You might be interested to know that Amnesty International, in the publication, "Unmatched Power, Unmet Principles," called our human rights program a 'model' for other military education facilities. Ten percent of the content of every course is devoted to due process, the rule of law, human rights law, the role of the military in a democratic society, and civilian control
of the military. And take a look around; every country in the OAS has a democratically elected government.

There has been no money allocated to 'tracking' former students, and no institution private or government has the ability to 'track' former students. Can you imagine the uproar in this country if you told people they had to report to their schools whereever they went and whatever they did after they left that school? This is a ruse to attack the institute. Our responsibility is to provide legal, moral, ethical education and training. You can read the six DoD reports on the institute, and the five Board of Visitors reports that are on the federal committee database to see
that we are doing exactly that.

This paragraph headed "The Terrorism Factor" is an almost-unreadable incoherency. This is the least militarized and most peaceful hemisphere in the world today; and now you want to blame the institute if people in Latin America terrorize their own people?

The final paragraph is the exact reverse of the truth. One of the central themes of our democracy and human rights instruction, and one of the specific requirements from Congress for every course, is civilian control of the military.

I can't say any more. This is the most blatant ideological rant masquerading as 'research' I have ever seen. The last time we exchanged emails, you said I won that time. Well, this doesn't feel like winning, because I don't see an honest effort to get at the truth.

Why don't you, or one of your researchers, come down to the institute and stay for a few days. You will be free to see all our facilities, talk with students and faculty, look at our instructional materials and methods. It is easy; all Fort Benning requires is a photo ID. A couple of years ago, a British doctoral candidate stayed in Columbus for a month, and came out here at least 20 days during that time. I won't have time to 'escort' you all the time, but you probably wouldn't want that anyway.

Sincerely,
Lee

Lee A. Rials
Public Affairs Officer
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Regarding Laura Wayne's "Rethinking Cuba - Taking Off Those Miami Sunglasses May Help Clear up the Picture"

I just wanted to say that it is so refreshing to read an article like this one. I have also read a piece on the OAS, and on Chavez.

I honestly never thought I would be able to find such insightful and truthful information coming from INSIDE the United States of America. How do you folks get away with it? Do you have to be escorted by security to your offices in the morning?

If there is a email list, could I please get on it? I would appreciate it.

Also, do you have the article on Cuba in Spanish? I know people in Cuba who would love to read this. [My Spanish isn't good enought, but I'm working on it!!]

Lastly, I thank you for your work. I love the writing style, and the level of detail of analysis. Keep up the good work....

Richard Lambie

Dear Mr. Richard Lambie,

Thank you very much for your kind words about our recent Cuba article. We greatly appreciate your readership and welcome any other comments you have on past or future COHA pieces. We have added you to our mailing list and you will be notified immediately via email when we release our latest articles.

Sincerely,

Larry Birns, Director

Regarding "Rethinking Cuba - Taking Off Those Miami Sunglasses May Help Clear Up the Picture"

The latest response in the ongoing dialogue between Laura Wayne and critics of her recent article on Cuba. The discussion leading up to this can be viewed by scrolling further down the page to the post from May 28.

Dear Laura:

After I read your e-mail, I started wondering if you have been propelled with mis-information during your stay in Cuba. It's logic that you received this kind of information since the people that you visited stayed in Cuba while you came, learned from them, and left. I hope and I believe that you are an open minded person, and that you know that there are always two sides to a story. Therefore if you allow me your time for a rebuttal what these people have said.

First, You mentioned "Batista" in your e-mail. I'm not a "Batistiano" or have sympathized with him. However, you have to give to the Cesar what it belongs to the Cesar. If you search on Batista's past you will see that the man came from a humble beginning. He was a "mulatto" or mixed blood. He was not as Castro and his propaganda machine painted him. He established many reforms in Cuba during the time he controlled the government. I was swooped away too with the euphoria about Batista’s sins when I lived in Cuba. Later in years, I found out that Batista brought a lot of changes to Cuba making it more socialistic and an equalitarian society than you can imagine. He and the 1940 Cuban Constitution implanted reforms needed for a better Cuba. These reforms have been trashed with the outcome of the Revolutions. When you have some time, please read about him in Wikepedia and understand what he did for Cuba. Yes he was tyrant, but also provided a conduit for many reforms in Cuba while Castro has stayed fast on his beliefs. Batista was a man of the people, and while Castro was the son of a “hacendado”. Cuba shined like the Sun while Batista was in power while it has remained dull and a lack of imagination with Castro. Would you agree with me that before you pass judgment, you should investigate all avenues and not be carried away with the fervor of the people that have some political gain to disseminate miss-information? Here is a good web page to start. Batista .

The work of the "privileged way of life that was earned on the backs of the poor" that's another myth implanted by the Regime to contradict the work of so many people that were not privileged but improve their way of life. My uncles and aunts, all worked in Cuba as you said “backs of poor” but they bettered themselves to in free University of Havana and became professionals. In Cuba, we had three classes of people like always there are privileged people, but now they are all poor except for the ones chosen to be privileged. What rights does a regime have to stifle any motivation or decrease the standard of living to it's people? Why they stifle the ambition of an individual? It was tried in China, and it didn't work, and look at it now. I will talk to you later on this about China.

Secondly, you mentioned about the demonstration in Cuba. This is naive on your part. You know that all the work force is controlled by the Regime. If you oppose going to a demonstration, you’ll be punished and banned from work along with the lost of any wages. After that, any place that you apply, your name is part of a list of "antisocial", and you are banned from the work force. What are you going to do? When you see a force of demonstrators in Cuba it’s more or less people that need their jobs to subside, so that they can continue making a living. Is that their true beliefs? I see most of them with sleepy and boring faces and with lack of ambition. Keep in mind, Cubans have two faces, one for the government and another for their true beliefs.

Third, the five Cubans that you portrait as detained in the US Prisons were convicted by a US Jury and found guilty of their crimes. Their crimes were “aiding the enemy”. Do you know that they took part in providing information to the shot down of the two unarmed planes flying on international waters by "Brothers to the Rescue" team? They provided the flight plan and where they were going to be. Do you know that the Cuban pilots rejoiced after they dropped the missiles that brought them down. I heard their radio conversations. How abusive and bullies can they be to shoot down two poor unarmed aircrafts with four souls trying to save the life of the raft people. The least they could do is keep their thought to themselves and pay some respect while those pilots died. huh? What crimes did these pilots commit that yield this kind of punishment and the use of this excess of power against two unarmed airplanes? This was a cowardly act and the one that did this is a coward starting with Raul Castro who OKed the order to shoot them down. Why couldn't they have escorted them back to Cuba as humanitarian nations do? Do you believe in the Jury system? Then if that is the case these people should stay in jail for a long time. This is a myth concocted by the Regime to bring these people back, but really do they want them back or is it just a smoke screen? They are now used to the American way and not to living in a precarious society.

Fourth, you mentioned China. "China, which was under communist rule and is reputed for its far worse record of human rights violations." China is still under communist rule; however, this is the crux of why China is not treated the same as Cuba. In an interview with Chairman Deng in 1986 by Mike Wallace he explains the reason. This is what was said:

MIKE WALLACE
September 2, 1986


Deng: We went through the ``cultural revolution''. During the ``cultural revolution'' there was a view that poor communism was preferable to rich capitalism. After I resumed office in the central leadership in 1974 and 1975, I criticized that view. Because I did so, I was brought down again. Of course, there were other reasons too. I said to them that there was no such thing as poor communism. According to Marxism, communist society is based on material abundance. Only when there is material abundance can the principle of a communist society -- that is, ``from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'' -- be applied. Socialism is the first stage of communism. Of course, it covers a very long historical period. The main task in the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces, keep increasing the material wealth of society, steadily improve the life of the people and create material conditions for the advent of a communist society.

There can be no communism with pauperism, or socialism with pauperism. So to get rich is no sin. However, what we mean by getting rich is different from what you mean. Wealth in a socialist society belongs to the people. To get rich in a socialist society means prosperity for the entire people. The principles of socialism are: first, development of production and second, common prosperity. We permit some people and some regions to become prosperous first, for the purpose of achieving common prosperity faster. That is why our policy will not lead to polarization, to a situation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. To be frank, we shall not permit the emergence of a new bourgeoisie.

As you see, China has a different approach but in Cuba all illusions to be a prosperous society is stifled by the regime. They are under a notion that Cubans don't want any source of income except what the Government gives them. So why be prosperous? You mentioned this has to be the embargo. The embargo is only with one country, USA. Cuba has traded with 100 other nations including Canada. However, why do they continue to be poor and their citizens maintain a low standard of living? Could it be that the Government wants it this way? Look at what’s happening in Venezuela. Your generation is witnessing the same as mine did. Then they play the ogre card by blaming the USA. They are the ones that foster communism, but in a pauper way not as Chairman Deng said, in China the government foments the growth of economics why can they do the same in Cuba? Could it be that Cuba wants their citizens to worry about where they are going to find their next meal, and do not worry about a way to get rid of this oppressive system? Richness is power and in the Cuban’s system only wants that the Government to have the power, but Governments are to serve the people not people serving the Government. Who are the privilege that you speak of the ones running the system now? These are totally two different ways of thinking. Which one do you want for Cuba? The Chinese model or the Cuban model? Cuban model has not worked for the last 48 years why it would work now? How long can they blame the USA for it? Are we the cause of all evil?

My Fifth and last point, you mentioned the UN in your discussion. Please, this is the most corrupt system of politicians. During the late 90’s, they opposed any intervention by any country to Iraq. They had this food for oil thing going on. It has been proven that these politicians were taking kickbacks and bribes from this oil for food program. While these people were getting rich, the poor people of Iraq were suffering from the lack of resources. This is a corrupt organization with corrupt politicians. These politicians have taken kick backs from Cuban government for many years. For that, they voice neutrality, but who could stand neutral when a country maintains their people in poverty just to keep themselves in power?

That's all I can say for this time, my hopes is that you read and come up with an open mind to understand what I've written to you. Do not kill me since I’m just the messenger. Find out for yourself. Investigate, search, research, and find the truth and do not pass judgment on us that only want the betterment and the returned of the Republic of Cuba.

Sincerely,

Tony Urbizu

Regarding "Washington's Quest for Allies in its Battle Against Chavez's Influence in the Americas and Beyond"

"Yet, when it comes to indicting Chavez with hard felonies, in most of the cases the evidence is wanting, with his critics often confusing his always harmless bark with his rarely exhibited bite. That is why many think that although scores of the region's leaders in the past abused the powers Chavez now holds, he should not be convicted before he commits the crime. The fact is that up to now, he has run one of Latin America's more robust democracies."

Jean Fournier responds to the preceding passage from COHA's May 31st piece.

Coha - How long is he in power? How much has the price of oil risen in that time? How much sustainable improvement has he made in social indicators in that time as opposed to an oil giveaway that will disappear if the price falls or Venezuelan production hits bottlenecks? What price has civil society paid for this improvement?

The undermining of civil society in Venezuela and the concentration of all power in Chavez's hands is not a harmless bark. Please stop along with the European media always going on about his democratic mandate. No-one doubts it. The question is 'does democratic mandate give a leader the right to undermine the basic pillars of civil society?' Is this to the long term benefit of a country? Peron won democratic
mandates but ran a populist authoritarian regime that had many of the characteristics of a dictatorship and his undermining of civil society had negative consequences that affected Argentina for several generations.

And the question about the Venezuelan elites. They are very reactionary and bad for the country but there comes a point when serious analysts of a country make the point that the awful elites, no matter how unsympathetic, can not be allowed to provide cover for a power grab. Why instead of lauding his attempted destruction of the
old elite focus on the fact that he is creating a new elite centred on his family, intimates, friendly military officers and native big business willing to cut deals with him. Why does no-one demand that the best way to prevent Venezuela being held back by the kind of cronyism and corruption that epitomised the old elites is to create a strong plural civil society, something he is manifestly failing or not
interested in doing despite having the opportunity to do so?

JF

Dear Sir,
The Venezuela article made a number of good points,but the fact remains that the U.S. and its G8 buddies have yet to explain their rather clumsy complicity in
the botched coup against Hugo Chavez. It was widely reported, when it looked like he might be safely out of the way, that he had "resigned."

No one asked how it was, in a democracy, that he was not succeeded by the Vice President; the takeover by Carmona was greeted with a wink and a nod. When it
comes to grinding the faces of the poor, such as themiserable Chechens, George Bush thought it was funny when Putin promised to "chase them right into the
sh*thouse and wipe them out." He said he had looked deep into the Russian President's eyes and liked what he saw. Not much comment, either, when it came to Mr.
Putin's most undemocratic decision in 2004 to personally appoint regional governors (apparently he considered it nothing special- just his version of
"Presidential Orders."). The list goes on.
Lest anyone think these objections come from some rabid left-winger, I am enough of a free-market proponent to have lost rather a good bit on certain of my investments, due in no small part to some of Mr.Chavez' more extravagant decrees, and very much oppose the idea that people may elect a dicatator, even for 18 months, but if the example we would hold up to the rest of the world consists of a system of corrupt, cronyish capitalism, with growing economic distress,widening disparity between the elite and everyone else, perpetual war and massive deficits - then the Great Bolivarian (who if rumor can be believed at least wants to turn the Presidential Palace into a university,) deserves a chance to demonstrate whether he is able to improve the lot of his people.

Sincerely, Robert Tartell

Regarding "Rethinking Cuba - Taking Off Those Miami Sunglasses May Help Clear Up the Picture"

In respone to Laura Wayne's recently published piece on Cuba, Gary Cunningham writes that "Cuba is a beautiful island with beautiful heritage and people surrounded by a fence of socialism making it the largest prison in the world and people like Laura Wayne help perpetuate this condition." The full text of that response and Laura Wayne's rebutal is printed below:

The article "Rethinking Cuba" written by Laura Wayne was certainly inspirational. It has caused me to ponder the question: What is worse?,Miami sunglasses or the myopia of an ideological agenda. She certainly debunked the claim by C.O.H.A as being nonpartisan.

I'm sure this article is already in print in Gramma for distribution to all Cubans as further proof that the "Great Satan of The North" is the cause of all the ills of the Cuban populace. Therein lies a somewhat amusing irony. Had Laura Wayne written an article critical of the government of Cuba while living there, she would now be facing 15 to 20 years in prison. The utopian socialist system she painted does not tolorate any independent thought outside the circle of approved ideology. I do agree with her, however, on one point that the embargo has been counter-productive. It has been used as a crutch by the dictatorship to remain in power by deflecting any criticisim of it's failed policies, political and economic oppression. Other than that, the embargo is ineffective. I have bought Coca-Cola and several other American products there, seen new Ford trucks, a bus made in Georgia, and can rent the latest released American movies. These products are funneled through other countries. Concerning medicines, Laura Wayne is factualy wrong. Food and medicines are exempt from embargo controls and as far as Cuba having to pay higher prices for medicines in Europe and Asia, wrong again! Being connected to the medical industry, I know medicines can be purchased 40% to 60% cheaper in Europe and Asia than in the United States. ie:Americans purchase billions of dollars in medicines from Canada yearly. Canada by the way, is the largest trading partner of Cuba. She was also correct that the Cuban universities do produce a large crop of good medical doctors. I say crop because Castro uses the doctors as a commodity to loan to other countries in exchange for political equity and further proof that his communist dictatorship is a social success. There is a high defection rate among these doctors because after their two year sabatical they return to a system that guarantees them $ 40 a month in pay. I know several doctors there who moonlight as auto mechanics and musicians in order to feed their families.

Hundreds of millions of American dollars are sent to Cuba each year to friends and families and has been instrumental in keeping many families from starving in this so called social paradise. Outside of Haiti, Cuba has the lowest caloric intake in this hemisphere. Also, a recently implemented policy now forbids the use U.S. currency. The money now has to be taken to a Cuban government bank and exchanged for a newly printed Cuban currency at a loss of 20% as an exchange fee.
Outside of citing several incorrect facts, her omissions of reality are the telling story here. She was so intent on pushing the social progressive agenda she forgot to tell us about the things she can do in an open society that a Cuban cannot do in theirs.
1. Write an aticle critical of the government 2. Enter a hotel or tourist location without working there 3. Use the worldwide internet 4. Own or pocess a book or any written or recored material that is not approved by the communist party.5. Complain publicly about any grievence. 6.Travel freely at any time in country. 7. Travel internationally. 8.Own title to any property . 9. Engage in a personal business of any kind (to name a few).
Cuba is a beautiful island with beautiful heritage and people surrounded by the fence of socialism making it the largest prision in the world and people like Laura Wayne help perpetuate this condition.

Sincerely ,

Gary Cunningham

Response:

Dear Gary,

I would like to thank you for pointing out that medical supplies, in fact, have been exempt from the embargo as of 2000 and have revised my article for clarity and accuracy. However, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of that year has not satisfactorily resolved access to medical supplies. Currently, bureaucratic restrictions continue to lead to delays, cost increases and limited access to certain medications. Are you aware that it can take up to a year (sufficient time for the patient to die) for an American citizen to be granted a license from the U.S. government to ship medical supplies to Cuba? Do not forget that Cuba is forbidden from using its own merchant fleet for such shipments and must pay to make use of vessels from foreign countries. As for importing medicines from Europe or Asia, when you factor in the cost of shipping medicines from these more distant locations, they are far from “40% to 60% cheaper” as you suggest.

I am surprised you would call the embargo ineffective; surely this is not based on the fact that you were able to find American movies and Coke products while you were there. Since I (as a Canadian scholar) have been there as well, let us both agree that these are not exactly the essentials that the international community wishes to see reach the island shores. Of real concern is the fact that spare parts to run farm machines, as well as computer equipment essential to technological innovation and efficiency in hospitals, are still prohibited for sale to Cuba under the “ineffective” embargo. Where it has been futile is in changing the Cuban political system or bettering life on the island. The policies of the U.S. government may be incredibly embarrassing to you, but denying their negative consequences is certainly of no benefit to Cubans for whom the penalties are a daily burdensome reality.

I am not sure why you are so indignant that Cuba now has its own currency. Imagine having to go to a “government bank” to exchange your money while traveling in another country! That certainly is an inconvenience, but it is not one unique to Cuba. Your continued denigration of all things Cuban reveals a shortcoming in objectively evaluating the situation. This is apparent in your denouncement of medical cooperation between Cuba and other nations. The “crop” of Cuban doctors is credited for restoring the eyesight of over 400,000 Venezuelans in return for much needed oil in Cuba. I fail to see the evil side to this operation; doctors who work abroad are allowed to keep a portion of the funds they earn and will be in a position of advantage upon returning to the island.

You cite a few inaccuracies yourself. Cuba does not have the second lowest caloric intake in the hemisphere; in fact, obesity is on the rise in Cuba and is of great concern to health officials there. It is untrue that Cubans are forbidden from using the Internet, as is it false that they may not engage in a personal business. You should look into the casa particulares and private paladares that have helped many Cubans earn additional income. Those running them pay a fixed amount to the government every month to maintain a business permit. Profits earned on top of that are theirs to keep with no limit as to how much can be earned. Having lived in one such casa for three months, I can attest to the income potential that these private businesses introduce.

There are more than enough skeptics willing to bash Cuba from every angle. Is it too much to ask for you to merely tolerate, let alone consider another perspective? For offering constructive observations that differ from the typical exile’s political agenda, I have been labeled a communist, a racist pig, and now, accused by you of perpetuating a prison. I agree that there are human rights issues in Cuba that need to be addressed, but before we can tackle that, change needs to start at home. Until the U.S. can acknowledge the callousness of its Cuba strategy, they stand on shaky ground when pointing to malice across the Florida Straits.

L.W.

In response to Laura Wayne's May 24 article on U.S.-Cuban relations, Mr. Tony Urbizu of Palm Bay, Florida, expressed that Cuba's healthcare and education systems do not compensate for the lack of personal freedoms on the island:

Laura,

You may try to hide under the umbrella of free information, but your report is totally bias to the left. Your assumption that Cuba is a paradise because of healthcare and education is incorrect. You failed to mention that Castro has ruled Cuba with an Iron fist, he has robbed property from Cubans, the repression is impossible to tolerate. In addition, there is no civil freedom or human rights. For 40 some years, Cuba is under a ration card dictated by the government. The work force is controlled by a big union called the Government. If you decide to peacefully demonstrate and criticize the government, you are thrown in jail for several years by a kangaroo court. The lack of freedom and repression and basic human rights outweighs the other. If this was such a great paradise, why are there over 2 million Cubans in America and spread all over the world? If the healthcare was so great, why Castro asked for Spanish doctor to come to his rescue, and he didn’t use the local Cuban doctor? Do you think that we left because it was such a paradise? We were robbed of property, freedom, basic human rights, and the right to vote in a free society. In addition, the lack of ambition to be the best in this world. This does not outweigh the meager healthcare and free education that you so vehemently proclaim. Please do not insult my character with your left bias reports. This doesn’t make any sense.

COHA responds:

Dear Tony,

Let me clarify that I have in no way meant to portray Cuba as a paradise. In fact, if you would take the time to read my article in its entirety, you will see that I pay considerable attention to the hardships of life in Cuba. My point is that many of these difficulties are the direct result of an unproductive U.S. policy. There is no denying, for instance, that the trade embargo has made the acquisition of medical supplies considerably more difficult for Cuba, which might explain why Castro turned to a Spanish doctor when on the brink of death.

As for demonstrations, perhaps you should recall the hundreds of thousands of Cubans that took to the streets last November to celebrate Castro’s 80th birthday. As they marched through the streets, it was anti-Bush placards that they proudly paraded.

I disagree that Cubans were robbed of freedom, basic human rights and the right to vote etc. – under Batista, Cuba was a country of extraordinary inequalities. What indignant exiles were robbed of was a privileged way of life that was earned on the backs of the poor.

Let’s face it, the exile group in Miami has never been known for its deep concern for human rights in any other part of the world. Why have they not rallied behind the five Cubans being unjustly detained in U.S. prisons? China, which was under communist rule and is reputed for its far worse record of human rights violations, is now our second largest trading partner, soon to the first. Selective indignation in Washington demonstrates that there is much more to the picture where Cuba is involved than concern for human rights. The ugly secret is that for the White House, Cuba is not a foreign policy but a domestic one, which the exile community has long held hostage with its voting power and campaign donations.

The embargo has done nothing to alter the political system in Cuba but it continues to make life difficult for Cubans left behind on the island. As I mentioned in my article, the United Nations has called for an end to the embargo for the past 15 years. In its most recent vote, the U.S. had the support of only three other countries, all of whom are heavily dependant on U.S. economic assistance. The fact is that as we approach the end of the Castro regime, Cuba has never been more politically accepted by the rest of the world or economically stronger. The U.S. government denies the use of diplomacy to produce the goals it seeks – does it not strike you as problematic that we attempt to achieve democracy through completely undemocratic and unconstitutional means?

I am not hiding under the umbrella of free information – I am sharing my observations after having spent a considerable amount of time living with a Cuban family and studying at the University of Havana last fall. I believe that you and I share a common desire, which is to see the betterment of life on the island. Where we differ, perhaps, is in our strategies, but I hope we can both agree that increasingly draconian policies are not the answer.

L.W.

Regarding "Soldiers versus Narco-Soldiers"

Alex Sanchez's recent piece on Mexico's rampant drug violence elicited a response from Mr. Ramon E. Dapena Vidal stating that COHA made no mention of "the most realistic fact present in the problem analyzed." The original text of Mr. Dapena Vidal's response is below:

In your article on the mexican drug tragedy I do not find any mention of the most realistic fact present in the problem analyzed. The problem is not a criminal problem, it's an economical one. There is a 200 billion a year market for illegal drug sales in the USA. The simplest rules of Economics say that where there is a market there will also be somebody to supply it. The solution? That the USA Congress legalize drugs, in which case the market will cease to exist and ll the money spent on anti-criminal activity could be spent in health and public education. The question is: Why does'nt Congress legalize it? In finding an answer you come before the fact that those "honest and anonymous" people who, in the shadows, finance the importers in exchange for millions in return, also finance and put pressure on Congressmen, while donating to the big Christian Fundamentalist churches. Without a market there would not be such an exhorbitant production of drugs and coca will go back to being the Andes' natives daily "coffee".

Responding to "Venezuela's Security Factors and Foreign Policy Goals"

In response to Alex Sanchez's May 2nd piece on Venezuelan security and foreign policy, Mr. Brian Souter of Canberra, Australia suggests that, "Alex Sanchez sounds as if he's working for the US State Department!" The text of Mr. Souter's correspondence regarding this piece is below:

1. 'His critics will argue that Chávez has committed some significant blunders regarding both foreign and security policy matters. One of these has been his comparison of Israel to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany. He made this statement during the summer 2006 war between the Israeli Defense Forces and the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon.'

Whats wrong with this piece? Well, Sanchez calls Hezbollah a 'terrorist organisation', when it is nothing of the sort. And he calls Israels army 'Defence Force'; which is not how the Lebanese would view it. Israel invaded Lebanon and commited acts of terrorism, which is defined as the use of violence and intimidation to procure a political end. So bombing cities towns, airports, hospitals was done to terrorise the lebanese to abandon Hezbollah. It had the opposite effect.

So why isnt that article calling Israel a terrorist?

But why is Chavez words a 'foreign policy blunder' and not and honest assessment?! Or is Sanchez going to use the 'anti-semite' card?

The comparison to Hitler is valid, as both Zionist Israel Nazi Germany engage/d in ethnic cleansing of unwanted inhabitants. And the war on Lebanon is now known to have been planned months before, the two captured soldiers being the excuse for Olmert toi put the invasion into action.

2.The article criticises Chavez for arming his country...Now, if Chavez can cause unrest in his neighbours by arming, what are we to think of US arming itself, and with new nuclear weapons? Shouldn’t its neighbiurs be worried? And when US arms israel, with the very real wart on lebanon, shouldnt Israels neighours be worried? What is so special about Chavez that gets him singled out?

3. 'Another issue that has hurt Chávez’s international standing is his declared sympathy for the Colombian rebel movement, the FARC'

What? This is the US govt talking. What about Columbias use of US weapons to arm the death squads?

4. 'Venezuela can formulate whatever foreign policy it wants as a sovereign state, which can include pursuing relations with renowned human right violators and despotic governments like Libya and Iran'

Singling out Libya and Iran again smacks of US state dept disinfo peddling. Coming from an american, which i assume he is, this is laughable. Iran has invaded noone in 200-300 years. The original democracy under Mossadegh was overturned by US/UK, and their puppet was eventually removed by the Iranian revolution. So any crimes committed but the current iranian govt are the fruit of that initial coup.


5. 'In order to satisfy this perceived necessity, he needs to upgrade Venezuela’s military even if there are no logical immediate enemies for an offensive war' anyone paying attention knows the US has war ships close to Venezuelan waters.

Why was this piece published at all? It offers nothing new, attacks various official enemies and brings into serious doubt COHAs indendence.

6. Then theres the use of that word 'pariah' a word used by th US and its allies for govts who do not do their bidding.

Calling Syria a 'pariah' is hypocritical, since the US itself does business with Syria, or have you forgotten the use US made of Syria in the Maha Arer 'Extraorinary Rendition' case?

Finally COHA shows its colours with the following:

'he also understands that in order to gain the petro-dollars he needs to update his country’s military, he needs a stable environment, which today will only come from major oil clients like the U.S not roiling the waters. '

That is, Chavez should serve the interests of a real pariah: the US. That last paragraph sounds weasley, the sort of advice a US client would take while licking its masters boot.

Regarding March 14 Presss Release: "Bush’s Latin America Trip: Understanding the Protests and Criticisms"

President Bush is scheduled to return today from his seven-day trip to Latin America. Hoping to dispel growing criticisms that the U.S. has neglected its southern neighbors since the beginning of Bush’s first term, the president traveled to five carefully selected “friendly” nations in the region—Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico—that administration officials say have demonstrated an ability to “make good decisions.” Bush’s hope was to highlight Washington’s involvement in poverty alleviation efforts through U.S. investments in rural hospitals and farmers’ cooperatives, the administration’s long-standing support of free trade, and through emulating open-market neo-liberalism. Despite these aspirations, the overwhelming expressions of local discontent and cool responses by several of the leaders plagued Bush’s trip at every turn.

full article...


March 15, 2007

RE: Bush’s Latin America Trip: Understanding
the Protests and Criticisms

"In every nation, neglected Latin Americans voiced their disapproval of the visiting
president."

"Be it neglect, indifference, or an inability to either focus on critical issues or appoint
seasoned professionals rather than shrill ideologues to head the
State Departments Latin America bureau..."

Dear COHA:

Please don't use that paternalistic cliché about Latin Americans feeling "neglected" by the US. The US does not neglect us. Its voracious corporations are always on the move, seeking resources, markets, and cheap labor. Its State Department is always planning ways to bring what it calls the "power elite" into its orbit, when it is not plotting regime change (last tried in 2002) or how to crank up the blockade or assorted sanctions. Its Pentagon is busy selling arms, imposing military bases, and training future torturers. Very few Latin Americans think back with nostalgia to the Washington Consensus and ALCA, or to the days of military dictatorships allied with the ever-attentive Good Neighbor.

It is not some "Latin America bureau" at State, lacking seasoned professionals, that defines US policy for what it still considers a backyard somehow subject to a unilaterally-declared Monroe Doctrine of 1823. It is big business, transnational capital, and expanisonist interests that call the shots.

Latin America does not want to be rescued or patted on the back by, or win some condescending attention from, the US. We want to get out from under its violent, larcenous, Big Brotherly thumb. Latin America is busy making a new future for itself free of US imperialist control, not begging for attention.

Sincerely,
Luis Rumbaut
Washington, DC

Dear friends,
The article on President Bush's trip to Latin America was quite good, even to the extent of bringing on some laughs in the second paragraph. It accurately conveyed regional sentiment in most respects.

However, a couple of points are worth making. The first, President Chavez began his trip in February. As we all know, the region is a priority to him and he visits frequently. Also, I would agree with those news sources reflecting the regional opinion that
Bush's visit was in response to that of President Chavez (and his focus
on the region), not the other way around. In fact, one cannot help but wonder if Bush would have paid a visit at all if Chavez did not exist.

Sincerely yours,
Karen Crump
Director, Information Services Latin America

March 16. 2007

Dear Mr. Birns,
While otherwise commending you fro at least trying to present a more balanced picture of US-Latin American relations, I must react negatively to two particular statements.

1) “bitter fruits of the massive neglect of Latin America…”
It is odd that precisely when the US foreign policy “neglects” Latin America the latter begins to rise up. We prefer Bush’s neglect to Clinton’s loving attention which resulted in, amongst other things, the collapse of many economies including Argentina’s. Poor
Iraq who must bear the brunt of US fury and attention but, believe me, Latin America is better off with this type of neglect.
NOTE: On top of the substantive issue, your statement is condescending in the highest degree: the US is nobody’s nanny nor jailer!

2) “If Venezuela gives up its arms race..”
Excuse me, say that again? Starting with Clinton, the US has beefed up a murderous regime in Colombia to the tune of several billion dollars, then Bush attempted to overthrow a democratically elected Chavez and nearly destroyed the country’s oil industry and armed forced…So Venezuela is supposed to lie prone and give up defending itself? Which country escalates aggression FIRST, Mr Birns? It ain’t the poor one, I guarantee.

Your mission and vision may be commendable, Mr. Birns, but I notice that your staff sorely lacks a weightier Latin presence. No sweat. Your information is discounted in an inverse proportion…at least by those who have a bit more background and sensitivity than your own staff.

Truly yours,
Pedro

Regarding COHA's March 15 Report: "A Constructive Plot to Return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba in the Near Future"

“The grant of the foregoing Article [regarding the leasing of Guantanamo] shall include the right to use and occupy the waters adjacent to said areas of land and water, and to improve and deepen the entrances thereto and the anchorages therein, and generally to do any and all things necessary to fit the premises for use as coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.” Article II of the Agreement Between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval stations; February 23, 1903.

Washington may be Losing its Right, let Alone its Political Ability to Maintain its Control over Guantanamo
The Bush administration has made several declarations expressing its willingness to help Cuba make a smooth transition to a Washington-approved “democracy,” achieved through a “soft landing.” This transition would take effect upon Fidel Castro’s death or complete incapacitation (taking note of the Cuba leader’s botched operation and subsequent reports of his fragile health). However, one complex issue that is only now being raised is the judicial basis for the U.S.-occupied naval base at Guantanamo.

The facility, which fell under a U.S. leasehold for more than a century has again returned to the headlines with the confession made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that he was the Al-Qaeda operative in command of the September 11 2001 operations. He admitted to the 9/11 terror attacks during a U.S. military hearing on Saturday, according to an edited transcript of the hearing released by the Pentagon on Wednesday. But even more ominous is the concern being voiced by at least one analyst close to the Bush White House that as result of several statements by relatively pro-U.S. Latin American leaders who stressed to President Bush their insistence that the U.S. should recognize the full sovereignty of Latin America nations, Washington could be faced with mounting demands throughout the hemisphere that Guantanamo – the symbol of 19th century gunboat diplomacy practiced by the Washington during the period– be returned to Cuba.

Full article...

~To the COHA Research Staff who prepared the excellent article on return of Guantanamo Bay to Cuba:

The Article is well written and well researched. I enjoyed reading it, and agree with most of your conclusions. I would loved to have had it available ten years ago when I was researching background for my novel on post Castro Cuba published last year [Havana Passage].

China is not mentioned in your Article. Yet China now has operational control of the Panama Canal as well as our old military bases there, and is busy staking it's claim to a vast supply of raw materials in Latin America, materials it knows will be needed as the Chinese economy expands.

China needs eventually to establish a military presence in the Atlantic, for logistic and political purposes. What better place than Guantanamo Bay?

When we gave up control of the Panama Canal we should have persuaded Panama to place operation of the Canal under an international trust. We were not so careful.

I would hope in the case of Guantanamo, when the time comes, we'll at least retain an internationally recognized right of first refusal should Cuba decide to cede control over the port to any foreign power at any time in the future.

www.jaylillie.com~

Cuba- Media Bulletin

Cuba orders three foreign journalists out of Cuba: COHA condemns move as self-destructive and wrong-minded: Statement of COHA Director, Larry Birns

COHA has consistently condemned the continuing refusal of the Bush Administration to grant travel permission for Cuban scholars and artists to visit the U.S. For example, recently, the State Department would not issue visas to allow several Cuban academics from addressing a gathering of the Latin American Studies Association.

COHA also condemned Havana’s expulsion, almost two decades ago, of reporters for Reuters and Agence France Presse. While a foreign journalist’s right to be accredited by Havana is not unlimited, it is destructive for this right to be exercised frivolously and as a weapon. This is what the Cuban government appears to have done in this most recent case, and it is unfortunate that this action is sure to bring on negative consequences in terms of Cuba’s reputation.

In the past several years, COHA has worked closely with Gary Marx of the Chicago Tribune, giving him its thoughts on various themes upon which he was writing, as well as with the other two media organizations. While we haven’t directly worked with El Universal’s Havana office, we have had good reason to believe that it is a newspaper of rectitude. As for the BBC, we frequently have been interviewed by its World Service on Cuban issues and they always have posed appropriate, non-propagandistic questions.

According to our experience, all three of these organizations have been entirely professional in their Cuban operations. What is particularly surprising about the Tribune’s Gary Marx is that he always has had a well earned reputation of striving to be meticulously fair and balanced in his coverage of Cuban issues. Perhaps there is a case to be made against the three journalists; if so, we haven’t heard nor seen it.

Throughout the world there are organizations like COHA who energetically work for the U.S. to commit itself to be constructively engaged when it comes to Cuba and throw over all barriers to the exchanges of various kinds, including the freedom to travel and an openness to new ideas, and certainly to terminate the embargo, Havana’s action has now delivered a counter-productive and harmful blow against this advocacy of pluralism.

One can derive some satisfaction that Havana’s action was not technically an expulsion, but a non-renewal of credentials. Cuban officials would be wise to use this wiggle room to reverse their action and thereby make a valuable contribution to the creation of an open society, both in the U.S. and Cuba, in trying to advance the normalization of relations between the two neighbors.

Regarding COHA Director Larry Birns January 26 Interview on NPR program "on the Media"

Hugo Chavez Censors Opposing Media, NPR Airs One Side: Censorship Defenders

Posted by Tim Graham on January 30, 2007

NPR's weekly show On The Media routinely tilts strongly to the left. On the January 26 version, it includes a segment with ex-Greenpeace researcher/Washington Post writer William Arkin denouncing the Iraq surge as a worthless political smokescreen, and an analysis of the Bush State of the Union address with former Clinton speechwriter Michael Waldman (exaggerating the negative reviews Clinton received for his annual yawnfests). But the real eye-opener of the show was a segment defending Hugo Chavez for censoring opposition media outlets. What? An NPR segment with only one guest, making the case for censorship? Yes.

The guest arguing from deep inside the Hugo tank was Larry Birns of the Council for Hemispheric Affairs, a long-standing cheereleader for Latin American dictators and revolutionary guerrillas of the Left. NPR host Bob Garfield noted that a number of establishment newspapers editorialized against Chavez, and asked Birns skeptical questions about setting a bad precedent. But there was no defender of RCTV, the banned media outlet. So it's not a debate about Chavez, but a one-sided defense of his dictatorial move.

Garfield: "Chavez's former communications minister has referred to the move as 'the leading edge of the information hegemony of the state,' and RCTV says it has been denied due process. But to Larry Birns of the Liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs, the underlying facts betray anti-Chavez editorializing as one-sided and simplistic."

Larry Birns: "RCTV is arguably the most scabrous example of yellow journalism in Latin America. It's an advocacy outfit, and it was one of the major plotters of a coup against Chavez back in April of 2002. This station engaged in trick photography and all sort of scandalous behavior in order to advance that coup."

Garfield: "Does not the principle of free speech, even of, you know, sort of obnoxious critics trump the history of RCTV's behavior? Is Chavez not setting a very bad precedent by silencing his most vocal critic?"

Birns: "This is a situation where RCTV uniquely was shouting out the word "fire" in a crowded theater. Ninety-five percent of the media in Venezuela is controlled by the anti-Chavistas, and they have their knives out for Chavez. So talking about constitutional guarantees, you may be talking to the wrong bunch."

Garfield: "Last month, Chavez was reelected in a landslide with 63 percent of the vote in an election with the highest voter turnout in Venezuelan history. Isn't that ample evidence that RCTV and anyone else in the right-wing media represent no great threat to his government?"

Birns: "Well, perhaps at this moment, no. But if you are using lies, distortions, prevarications, at some point your influence may prevail."

Garfield: "I want to ask you about what I referred to in the introduction, and that's the media coverage in the United States about Chavez's so-called Bolivarian Revolution. It's pretty close to being unanimous in denouncing Chavez's tactics, if not necessarily his goals. These editorial boards are not populated by know-nothings. In your view, they've all gone wrong. Why do you suppose that is?"

Birns: "Well, it was said of The New York Times that The New York Times will do everything for Latin America except visit it. It happens that most of the journalists, the correspondents give measured and fair and balanced treatment. But I do think that these editorials are simply scurrilous. It's basically an issue probably more of style than substance. I mean, Chavez is the kind of fellow that you don't find at Eton – bad instincts for public relations, bizarre antics. But this is Chavez's playful style. That has nothing to do with the quality of his thinking and the proposals that he's made. He is not a cruel, heartless man. He is not a Pinochet. He's anything but a Pinochet."

Garfield said the U.S. editorialists were worried he would become not a Pinochet, but a Castro. Birns concluded that Venezuela has always been a "faux democracy," that is, until Hugo came along: "Today, Venezuela is not only a formal democracy, a constitutional democracy, but it also is a real democracy in that people have the right to more than just starve. They also have the right to access to an education, to medical help and so forth."

You can tell Birns is on the hard left because NPR's Garfield says he has a "liberal group," which is not a label they would use for a liberal group, but only for a group that's liberal when compared to the liberal "mainstream." Why couldn't NPR also allow the counter-argument from RCTV?

~

The Kennedy, Chavez & Chomsky Pipeline

By Marc Sheppard

Have you seen the latest Citgo-sponsored commercial for Citizens Energy Corporation? At first glance you may have mistaken it for a Saturday Night Live sketch and watched it prepared for a good laugh. That is, until you'd realized it was all too serious. Until it struck you that a member of one of North America's most powerful political families may well be in bed with one of South America's most notorious and dangerous men. But it gets even more disturbing. The language used to rationalize this unholy alliance appears to be right from the playbook of the devout anarchist many refer to as the Ayatollah of anti-Americanism.

The bizarre 30 second pitch (video) opens with a man who complains he needs 2 pairs of long underwear and a jacket to stay warm inside his house. We then fade into the image of an elderly "84 and alone" woman dragging an iron cot into her kitchen from her basement so she can, as her voice-over tells us, "sleep by the oven." The next voice we hear is that of Joseph Kennedy II, who assures us that "help is on the way." The son of Robert Kennedy then explains that heating oil is available at 40% off thanks to "our friends in Venezuela at Citgo." In closing, tyrant Hugo Chavez's good buddy asks us to give him a jingle at 1-877-JOE-4-OIL because "no one should be left out in the cold."

It's Nothing Political Joey, Strictly Benevolence

Of course, this wasn't the first time that the former Massachusetts congressman's name and company have been attached to a Chavez oil for fool scheme. In 2005, an ad with the banner HOW Venezuela Is Keeping the Home Fires Burning in Massachusetts ran in major U.S newspapers and offered cheap heating oil to America's poor as a "simple act of generosity." A November 20, 2005 story in the Boston Globe outlined this earlier CEC creepy covenant with CITGO, the Houston-based subsidiary of Chavez's state-owned petroleum company Petróleos de Venezuela.

The Globe reported scuttlebutt that Chavez had helped broker the deal partly as a jab at President Bush. Larry Birns, executive director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a group that tracks Latin American politics and government agreed:

''It is a slap in the face" to the Bush administration. "Chávez is involved in petro-diplomacy."

No doubt. For starters, the move curries favor among segments of the U.S. population most likely duped by his class warfare gamesmanship. This diaphanous tactic works quite well on weak-minded, self-hating Americans - just ask Chavez-bots like actor Danny Glover and singer Harry Belafonte. And, as a bonus, El Commandante gets to portray the United States as a country that can't even keep its own people warm in the winter without charity from marginally civilized Latin American socialists.

Not surprisingly, Kennedy dismissed all of this and assured critics he was not concerned with the politics of the man whose allies represent a virtual who's who of America's enemies:

''You start parsing which countries' politics we're going to feel comfortable with, and only buying oil from them, then there are going to be a lot of people not driving their cars and not staying warm this winter. There are a lot of countries that have much worse records than Venezuela."

As usual, to a Kennedy (any Kennedy), welfare (any welfare) from the state (any state) is always the cure for want (any want).

With friends like these who needs loyalties?

But it was the curious reference to "our friends in Venezuela" in this most recent commercial that caught the eye and ire of a January 19^th USA Today editorial, which fittingly noted:

"It's not entirely clear which ‘good friends' Kennedy is referring to. Chavez, who has called Bush ‘a genocidal murderer and a madman'? The Venezuelan people, whose natural resources Chavez is squandering?"

The column, which also reminded readers that only his nation's mammoth oil reserves distinguish Chavez from other cruel and murderous Latin American tyrants, elicited an immediate indignant reply from Kennedy. After drearily repeating the lame moral equivalency argument he put forth in 2005 and mentioning that poor cot-dragging woman we met in the commercial, he continued with words which placed his earlier disregard for Chavez's politics in serious doubt:

"More than 558 million barrels of Venezuelan oil made their way to the USA last year. Why just go after the small slice that helps senior citizens and struggling families? Why not take on those who also make money off Venezuela - GM and Ford, which sold 300,000 cars there last year, and Shell, BP, Conoco Phillips and other oil interests that, unlike Venezuela and Citgo Petroleum, spurned our requests for assisting the poor?"

Hey Joe, could it be that mutually-beneficial business deals don't leave either party beholding to the other, whereas charity from a socialist expansionist madman with an agenda obvious to everyone but you does?

Needless to say, outside unwashed circles Kennedy's explanation didn't quite satisfy. A week's worth of ongoing critical commentary prompted a decidedly emotional supplementary response on January 24^th. In it, he suggested that windfall tax revenues on oil and gas be used to finance increased public assistance. As to the deal with Venezuela and those who critique it:

"The alternative is a continuation of policies that steer tax breaks to the wealthy and subsidies to our biggest corporations, while telling the needy, ‘You're on your own' - a kind of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor that leaves the most vulnerable out in the cold." [emphasis added]

Did he say Socialism for the Rich?

You bet. In fact, Kennedy had made prior use of that silly idiom, including in his aforementioned January 19^th rebuttal. Interestingly enough, his brother Robert also employed the puzzling phrase when he accepted a Sierra Club Tree-Hugger Award in September of 2005.

More interesting still, almost a decade earlier, American political dissident Noam Chomsky wrote an article which commenced:

"The Free Market is socialism for the rich: the public pays the costs and the rich get the benefit -- markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich."

Sounds a lot like Joseph the Second's January 24^th comments, doesn't it? Don't be surprised. You see, Joe's buddy Hugo has a buddy named Noam who's been whining about the evils of capitalism in general and as practiced by selfish Americans specifically for decades.

You'll recall the stir Chavez caused addressing the U.N last September when he opened his speech by waving a copy of comrade Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States in the face of the General Assembly. The Latin nutcase claimed that the book contained proof that the greatest threat looming over our planet is the

"hegemonic pretensions of the American empire [which is] placing at risk the very survival of the human species."

In an uneven tirade which included his referencing President Bush alternately as the world dictator and the devil himself, he gushed over the book so convincingly that it jumped to number 1 on Amazon's best-seller list overnight. There must have been an abundance of Libertarian socialists, Anarcho-syndicalists, and otherwise-aligned America haters in the gallery that day.

I told you, we're an Anarcho-syndicalist Commune

A recurring theme in Chomsky's work of late has been the evolving symbiosis between Venezuela and Cuba which he holds forth as a shining model of the virtues of Chavez's socialist petro-charity. Chavez provides low-cost oil while his dying hero and mentor Castro reciprocates with literacy and medical programs. Take that premise and add another familiar Chomsky fantasy -- Chavez's brave struggle to overcome American backed trade agreements which exploit workers and perpetuate unfair economic and social strata. Now, mix well in a large Margarita pitcher and Voila -- Kennedy's argument exactly.

And by the way, the man who favors a social revolution whereby freely co-operative workers' unions would replace all forms of competition, leadership and executive power is no stranger to Kennedy's ploy. It just so happens that in December of 2005, Chomsky penned an article addressing the hoopla over the Citgo-Kennedy connection. The anarchist linguistic genius begins by making disappointingly generic moral equivalence points similar to Pal Joey's - and then manages to degrade farther still. True to form, the piece quickly descends into his signature rhetorical abyss -- blaming all things Capitalist America for all things awry in South America, advocating Chavez as the natural, if imperfect, outcome. And, of course, adding the requisite socialist-expansion academic spam:

"At issue in the region, as elsewhere around the world, is alternative social and economic models. Enormous, unprecedented popular movements have developed to expand cross-border integration - going beyond economic agendas to encompass human rights, environmental concerns, cultural independence and people-to-people contacts. These movements are ludicrously called "anti-globalisation" because they favour globalisation directed to the interests of people, not investors and financial institutions."

Curiously, the man once voted the world's top public intellectual also failed to ask one obvious question. If even Hugo's best friend is expected to pony up recompense for cheap Latin-tea, why would he provide the same to his worst enemy without similarly anticipating his due pound of flesh?

The Three Ameriphobic Amigos

Okay, so Hugo loves Noam and Joey loves Hugo and maybe Noam but Noam loves Hugo and, while no fan of Kennedys per se, maybe even Joey. So just what is it that connects these three contrasting socialists -- one dictatorial, one anarchistic and one welfare-state?

On the day following the September 11^th terrorist attacks President Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías mumbled,

"The United States brought the attacks upon itself, for their arrogant imperialist foreign policy."

In an interview a week later, one Avram Noam Chomsky Ph.D proclaimed:

"During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way."

And while a prominent American who might agree wouldn't be stupid enough to say so, Joseph Patrick Kennedy II certainly isn't lacking stupid things he is willing to say. For instance, last November, he told a Wall Street Journal Reporter questioning his assisting "an anti-American tyrant at the expense of the Venezuelan people," that as to democracy, there is,

"ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida."

So then, it would appear that there's one thing the three share much more congruently than their underlying common dream of wealth redistribution.

~Hello Larry,

I wrote on this issue in article titled RCTV's Acts ofSedition. I encourage you to read it on my blog site- sjlendman.blogspot.com.

We agree on all RCTV has done since Chavez firstelected. Key point is Venezuelan law is clear and allcorporate media violated it egregiously. Chavezacting against RCTV because its VHF license expiringin May. He's barely slapping it on wrist.

If RCTV and others pulled these stunts in US against aUS admin. they could be charged with sedition carryingup to 20 years in prison or treason that could getthem death penalty. No nation tolerates what thesepeople did, not should they.

Steve Lendman

~Hello Mr. Birns,

I'm the new Media Analyst at the Venezuela Information Office (www.veninfo.org) located in Dupont Circle, DC. I don't know if youhave heard of us, but our mission is "...to educate the public aboutcontemporary Venezuela. We seek to present an accurate view of the current political scene in Venezuela for the American public and buildallies for the Venezuelan people."

I just heard and very much appreciated your interview that airedyesterday. I thought you did an excellent job of filling in what the mainstream media consistently leaves out of its coverage of Chavez andVenezuela. In particular, I appreciated the way you distinguishedPresident Chavez style from the quality of his thinking and policies.

I hope to have a chance to meet you sometime. Please let us know ifwe can ever be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

Paul Beich

Media Analyst

Venezuela Information Office

~Larry,
You were fabulous on NPR today. Here on my blog is a mini-tribute to you. I think this is the first time I haven't been a total smartass in my postings.

Best to you,

Eric

http://www.borev.net

"The voice of Stewart, the acumen of Zinn, the sardonic dig of Wilde, Larry Birns is a goddamned UNESCO World Heritage Site of analysis. You can hear him today on NPR's On the Media on Venezuela and the RCTV controversy. The transcript is here . But take the time to click the "listen" button. It's worth it."

Regarding COHA's January 30 Press Release: "A Beneficial Uruguayan Paper Mill: Pulp Fiction?"

• As Mercosur was about to meet, Uruguay’s President Vázquez signs papers with the U.S. that could lead to a free trade pact with Washington. Vázquez flirts with the idea of being forced to leave Mercosur if he goes ahead and binds himself to Washington.

• In the fatal battle between the two normally friendly nations, Uruguay may be making the mistake of the generation by not seeking some kind of settlement of its ugly spat with Argentina.

• International lending agencies deserve blame for not engaging in a vigorous environmental study before agreeing to allocate the substantial asset to the “Orion” project.

Through their use of roadblocks and varied inflammatory statements to the press, Argentine activists and Uruguayan public officials have sought international attention to their respective sides in the nearly 2-year-old conflict over the construction of a paper mill on the Uruguayan side of the river. Usually amassed on the San Martín Bridge and largely hailing from the Argentine town of Gualeguaychú, these demonstrators vehemently oppose Botnia’s (a privately-owned Finnish firm) vision of a cellulose plant on the banks of the river separating the two countries. The project has evoked strong antagonism due to the detrimental environmental effects that appear unavoidable should the mill be completed and become operational. Botnia’s endeavor has drawn enthusiastic support from the Vázquez government, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and the World Bank. Unsurprisingly, their backing has added to the political tension now plaguing the two sides, which includes Buenos Aires’ pleas before the International Court of Justice to halt construction of the mill and Uruguay’s plea to the same court that the border closures were causing ‘irreparable’ damages to the country’s economy. On January 25, Uruguay boldly signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the U.S. in hopes that the affiliation with the northern super power might influence the paper mill dispute in its favor. A TIFA is often a first step to a Free Trade Agreement, which would directly violate Uruguay’s membership agreement with the other Mercosur countries. In spite of the perspective economic bonanza to Uruguay, resulting from the pulp mill, Montevideo would be wise to reexamine the likely political and economic costs of risking its continued membership in Mercosur. Then there is the need for Uruguay to preserve its own environment, as well as the need for it not to imprudently go too far out of its way to antagonize Mercosur partner Argentina and, quite possibly, its long term ties to Brazil.

Full article...

~There is a lot of relevant information in this article, but no mention of the various effects, good and bad of the several Argentine paper mills on the other side of the Uruguay River, in Corrientes Province, I believe, which employ older and much more polluting technologies. Why? Nor is there any mention of the fact that the Argentine Province of Entre Rios attempted to attract the Botnia project and lost out--and that, at the outset of the controversy, the Governor of the Argentine Province of Corrientes stated that Corrientes would be happy to receive the project. (He appears to have been silenced since.) These seeem like most unfortunate omisions. Whether or not there are ecological arguments against the plant, in the interest of a balanced presentation, the efforts of two Argentine provinces to attract the investment, and the experience of more polluting Argentine cellulose plants on the other side of the river should be noted. As it is, the article seems like it was prepared primarily with information supplied by the Province of Entre Rios and the Government of Argentina.

Hugh Schwartz

COHA answers:

My dear Hugh,

We will look into this. Any article, that you ar aware of that shed light on the subject would be very much appreciated here.

My best,

Larry Birns
Director of COHA


~ Dear COHA

While I always read and enjoy your reports on South America I am once again moved to write to you because of your continuing bias for Nestor Kirchner's Argentina, which I feel is rooted in a mistaken belief that the man is some kind of progressive reformer as opposed to the latest Peronist populist (Hartford Campbell's article last year and my response to it).

As an Argentine I too am worried about the impact of the Botnia plant on the environment but I am even more worried about how the Argentine government's absolute failure to manage this diplomatic problem is threatening to wreck Mercosur and bring relations between what should be two brother republics to a new and very sorry low.

Completely absent from Ms Donovan's report was any broader history of the dispute. No mention of the fact that the Uruguayans consulted the Duhalde government about the plant only for Kirchner to decide AFTER the roadblocks went up that that consultation did not count because the government at the time gave the answer he now could not or would not implement without facing down roadblocks - something he has shown himself to be unwilling or unable to do since coming into office.

In effect Argentina has contracted out one of its most important bilateral relations to unelected protesters who are breaking the law of the land which guarantees free movement on the republic's roads.
One can feel for these people - no-one wants a large industrial project to set up in their neighbourhood, especially when it is across a national frontier and leaving them to benefit less in terms of jobs and income while having to share any environmental impact. But to contract out your country's bilateral relations with a close neighbour to these people is the height of stupidity.

What nation would end a massive foreign investment project in the face of demands that it do so by foreign protesters who blocked the international frontier in an attempt to strangle your economy? This is even less likely in Uruguay where there are long memories of Argentine meddling in its internal affairs that go back to the time of independence and have by fuelled by Argentine insensitivity in every generation since.

This is why I believe why Tabaré is so strongly backed by the VAST majority of the Uruguayan population. Sending troops to guard the plant was a stupid stunt but no worse that Kirchner's repeated stupid rantings on the subject both domestically and at international forums.

Of course as a pluralistic society opposition to the plant is to be found in Uruguay, but Ms Donovan's report I believe over-emphasises this opposition while failing to stress the huge support for the plant in Uruguay, increasingly out of defiance at the Argentine roadblocks.
This was very clear to me on my last trip to Uruguay.

What I feel is also missing in the report is the growing sense in Buenos Aires political and business circles that this whole dispute is another example of the Kirchner government's almost total disregard for diplomacy, playing fast and loose with an important neighbour based on typically Peronist chauvinistic tendencies dressed up as progressive environmental concerns.

Do you really think that Kirchner's government gives a damn about the environment? Just look at the number of new mining projects it has authorised within its own borders in recent years. Botnia's plant passed international studies of its environmental impact and Botnia says the plant meets EU standards, a claim that can be verified by end of 2007. Nothing like this is underway in Argentina. Gold mines using high levels of mercury are being approved all over Argentina with very little oversight. The idea that the Argentine government has an environmental stance on the paper plant is not just wrong - it is absurd to even think so. Nearly all the heavy pollution already flowing into the Rio de la Plata comes from Argentina, plants the government is doing little or nothing to clean up or shut down. One only has to get a taxi to La Boca in Buenos Aires to realise that the major environmental threat to the Rio de la Plata is Argentina, not Botnia or Uruguay.

The problem is that Kirchner's diplomatic maladroitness has backed him into a corner.
It is hard outside of Kirchner's supporters to find anyone in Buenos Aires who thinks our case will win at the Hague. Why did he back the protesters? Because he thought it would be another cheap populist move to further boost his popularity? Possibly. Maybe it was because he fears his own police's ability to remove roadblocks without violence, which would be understandable. But by letting whoever block whatever road they wish since coming to power he now finds it almost impossible to articulate a situation in which this should stop. The result is that this particular saga has gone on until now we have our diplomatic relations with Uruguay being conducted by the inhabitants of Gualeguaychú. Leaving bilateral relations in the hands of people living on the border is never really a good idea.

I believe the root of this dispute is to be found in the actions or lack of them of the Kirchner government. Ms Donovan's report I think shamelessly implies that Uruguay should back down in the face of Argentina's demands. No government could do this and survive and I believe that the Uruguayan government should not be asked to do so.
What is lacking in the report is an analysis of how the Kirchner government has blithely walked into this mess, dragging Uruguay along with it. Just because it is the bigger, more important power and has wrapped itself in a spurious environmental cloak is no reason not to call its bluff and force it to conform with the norms of international law and decency.

Yours,
Jean Fournier

~ This opinion essay is bias and too much influenced by Argentinean position. You should include a Uruguayan version of this conflict and uncovered the real selfish interest from Argentina in this conflict. It is too easy to write on something you are scarcely or not well informed. As an Uruguayan citizen I resent this kind of essays, but this is not the first time I have problems with essays published by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

Sincerely,

Hugo Achuga MLL Dept.